Country discrimination- Page 2

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/27/15 at 12:17am

I get the occasional kick in the demimonde, but even I can't figure what's exciting about this drone!

[Kad]

Posted: 11/27/15 at 12:20am

Considering his breadth of posting topics is limited to race and 80s mega musicals, with absolutely no room for expansion on his opinions on those topics, he must love treading familiar waters.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/27/15 at 12:48am

You know what they say about consistency and small minds.

 

I would like to acknowledge Phyllis's last post, which I missed and when I saw it I laughed out loudly.

[Dave19]

Posted: 11/27/15 at 5:17am

FindingNamo said: " but even I can't figure what's exciting about this drone!?"

 

I agree. Only global casting without boundaries is exciting.

 

Updated On: 11/27/15 at 05:17 AM

Posted: 11/27/15 at 5:45am

Imagine I said to someone I hired you because you are femaile ? I hired you because you are disabled. It should be based on merit nothing more. The best person for the job.  There is no reason to hire ethnically then ANYONE should be able to do the role. It took more then 17 years for an African american to play phantom which is outrageous in my opinion.

[Dave19]

Posted: 11/27/15 at 6:31am

Well clearly not anyone is able to do a role in the USA.

 

"I hired you because you are from a certain country" is what they live by.

 

Pity.

 

And this thread is not about skin color or race. It's about blocking certain people for a role because of the country they are from, no matter what their race is. (Ps.Robert Guillaume played Phantom in Los Angeles and he was horribly miscast voice wise. Why on earth did they give him the role? If they couldn't find a better candidate in the USA they should have looked abroad.)

 

And producers/casting directors have every right to not want a 12 year old boy or a 70 year old man as Christine in Phantom. But that's a different story.

 

Age, looks, gender will always influence casting. Country of origin should not. 

 

Cameron should have pulled back Phantom on Broadway if they did not agree on the lead he wanted. It probably would make Equity think about the thousands of jobs they ruined by their attitude.

 

Updated On: 11/27/15 at 06:31 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/27/15 at 9:55am

Oh my god. What's with you and this damn casting thing? The fact that you can't move on is disturbing.

[tazber]

Posted: 11/27/15 at 10:25am

The fact that he's using an anonymous Broadway fan site as a soap box is kinda hilarious though.

 

I mean if you want to really get your opinions out there, where better than a message board tucked between such threads as "Coming to NY! What shows should I see?" and "Did anyone see so-and-so's understudy?"

Updated On: 11/27/15 at 10:25 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 11/27/15 at 10:40am

He only posts it here because he would be laughed out of anywhere else.

We should all take a moment to consider how Equity, an American labor union, hamstrung the well-meaning efforts of Cameron Mackintosh, which utterly ruined thousands of jobs in Phantom of the Opera and Miss Saigon- two productions which sadly were cut down in their prime despite being the longest running show on Broadway and running for months shy of a decade, respectively.

Updated On: 11/27/15 at 10:40 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/27/15 at 11:21am

It is chilling when you spell it out that way, Kad.  

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 11/27/15 at 4:33pm

LucyandJessie said: "I was recently reading the book Nothing Like a Dame in particular the chapter interviewing Donna Mckechnie and it mentioned that she faced a similar situation with the original London production of A Chorus Line. She was originally hired to reprise her role in the London transfer of the show but producers pulled her under pressure from London Equity and Vanessa Redgrave who organized protests and paid nonworking actors a pound each to show up at British Equity and vote Donna out of the country. There isn't much dedicated in the book to it. Ms. Mckechnie is too gracious of a person to dwell on the negativity. What surprises me is how little there is online about it. Does anyone have any insight about the debacle? 

 

 

 

"

I don't think the book is quite correct or you remember the passage correctly. In the original, London A CHORUS LINE, Michael Bennett argued that THE ENTIRE WEST END COMPANY needed to be American because only Americans had the necessary dance skills. He and the Shuberts prevailed and the show premiered in the West End with an all-American cast (while British replacements were trained), perhaps including Donna McKecknie (I'm not sure).

 

The Americans played in London for six months or a year (I've forgotten) as the "International Company" and then moved to Toronto for six months or so, and then to Miami, before beginning a North American tour. (I know this because I was the production coordinator in Miami, working for the local promoter. Pam Sousa played Cassie for us and she was excellent! I had also seen McKechnie on Broadway and I think an argument as to which was "best" could have been a long one!)

 

There may have been an issue as to whether Donna McKechnie was a big enough name to be exempted from British Equity's restrictions and stay on after the American company left. I wouldn't be surprised if British Equity judged that she was not. Elaine Paige was excluded by American Equity at one time. Merely being known to show business aficionados or winning a Tony Award wasn't enough to count as a celebrity to the unions in those days. As i recall it, British Equity was far stricter than their American counterpart.

 

I don't know why this issue is being raised now, when the situation is more relaxed in both countries because "overall parity" (my term) has replaced the requirement that a specific immigrant be a celebrity of a certain level or possess a particular skill. In any event, the OP's argument is based on the faulty premise that there is EVER just one performer who is "best" for a role in any objective sense, as the threads here surely prove!

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 11/27/15 at 4:42pm

RyanScholls said: "Imagine I said to someone I hired you because you are femaile ? I hired you because you are disabled. It should be based on merit nothing more. The best person for the job.  There is no reason to hire ethnically then ANYONE should be able to do the role. It took more then 17 years for an African american to play phantom which is outrageous in my opinion.

 

"

No, it didn't. Robert Guillaume played the role in Los Angeles--quite successfully according to friends who saw him and according to Michael Piontek, who was playing Raul there at the time--back in the early 1990s. Some posters are doing a lot of conflating of eras in this thread. (I agree there is no reason the Phantom should not be played by an African or Asian American.)

Updated On: 11/27/15 at 04:42 PM

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 11/27/15 at 11:20pm

The title of this thread is misguided.  It's not about discrimination as Equity applies its rules and business practices evenly, whether it pertains to a British actor or a German, Israeli, Pilipino, Scottish, Japanese or any actor of another nationality.  

Posted: 11/28/15 at 12:06am

Thank you Gaveston. This probably wasn't the place for a discussion regarding A Chorus Line's London Equity issues but cross Atlantic Equity matters were brought up and rather than starting a new thread I thought I'd slip in a question on something that had always puzzled me. I found it odd that there's so little about it out there when most similar cases have a lot of information to be mined (and it could be out there and I'm just missing it). Mckechnie said something in the book like they kept plastering her face on newspapers to keep the controversy in London stirred up while things like Carter's inauguration were pushed to page 3 (or something like that) 

[Dave19]

Posted: 11/28/15 at 6:58pm

Kad said: " well-meaning efforts of Cameron Mackintosh, which utterly ruined thousands of jobs in Phantom of the Opera and Miss Saigon- "

 

Do you know how close he was to cancelling Miss Saigon on Broadway because of this whole issue?

 

[Dave19]

Posted: 11/28/15 at 7:02pm

GavestonPS said: "the faulty premise that there is EVER just one performer who is "best" for a role in any objective sense?"

 

Now that's a good point. It is impossible to demand that the best person should be found in a certain country. The only people to decide what is "best" for their show are the producers themselves.

 

Updated On: 11/28/15 at 07:02 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 11/28/15 at 8:58pm

Dave19 said: "GavestonPS said: "the faulty premise that there is EVER just one performer who is "best" for a role in any objective sense?"

 

 

 

Now that's a good point. It is impossible to demand that the best person should be found in a certain country. The only people to decide what is "best" for their show are the producers themselves.

 

 

 

"

I was not arguing FOR your point, I was arguing AGAINST it. My point is there is no such thing as "one best person for a role", so to argue "best" should prevail over issues such as keeping natives employed is to argue that a fiction take precedence over flesh-and-blood people (and their dependents).

 

*****

 

Lucyandjessiez, I think the West End A CHORUS LINE is relevant here because sometimes the unusual example helps to illustrate the issues involved. FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that McKecknie was lying. But either she was talking about a petition to have her play Cassie with the first British cast or to have her take over the part at a later date. The first people to perform A CHORUS LINE in England were Americans. (Wether McKecknie was among them I can't recall; she could have still been in the NY or LA companies.)

[haterobics]

Posted: 11/28/15 at 9:25pm

Phyllis Rogers Stone said: "Do you think Dave19 gets a boner when he posts?"

 

I'd rather see a picture of that than his race-related theories, to be honest.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 11/28/15 at 9:32pm

GavestonPS said: "I was not arguing FOR your point, I was arguing AGAINST it. My point is there is no such thing as "one best person for a role", so to argue "best" should prevail over issues such as keeping natives employed is to argue that a fiction take precedence over flesh-and-blood people (and their dependents).

 

*****

 

Lucyandjessiez, I think the West End A CHORUS LINE is relevant here because sometimes the unusual example helps to illustrate the issues involved. FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that McKecknie was lying. But either she was talking about a petition to have her play Cassie with the first British cast or to have her take over the part at a later date. The first people to perform A CHORUS LINE in England were Americans. (Wether McKecknie was among them I can't recall; she could have still been in the NY or LA companies.)"

 

Of course it's also worth noting that in the nearly 40 years since A Chorus Line opened in London British Equity has lost virtually all of its power, thanks to Margaret Thatcher and her dismantling of the unions during her run as Prime Minister. So nowadays they couldn't block the casting of an actor even if they wanted to.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 11/28/15 at 9:48pm

Good point, AEA. The last four decades haven't been kind to unions in either Britain or the U.S.

 

[Dave19]

Posted: 11/29/15 at 6:31am

GavestonPS said: "My point is there is no such thing as "one best person for a role", so to argue "best" should prevail over issues such as keeping natives employed is to argue that a fiction take precedence over flesh-and-blood people (and their dependents)."

 

Let's take the Lea Salonga case. First of all, only the producers have the right to decide what's best for the show they created. Secondly, I think it was clear that no better person could be found (based on the other Kim's, her alternate and her American successors), so there clearly was "one best person for the role". So "hiring a native" prevail over "the best person for a role" is sillier.

 

Updated On: 11/29/15 at 06:31 AM