Los Angeles Times: Hundreds of excited “fans” will pour onto the field while hip-hop dream team Snoop Dogg, Mary J. Blige, Dr. Dre, Eminem and Kendrick Lamar perform during the Super Bowl LVI halftime show on Feb. 13. Viewers will probably see them move their bodies to the music. What they won’t see are the 72 hours they spent over nine days in unpaid rehearsals lasting as long as nine hours a stretch — and how they were asked to provide their own transportation and adhere to a strict confidentiality protocol.
4 comments:
I agree what Riley stated in the article - this kind of thinking and justification is very outdated. If the Super Bowl wanted to justify bringing on volunteers, I think hypothetically they could only continue with this practice if they had the volunteers practice for a maximum of a few hours during the last tech rehearsal. To have them be asked to "volunteer" for 72 hours makes it seem less like these dancers are "movers" that are happy to be there, and more like performers at a gig that they're not being compensated for.
I think any element of exposure that these performers get from the event would be moot compared to what they're asked to put in. Yes, they'll be visible within the stadium itself and could hypothetically say they were there, but in terms of putting together a reel or something like that, it's unlikely that they're likely to be seen on camera given the nature of the 115 paid dancers and the headlining performers that'll be onstage.
Although this is not surprising, it is extremely frustrating considering how profitable the superbowl is. With the amount of job and internship listings I’ve looked at, I’m so over this idea that it’s enough to be paid with experience and exposure. People deserve to be paid for their time because it’s clear that they are needed to execute whatever vision. So if you can’t afford to pay that many people for 72 hours then maybe reconsider how much rehearsal time you need or how many people. Especially in LA, I know of so many people who are willing to drop everything to just gain exposure. The thing is how much exposure are you really offering people because I can’t tell you the name of one backup dancer at the superbowl let alone a mover. I’m glad that there are many big names such as Allison Stoner who are willing to stand up and speak out about the unfair practices going on.
The work that Jaquel Knight is doing is incredible and inspiring. I knew about the difficulties many composers face with copyright issues and was familiar with the struggles they have had in court, but I did not realize the prevalence of uncredited work by choreographers. It’s insane that the brilliant and well known Thriller choreography didn’t get Michael Peters the credit that was due.What also impresses me is how Knight is addressing the immediate need for help by choreographers as well as long term solutions to protecting their work and ensuring they are accurately compensated. I remember a few months after Keara Wilson’s Tik Tok dance to Megan Thee Stallion’s Savage raged across the platform, there was a video about her being excited about how popular the dance had become. She didn’t get nearly enough credit and has continued to have her dances recreated with no acknowledgement of her work.
^Sorry posted the wrong comment!
It’s insane that the excuse is that it is a “once in a lifetime opportunity” and the volunteers get exposure. First of all, there will always be another Super Bowl. Secondly, this is one of the most profitable events of the year. With companies paying enormous amounts per second ad rates, there is no reason for the field cast participants to not get paid. I agree with Fatima Robinson that there should be a required rehearsal. It’s important to rehearse, especially when there will be lots of equipment and other moving parts during the show. Even with the producers following SAG-AFTRA’s policy, there is no guarantee they aren't exploiting performers who are not members. It’s also astonishing that there is no indication of how the company will deal with COVID precautions for the field participants. Of course this is all indicative of the larger issue of exploitation of artists under the guise of “exposure and experience”.
Post a Comment