That is the question the producers of the Broadway musical “Shuffle Along” are asking a court to decide as it demands that an insurance company, Lloyd’s of London, compensate the show for what it says were more than $12 million in damages. The show closed in July, four months after performances began, when Ms. McDonald, who was 45 at the time, became pregnant, and the producers decided they could not continue once she went on maternity leave.
9 comments:
This is a particularly heated article. I think it is definitely worth the discussion though. On the one hand, I can understand the whole reason a show gets actor insurance is for situations that cause absences and decreased ticket sale. It's very unfortunate to have the majority of your production's income hinging on a person. However, from a legal stand point, unexpected pregnancy is definitely not an "accident or illness". I would not put that in the same category as twisting an ankle or the flu. I feel really sorry for the show's producers but I do not think the lawsuit will favor them. Having a star in your show can be wonderful but can also lead to its demise eventually. I wonder how in depth contracts can really go with such stars on Broadway. There's a line you clearly can't pass when it comes to bringing personal life into careers, but perhaps it would be worth some reflection. I'm conflicted as how I would react with this situation, but it seems like it won't turn out well for either party. But I would like to congratulate Audra McDonald! What an exciting surprise for her. I hope this lawsuit mess doesn't dampen the happiness of her pregnancy.
I have never even thought of this argument before but it becomes so apparent in this article how important a single actor can be to the success of a show. So moneymaking aspect of your Broadway show is a big name up in lights, than that name being pregnant or with a broken leg can really cause deficit ticket sales. I certainly have sympathy for the shows producers because of this but for no reason do I think they should be compensated. Legally there is nothing holding the insurance company to get the money for their star being pregnant. I wish both the actress and the producers the best luck in the future because I truly do feel the legal system will not back up back up their money claim. However this does pose a serious question about what insurance covers what in the nature of stars running certain shows on Broadway. Perhaps this argument will help us as theatre makers to question what our priorities are and how to cope with the ever-changing world of theatre.
Wow, I had never considered a pregnancy closing a show or the implications of maternity leave during a run. If she was just the lead actress, then I would say that they should focus on finding a replacement, not the insurance. But I agree that as a six time Tony award winner, she was one of the investments in this show. Of course, that opens up a whole other mess of questions about at what point name recognition becomes worthy of an insurance payout. I agree with the earlier commenters that the producers probably won’t win this lawsuit. Hypothetically, if producers did win this lawsuit, would that change future production insurance rates? Car insurance for teen boys is more expensive than teen girls because of some accident rate statistics. If the insurer has to pay should a pregnancy impact a show, would it start to cost more to have a lead actress than lead actor? What would that do to casting decisions?
“Audra McDonald’s pregnancy was a surprise. But was it an accident, an illness or neither?” What? This is flat out insulting to women because a child (a surprise or not) is not an illness for insurance or otherwise. The article even says that she was planning on taking a short maternity leave and then returning to work, which means that in reality, she took maternity leave and the job was no longer available to her when she returned. This almost feels like a violation of the FMLA because she was took her legal maternity leave, and they essentially laid her off. No, the company should not be paid for that. I would also say that every cast member on “Shuffle Along” has a right to be extremely angry with the producers. While I understand that the entertainment industry is more volatile in terms of employment, it seems pretty silly that they closed the show because their star was going out on medical leave for a few months.
It seems crazy that someone having a baby could close an entire Broadway musical, but Audra McDonald can do anything. I saw Shuffle Along and I thought it was an amazing show. Audra was great in it and so were her costars. I was very sad to hear that it was closing just because she left to have a baby. It is not her fault at all and she should be very happy and blessed that she was able to have a baby. It must also be very difficult for her to know that a miracle to her, took away a job from many talented performers, which I am sure are her friends now. That is a horrible thing to carry on your shoulders. It would have been nice if it could have stayed open until she was able to come back in the show. I am sure her replacement would have done a great job as well. It is unfortunate that big names in Broadway sometimes have a lot of power on how long a show stays open and how well it does. That is a lot of pressure to put on one person because there is so many people that work on a single production. All of those people are working extremely hard to put on eight performances a week for audiences that sometimes only care about a few people in the cast.
I think this was a very interesting read. I am frequently surprised when reading these articles the crazy stories that can surround our industry--and this is definitely one of them. Pregnancy is obviously a reason for an actress to temporarily leave the stage. Unfortunately, Audra being unable to return, for health reasons, after returning briefly but being advised by her doctor to leave the show, I believe is probable cause for the insurance company to determine this to be "illness" as it is not "well health" that lead to Audra leaving the show. This is one of the few times I actually feel there is a gray area with making a decision like this. I think it was fair of the Producers to close the show. Obviously the lack of star-luster was a severe financial impact on the production and therefore it was reasonable to close the show. I do not think they were at fault there as they were losing money. As for the law suit, I suppose they are just trying to make back all of the money they lost with having to close the show so early, but is this the right way to go about it?
At first, I was very hesitant about this article because of the description. I firmly believe that a child or pregnancy should not be put into accident, illness or neither. I do think the producers should get something out of this as it is similar to a leading actor or actress breaking a leg and being unable to return to a show, but I very much dislike the classification of the situation. I do think that it would also, unfortunately, give producers and casting directors a reason to hire fewer women in leading roles, for fear that they might have to replace someone in the event of a pregnancy. I sincerely hope that this lawsuit is handled correctly, and that both the actress and the production get what they need without setting back the move towards gender equality on Broadway.
I think the producer is trying i anyway to make back their money. After reading many artifices about their closing, It does not seem fair to blame auras pregnancy on the closing. And than Scott is trying to say it was an accident just to get money. He should have just kept the show opened since he had several other tony winners in the cast. Hopefully they will be able to figure out the money and not have to drag this out any longer and not have to blame Audra anymore.
I think there are two very large issues in this situation. #1, why was Audra McDonald the only thing keeping this show afloat? I mean really, I love her too, but the show had to have had some other merits. #2, why is there not already a plan in place for this? Yes, insurance can be tricky and things come up when we least expect them, but it seems like a good idea to at least have some thoughts on how you would handle a pregnancy in your cast without being so crude as to wonder aloud if it is an illness or an accident. At Cirque du Soleil, pregnancy is classified as a disability, because it literally disables the woman from doing her extremely physical job. This is good for the performer as well, because she is able to collect disability pay while unable to work. I've heard some people say, "Yeah, if you want to have a baby without going into debt, work for Cirque." And while that is awesome, the important thing is that there is a PLAN in place. I find it utterly disgraceful that this show went ahead and shut down because their leading lady got pregnant. I mean honestly people, how about a contingency plan.
Post a Comment