Actor's Equity — Page 2

And you also, dear red hot, remind me of bitter, jaded out of work Equity actor here who can't get a job to save his life. In fact, he uses the same terms and words you just have.

Hmmmm?

Remember...only one screen name per member!

---

Whoa - guys - lighten up - I had to make that post a quick one and get on with my day but intended to come back later and address the issue at hand (though I don't now and will never change my attitude about Tuttle)...I've never had a bit of trouble getting a job in the business, both non-equity and equity. I've loved both aspects and both portions of my employment (both before joining the union and since) I did my share of non-union tours also - so don't coun't me as one who chooses sides. I won't choose sides in this issue because I can see it from both angles and have feelings both pro and con on each side. I only joined this thread because I got sick of Mr. Tuttle being able to spout his nonsense without anyone doing anything about it. Enjoy your debate, guys and gals - I refuse to take sides on this issue.

---

There are no sides to be taken. It is simply a matter of personal opinion. I'm a young actor, who after researching the pros and cons, wishes to get my Equity card upon graduation from college. I highly believe in Actor's Equity. On the other side of the coin, I've only seen a handful on non-equity tours. The most recent tour of RENT stands out in my mind as a non-eq show that delievered the goods. These were people, probably close to or around my age and they were extremely passionate about what they were doing. It wasn't just going through the motions, I've done this show six times this week already, type of deal. They seemed to genuinely care about what they were doing. I didn't see this to be the case when I saw the show on Broadway. The energy and the fire was just not apparent. There was a lot of "phoning in" of performances. The show didn't affect me as much, as an auidence member. I'm not saying this is always the case, where the non-equity tours are better than the Broadway tours. People on Equity tours obviously have experience and most of them are extraordianry performers. In this particular case, perhaps because the people in the RENT tour hadn't done much professional work and were thrilled for the oppurtunity to be out there, that passion came thru to us. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to pay money to see crappy performers, just because they were cheaper to get, but I don't think is an arguement that there are any easy souloutions to. Just my opinion.

Thanks Jezebell..you're right. We are all entitled to our opinions. Hear that redhot? JRB? Aren't mulitpule memberships fun?

And thanks for your attempt to back peddle red hot. Always good to have a convenient answer like "I was in a hurry" when you can't defend what you stated. And then you said you would come back later and join the discussion...and did you? No. Just more blubber about nothing.

Perhaps the next time you choose to share your "opinion", you should actually share an valid opinion like the other members here have instead of spewing your hate.

Hope you got to read this. Or maybe you're running out the door again.

---

I see both sides of the issue as well.

What really burnt my toast was a proposal here in Chicago. There was an ongoing discussion that Non-Equity theatres, which managed to produce those very arare long-running money-making productions, should have to start using Equity talent.

God forbid that these theatres finally establish some financial stability, or that Non-Equity talent be provided a showcase to further their carrers.

Thankfully, this idea withered on the vine very quickly.

Updated On: 10/12/04 at 05:27 PM