Monday, October 18, 2021
Opinion: Is It Time for Performers to Renegotiate the Eight-Show Week?
TheaterMania: Broadway is back — and so are the insane schedules that performers (and crews) must deal with. Many productions have returned to eight-show weeks and announced grueling holiday schedules with 10 shows or more before a night off. Add in rehearsals and put-ins and you've got incredibly intense workweeks. Sacrificing rest and time spent with loved ones is a given, and maintaining these schedules is especially exhausting for more vocally and physically demanding roles.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The title is a little misleading because it is not discussing the amount of shows a theater puts on a week but the participation of specific actors in those shows. I don’t know why I have never thought of the concept of alternates as an option for a standard practice before. It sounds reasonable if you know anything about the demands of performing in musicals, especially. That is why we have swings or understudies. It sounds proactive to just schedule the “replacement” in before the “lead" actor is run into the ground. This could prevent some last minute decisions needed to be made when an actor calls out for a show. Although there is a system for this, the practice could be better. As the writer pointed out, there would need to be a lot of considerations made about what roles get them and how this system effects pay. I hope this is something that is more seriously considered in American Theatre as we move forward.
I think it is fair game for anyone to negotiate their rights as a worker, especially when said people are clearly overworked. With that said this is not what I was expecting this article to be. I figured that this article would discuss cutting down how many shows happen within one week but rather this article argues that shows being double cast should be the standard. At first, this idea may seem outlandish specifically because of how attached people get to certain actors but if this did become the norm actors could get an actual break and more people could have a chance for a role. The health of everyone in a production should be the top priority. This includes physical and mental AND both of these things in the long run. Simply put, a schedule of ten shows a week in addition to other commitments is just simply not sustainable for anyone in the process. I think that moving towards a more equitable practice like this one could be a good idea for the longevity of theatre.
This article highlights one of the more prominent negatives with being in the entertainment industry – hours. While reading this I was reminded that not only do performers and crew need to be in the theatre for a show (or two if there is a matinee that day), but also there are tasks that must happen during the day such as “rehearsals and put-ins”. I find the terminology especially interesting because I always wondered what the difference between a standby and understudy is and now bringing the term alternate into the mix, I can truly understand how these roles function in the professional world. The question this article brings up is at what point is it decided that this role deserves an alternate. I believe this is a very important topic because not only does it play into this idea that if an actor has an alternate, is it more likely they will have less need for understudies or standbys and what criteria is required for there to be an alternate. Does an actor get to make that request? Or, as the article put it, do we need to wait to see how consuming that role is?
This article drew me in by the headline but then had me disappointed when actually reading it. The headline seems as if it's talking about performers not wanting the theatre to do 8 shows a week but in reality, the issue is that performers don't want to do 8 shows a week. Only in one sentence in the entire article does it mention crew and even then it's in parenthesis. I think we all need to fight to have more human schedules in theatre but this is not the conversation that this article is encouraging. While I agree that 8 shows a week is taxing on performers, it's also very taxing on the crew and takes them away from their families just as much, if not more so. I strongly encourage everyone to fight for more equitable schedules, especially in this industry, but I just don't agree with the way that this article is doing it.
giving alternates and understudies more set performances a week would let the leads have more time off, prevent them from burning out sooner, and in general improve the longevity of the production. As it stands, most alternates are given few performances and are only sent onstage in the event that a performer is sick or injured. But utilizing them more would hopefully prevent some illnesses occurring in the first place by allowing the actors to be more well rested. It was a little strange that the author mentioned several times that they think alternates should be used for their own personal enjoyment. They mentioned that they get very excited whenever an understudy has to step in and rushes to see the performance so they can see someone new in the role, which felt strange and off topic to me. In addition, this idea only helps leads, and entirely ignores all ensemble members as well as every stagehand. While a good idea, it feels very narrow minded in that sense.
I thought this article was going to talk about cutting eight show weeks altogether as opposed to keep eight to ten show weeks and switching cast members in and out for them. While I am on board with the alternates route, I can only really get with it if the ensemble members and crew members are also afforded this change; it's pretty axiomatic as to why. On the other hand, I am also in favor of eliminating eight show weeks, since that is an astronomical amount of work for anyone to put in. In high school theatre, even the occasional two show day would wipe me the hell out, so I can't even imagine what it would be like to work on Broadway pretty much every single day, sometimes for double the amount of hours. I just do not think humans are built to work that much for that long, even if it is something enjoyable, which is what theatre is to me. I just wish this article delved more into people beyond leads.
I was excited by this title hoping to see an alternative schedule to the eight show week, instead there was a lot of talk about demanding roles having covers. This is great, but no where near enough. The crew and stage managers are left out of this decision entirely and are still expected to work the demanding schedule. Even worse, crew will always be needed for the full length of the performances and put ins and all other rehearsals for the week. It's just simply not fair. Especially when we are talking about New York City which is FOR PROFIT theatre, the people performing the shows to put the money in the pockets of the producers need to be treated well, compensated well, and allowed time for their families and lives outside of the theatre. It's amazing that it takes so much convincing for folx to see this need. It's time to do better than simply covering the leads.
Post a Comment