#26
Posted: 3/29/07 at 4:52pm
How about Chita Rivera doing "Spanish Rose"?
Broadways Lost Treasures — Page 2
#27
Posted: 3/29/07 at 4:58pm
I saw Chita on Spanish Fly once and that was enough for me! Wooot!
PEACE.
#28
Posted: 3/29/07 at 5:01pm
Exactly, I very much respect the actions taken by the actors featured in the collection, however, PalJoey makes an excellent point.
I'm just about to turn 21. I'd have never been able to see Bea Arthur and Angela Lansbury singing "Bossom Buddies," or Ms.Ritcher herself with Jerry Orbach performing "Lullaby of Broadway," or Chita Rivera and Gwen Verdon dancing a snippet of "Nowadays" if it weren't for this collection. And call me greedy, selfish, and misunderstanding but yes, there is a lot more I wish to see legally: Bernadette Peters giving an incredibly emotional rendition (according to Ken Mandelbaum) of "Time Heals Everything" during the Robert Preston homage at the Tonys, Donna McKechnie dancing "The Music and the Mirror" in memory of Michael Bennett, and after PalJoey mentioned it, Chita doing "Spanish Rose."
I'm just about to turn 21. I'd have never been able to see Bea Arthur and Angela Lansbury singing "Bossom Buddies," or Ms.Ritcher herself with Jerry Orbach performing "Lullaby of Broadway," or Chita Rivera and Gwen Verdon dancing a snippet of "Nowadays" if it weren't for this collection. And call me greedy, selfish, and misunderstanding but yes, there is a lot more I wish to see legally: Bernadette Peters giving an incredibly emotional rendition (according to Ken Mandelbaum) of "Time Heals Everything" during the Robert Preston homage at the Tonys, Donna McKechnie dancing "The Music and the Mirror" in memory of Michael Bennett, and after PalJoey mentioned it, Chita doing "Spanish Rose."
"Some people can thrive and bloom living life in a living room, that's perfect for some people of one hundred and five. But I at least gotta try, when I think of all the sights that I gotta see, all the places I gotta play, all the things that I gotta be at"
#29
Posted: 3/29/07 at 5:02pm
This is ONE case. If this ONE time something happened with the unions, it doesn't mean the next time won't be a next time. It means they will be more careful.
Could this lawsuit condemn any chance of future releases? Most definitely. But we don't know the facts to make a judgement of who is right and who is wrong here. We only know what was written in those two articles and what Wanda says here.
I have certainly made my judgements on the case, knowing the information I did at the time, but have included the magical "if." I certainly want future DVD releases of theatre. And I certainly want all involved in the making of that theatre to share in the "profits." And I can have both. We have had both. In this ONE case, something happened. We need more facts. We need to hear from both sides. And that is why a COURT judge will hear both sides and determine a verdict.
On a different note, Ms. Richert definitely needs to be treated with respect, but no more than anyone else. I can't believe the tone of ass-kissing I have read in the other thread. Equally, I can't believe the tone of rudeness towards Ms. Richert. And "big names" don't matter in this case. Everyone from the chorus member to the leading lady would deserve compensation. They are all under the same unions.
And finally, this case is not about bootlegs, so let's drop that, shall we? Bootlegs will exist no matter what. I want to be able to LEGALLY purchase theatre DVDs. Don't bring up the bootleg card.
Could this lawsuit condemn any chance of future releases? Most definitely. But we don't know the facts to make a judgement of who is right and who is wrong here. We only know what was written in those two articles and what Wanda says here.
I have certainly made my judgements on the case, knowing the information I did at the time, but have included the magical "if." I certainly want future DVD releases of theatre. And I certainly want all involved in the making of that theatre to share in the "profits." And I can have both. We have had both. In this ONE case, something happened. We need more facts. We need to hear from both sides. And that is why a COURT judge will hear both sides and determine a verdict.
On a different note, Ms. Richert definitely needs to be treated with respect, but no more than anyone else. I can't believe the tone of ass-kissing I have read in the other thread. Equally, I can't believe the tone of rudeness towards Ms. Richert. And "big names" don't matter in this case. Everyone from the chorus member to the leading lady would deserve compensation. They are all under the same unions.
And finally, this case is not about bootlegs, so let's drop that, shall we? Bootlegs will exist no matter what. I want to be able to LEGALLY purchase theatre DVDs. Don't bring up the bootleg card.
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
--Aristotle
#30
Posted: 3/29/07 at 5:20pm
I will certainly NOT drop the bootleg issue. Why should I? An actor's likeness, image and performance are being distributed without his or her consent (as far as we know)...usually for profit.
Sorry...but unless you, like I, have actually had this happen to you, then you'll never really get it. And I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who doesn't get to see these performances.
And...just for the record...I've never seen Chita's SPANISH ROSE.
Sorry...but unless you, like I, have actually had this happen to you, then you'll never really get it. And I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who doesn't get to see these performances.
And...just for the record...I've never seen Chita's SPANISH ROSE.
"I'm so looking forward to a time when all the Reagan Democrats are dead."
#31
Posted: 3/29/07 at 5:26pm
I want what exists to be available legally. I believe Alex and Hildy's son acted in good faith, even if Equity and AFTRA did not.
#32
Posted: 3/29/07 at 5:42pm
>> I am attempting to give you all some feedback on this situation
Granted, BUT why did your initial post seem to find it necessary to ask how Mr. Cohen chooses to spend his money? Once more, this is something you should be addressing with your UNIONS, not Mr. Cohen -- and yet you seem obstinate in your choice of target for this lawsuit. So once more, for the clearly reading impaired: Mr. Cohen followed the protocols. Your unions screwed up. Deal with *them*, not some producer who was under the impression that everything involving you was covered.
Granted, BUT why did your initial post seem to find it necessary to ask how Mr. Cohen chooses to spend his money? Once more, this is something you should be addressing with your UNIONS, not Mr. Cohen -- and yet you seem obstinate in your choice of target for this lawsuit. So once more, for the clearly reading impaired: Mr. Cohen followed the protocols. Your unions screwed up. Deal with *them*, not some producer who was under the impression that everything involving you was covered.
http://docandraider.com
#33
Posted: 3/29/07 at 6:10pm
robbiej, that is a seperate issue. This case is not about bootlegs. Hence the "don't play that card."
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
--Aristotle
#34
Posted: 3/29/07 at 7:08pm
OK, Fosse76...your turn...sorry it took me so long...
You're of the opinion that we are not entitled to compensation.
Then let me ask you this. "Why do I still receive residual checks for "Law and Order" and "Hardcastle and McCormick" all these years later? I couldn't put a down payment on a house with them...lol!....but they are still coming in!
Next question: "Why did Cohen find some of us, send one or two checks....and then just STOP?" There was no rhyme or reason to his selection of performers he eenie, minee, mowed to pay. The one time....way at the beginning of this, that I did speak to his office...he did track me down...which means he knew he was obligated to pay me... I was told that these checks would be forthcoming in thirteen week cycles, and that they were for the AIRING of the series...nothing was ever said about ANY SALES. I felt satisfied that I was going to be paid for my work...and the amount seemed to be within the boundaries of what I had been accustomed to, as residuals go...so, it was cool by me, and I thought it was about time to be hearing from SOMEONE...had been wondering about it for a long time...made calls to Equity on several occasions...got lost in the shuffle...never heard back with any definitive answers. Why was that?
I never got another check...and several trickled in to other performers, in quite a rush, may I add, AFTER this thing came to light. They were not cashed.
Part of me was thinking that, since I hadn't received another cycle check, the series just simply was not being aired. Well....I just finished a three month guest artist run in "The Plexiglass Slipper" at the Asolo Theatre, in Sarasota...and there I was on my TV screen in my living room...the entire time I was there...still no residuals. I was getting calls from all over the country from friends..."Hey! We just saw you on PBS again!"...well...there went that theory.
There are way too many discrepancies here...even the amount of those checks was different for each of the people who did receive them. Who, at the Cohen office, was in charge of deciding who got doled out what amount?...and why wouldn't everybody be making the same scale?...just SMACKED of total disorganization. So as for "Cohen acting in good faith", as you said?...I don't think "faith" had anything to do with how Cohen operated in this...and "operate" is the operative word here. If he was acting in good faith...and had nothing to hide...why wouldn't he answer my phone calls or e-mails? After all, he said:
* "What saddens me," he continues, "is that after all that hard work, anybody who feels they are owed something didn't just pick up the phone and call me. I'm not hard to reach. My number is in the phone book". (Michael Riedel NY Post article)*
Well, we're all sad, Mr. Cohen.
You also said that:
"It isn't uncommon that unions don't always operate in the best interests of its members. But as a member of the union, you are agreeing to its membership terms".
Well, I don't know about you dear, but I don't think any of us have the time to sit home and read all the fine print in our "Equity membership terms"...we count on the Union to know what is written in those terms...and PROTECT us...it's their JOB....we pay them our 2.25% (I believe that's what it is) out of our salaries each week to DO that. Which brings us down to the same 'ol question...
"Why weren't ANY of us made aware of the next level Cohen took this to when he decided to sell this to Acorn Media, Amazon.com, etc., etc.?"....the list is endless...and "Why were we never approached with any form of a waiver to sign...if we would even choose to do so? Me thinks that if we were given that opportunity...none of us would have waived our rights for compensation in the "use of our likenesses"...so the collective "they"...whoever "they" really are...just went ahead and did it anyway. Hmmmmmmmm
You're of the opinion that we are not entitled to compensation.
Then let me ask you this. "Why do I still receive residual checks for "Law and Order" and "Hardcastle and McCormick" all these years later? I couldn't put a down payment on a house with them...lol!....but they are still coming in!
Next question: "Why did Cohen find some of us, send one or two checks....and then just STOP?" There was no rhyme or reason to his selection of performers he eenie, minee, mowed to pay. The one time....way at the beginning of this, that I did speak to his office...he did track me down...which means he knew he was obligated to pay me... I was told that these checks would be forthcoming in thirteen week cycles, and that they were for the AIRING of the series...nothing was ever said about ANY SALES. I felt satisfied that I was going to be paid for my work...and the amount seemed to be within the boundaries of what I had been accustomed to, as residuals go...so, it was cool by me, and I thought it was about time to be hearing from SOMEONE...had been wondering about it for a long time...made calls to Equity on several occasions...got lost in the shuffle...never heard back with any definitive answers. Why was that?
I never got another check...and several trickled in to other performers, in quite a rush, may I add, AFTER this thing came to light. They were not cashed.
Part of me was thinking that, since I hadn't received another cycle check, the series just simply was not being aired. Well....I just finished a three month guest artist run in "The Plexiglass Slipper" at the Asolo Theatre, in Sarasota...and there I was on my TV screen in my living room...the entire time I was there...still no residuals. I was getting calls from all over the country from friends..."Hey! We just saw you on PBS again!"...well...there went that theory.
There are way too many discrepancies here...even the amount of those checks was different for each of the people who did receive them. Who, at the Cohen office, was in charge of deciding who got doled out what amount?...and why wouldn't everybody be making the same scale?...just SMACKED of total disorganization. So as for "Cohen acting in good faith", as you said?...I don't think "faith" had anything to do with how Cohen operated in this...and "operate" is the operative word here. If he was acting in good faith...and had nothing to hide...why wouldn't he answer my phone calls or e-mails? After all, he said:
* "What saddens me," he continues, "is that after all that hard work, anybody who feels they are owed something didn't just pick up the phone and call me. I'm not hard to reach. My number is in the phone book". (Michael Riedel NY Post article)*
Well, we're all sad, Mr. Cohen.
You also said that:
"It isn't uncommon that unions don't always operate in the best interests of its members. But as a member of the union, you are agreeing to its membership terms".
Well, I don't know about you dear, but I don't think any of us have the time to sit home and read all the fine print in our "Equity membership terms"...we count on the Union to know what is written in those terms...and PROTECT us...it's their JOB....we pay them our 2.25% (I believe that's what it is) out of our salaries each week to DO that. Which brings us down to the same 'ol question...
"Why weren't ANY of us made aware of the next level Cohen took this to when he decided to sell this to Acorn Media, Amazon.com, etc., etc.?"....the list is endless...and "Why were we never approached with any form of a waiver to sign...if we would even choose to do so? Me thinks that if we were given that opportunity...none of us would have waived our rights for compensation in the "use of our likenesses"...so the collective "they"...whoever "they" really are...just went ahead and did it anyway. Hmmmmmmmm
#35
Posted: 3/29/07 at 7:27pm
>> Well, I don't know about you dear, but I don't think any of us have the time to sit home and read all the fine print in our "Equity membership terms"...
Forgive me for saying so, but that has to be one of the stupidest things one can do, if indeed one is relying upon a union for one's professional life. Your Equity membership terms might be saddled with fine print, but so if your credit card contract, your mortgage, and your car insurance. If you dont have the time to understand what you're getting yourself into and you suddenly dont like what's happened as a result, now is not the time to claim innocence.
To be blunt, the more you post, the more this does indeed seem like a nuisance suit and a shakedown. I gather that your attorney is not aware of your posting here, because /she would no doubt tell you to shut up before you do any more damage to your case.
Forgive me for saying so, but that has to be one of the stupidest things one can do, if indeed one is relying upon a union for one's professional life. Your Equity membership terms might be saddled with fine print, but so if your credit card contract, your mortgage, and your car insurance. If you dont have the time to understand what you're getting yourself into and you suddenly dont like what's happened as a result, now is not the time to claim innocence.
To be blunt, the more you post, the more this does indeed seem like a nuisance suit and a shakedown. I gather that your attorney is not aware of your posting here, because /she would no doubt tell you to shut up before you do any more damage to your case.
http://docandraider.com
#36
Posted: 3/29/07 at 7:41pm
In response to SeanMartin~
*Granted, BUT why did your initial post seem to find it necessary to ask how Mr. Cohen chooses to spend his money*
And what gives him the right to say that all that footage belongs to
ONLY HIM to do with as he pleases?...and why did he stop paying the residuals?....AND... he wouldn't have had the money to spend in the first place if he didn't make it off of the incredible talents that make up the piece!
IN my book.....that's stealing....and all of us are tired of giving our hearts to, and working our tails off for this crazy thing we call Show Business, only to have someone capitalize on our talents for their own...and I repeat... their own gain.
I believe I have shared enough in this...I had never expected to have to defend myself in quite this manner.
Again...I am available to speak to any of you privately...those of you who have sincere questions that are important to your understanding of this situation.
Everyone else...I will keep you posted.
*Granted, BUT why did your initial post seem to find it necessary to ask how Mr. Cohen chooses to spend his money*
And what gives him the right to say that all that footage belongs to
ONLY HIM to do with as he pleases?...and why did he stop paying the residuals?....AND... he wouldn't have had the money to spend in the first place if he didn't make it off of the incredible talents that make up the piece!
IN my book.....that's stealing....and all of us are tired of giving our hearts to, and working our tails off for this crazy thing we call Show Business, only to have someone capitalize on our talents for their own...and I repeat... their own gain.
I believe I have shared enough in this...I had never expected to have to defend myself in quite this manner.
Again...I am available to speak to any of you privately...those of you who have sincere questions that are important to your understanding of this situation.
Everyone else...I will keep you posted.
#37
Posted: 3/29/07 at 7:46pm
SeanMartin is right, Wanda. You are NOT your best advocate. You should make your lawyer aware of these postings immediately, because they obviously can and will be used against you in a court of law.
And I'm sure he'll tell you to stop posting. You are harming your case, not helping it.
And I'm sure he'll tell you to stop posting. You are harming your case, not helping it.
#38
Posted: 3/29/07 at 7:54pm
"Your actions make it less likely that anyone else will be tempted to make this kind of material available again, given the relatively small amount of audience interest in theatrical performers compared to television or film performers. "
This is my big fear--I'm positive this will be the major outcome especially as it sounds like actual monetary compensation to those sueing will be very minimal.
Wanda--you've been incredibly gracious I think even explaining your reasons on here especially when it seems most here are "against you". I hope that's not how I come off. and I know it's pretty wrongheaded to have the attitude that "well they wronged you but in the long run more good will be done for fans of this material, not to mention increased sales of cast albums, more groups renting the rights to perform, etc, if this is just let go". People have always been very reticient to release this kinda material because of the rights involved--they'll certainly be MUCH more so now.
I guess part of why I'm lax about this (and yes, it is VERY easy for me to say as someone who wants to be able to see yours and others great performances but doesn't stand to lose money over it) is these are *tony* clips--it's not like some obscure deal made to release the Lincoln Cneter tapes. These were intended to be seen by huge audiences and also intended to act very very very much so as advertisements for the shows involved. It's way too simplific but it's almost like a collection of film trailers IMHO.
E
This is my big fear--I'm positive this will be the major outcome especially as it sounds like actual monetary compensation to those sueing will be very minimal.
Wanda--you've been incredibly gracious I think even explaining your reasons on here especially when it seems most here are "against you". I hope that's not how I come off. and I know it's pretty wrongheaded to have the attitude that "well they wronged you but in the long run more good will be done for fans of this material, not to mention increased sales of cast albums, more groups renting the rights to perform, etc, if this is just let go". People have always been very reticient to release this kinda material because of the rights involved--they'll certainly be MUCH more so now.
I guess part of why I'm lax about this (and yes, it is VERY easy for me to say as someone who wants to be able to see yours and others great performances but doesn't stand to lose money over it) is these are *tony* clips--it's not like some obscure deal made to release the Lincoln Cneter tapes. These were intended to be seen by huge audiences and also intended to act very very very much so as advertisements for the shows involved. It's way too simplific but it's almost like a collection of film trailers IMHO.
E
#39
Posted: 3/29/07 at 8:34pm
>> And what gives him the right to say that all that footage belongs to ONLY HIM to do with as he pleases?...
Because that is no doubt the agreement worked out between him and the unions and the producers and everyone else involved who was part of the contract. It's not that difficult to understand, honest.
>> AND... he wouldn't have had the money to spend in the first place if he didn't make it off of the incredible talents that make up the piece!
I repeat (yet again): This is something you should be discussing with your union. Not Mr. Cohen -- he did no wrong here. Not here -- we are not part of your lawsuit. With your union. They are the ones who sold your rights away. Whether Mr. Cohen made a hundred dollars or a million is immaterial. In other words, ask yourslf: if he lost money on these, should we expect you to pony up to make up the difference?
It seems you think I'm some sort of theatrical Simon Legree, tossing you out in the cold winter storm for non payment of rent. Trust me, I'm not. I'm simply underscoring the incontravertible fact that your union made this arrangement with Mr. Cohen. It did so on your behalf, and if you feel it's done so in error, it is your union that should be held financially acountable. This is not rocket science, ma'am. It is how business is done. And I have little doubt that if this case ever does make it to court, the judge will tell you exactly the same thing I'm telling you now. Learn from your error and move on.
Because that is no doubt the agreement worked out between him and the unions and the producers and everyone else involved who was part of the contract. It's not that difficult to understand, honest.
>> AND... he wouldn't have had the money to spend in the first place if he didn't make it off of the incredible talents that make up the piece!
I repeat (yet again): This is something you should be discussing with your union. Not Mr. Cohen -- he did no wrong here. Not here -- we are not part of your lawsuit. With your union. They are the ones who sold your rights away. Whether Mr. Cohen made a hundred dollars or a million is immaterial. In other words, ask yourslf: if he lost money on these, should we expect you to pony up to make up the difference?
It seems you think I'm some sort of theatrical Simon Legree, tossing you out in the cold winter storm for non payment of rent. Trust me, I'm not. I'm simply underscoring the incontravertible fact that your union made this arrangement with Mr. Cohen. It did so on your behalf, and if you feel it's done so in error, it is your union that should be held financially acountable. This is not rocket science, ma'am. It is how business is done. And I have little doubt that if this case ever does make it to court, the judge will tell you exactly the same thing I'm telling you now. Learn from your error and move on.
http://docandraider.com
#40
Posted: 3/29/07 at 9:02pm
I HAVE stopped posting...this will not hurt the case...this is the same information Mr. Smiley has made public. Any new information that I shared was of my personal experience... as I would have told any reporter. I shared MY experience with Mr. Cohen and his office alone...to give some perspective to the questions you all had.
These things have been copied and sent to everyone involved. No worries.
These things have been copied and sent to everyone involved. No worries.
#41
Posted: 3/29/07 at 10:49pm
SeanMartin, how can you possibly say that Cohen DID take this up with the unions? How can you say that Cohen was actually TOLD that it was all okay?
I just don't see the logic.
I just don't see the logic.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
#42
Posted: 3/29/07 at 10:59pm
Munkus the reasoning I see is if he hadn't--wouldn't something liek this have happened several years ago when they first aired?
#43
Posted: 3/29/07 at 11:14pm
Exactly. PBS isnt some fly by night operation that will sell anything on a disk. It would make damn sure that all clearances had been granted before it would even touch stuff like this.
And now Wanda is copying everything here and sending it to "everyone involved". Uh, right. Folks, if that doesnt tell you something about this "litigant", nothing will.
And now Wanda is copying everything here and sending it to "everyone involved". Uh, right. Folks, if that doesnt tell you something about this "litigant", nothing will.
http://docandraider.com
#44
Posted: 3/29/07 at 11:16pm
Well, regardless of who is to blame (because frankly there are things we will never know), I still believe that the performers are owed money.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
#45
Posted: 3/29/07 at 11:21pm
Okay, if you believe that, I'm going to ask again a question I raised in the other thread on this. What about the musicians? Without them, there aint much happening. How about the stage crew? No sets makes for usually pretty dull theatre. The costume assistants and dressers? The folks up in the lighting grid? All of these people have contributed to the moment, so why not them as well? Or do we only care about the folks whose faces appear on the screen?
http://docandraider.com
#46
Posted: 3/29/07 at 11:38pm
Well, while that's a good point, crew members don't typically get residuals, do they?
For LAW AND ORDER, for example - the actors continue to get residuals. Does the crew? I don't know for sure, but I think not.
For LAW AND ORDER, for example - the actors continue to get residuals. Does the crew? I don't know for sure, but I think not.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
#47
Posted: 3/29/07 at 11:45pm
From the NY Post article:
Cohen dismisses Smiley's claims.
He says he worked out deals with two performers' unions - AFTRA and Equity - before launching "Broadway's Lost Treasures."
"We literally made a list of everybody who potentially had any involvement in these excerpts," he says. "We spent over two years tracking people down, and we've made payments to over 600 performers.
"What saddens me," he continues, "is that after all that hard work, anybody who feels they are owed something didn't just pick up the phone and call me. I'm not hard to reach. My number is in the phone book. If there are people who have not been paid, it is only because they have not been identified." ...
Chris Cohen says he developed "Broadway's Lost Treasures" to help put his mother, Hildy Parks, on sound financial footing.
She died in 2004. He says that, since her death, profits from the DVD sales have been divvied up among members of the Cohen family; PBS, which hawks "Broadway's Lost Treasures" during pledge drives; the Actors' Fund, the nonprofit organization that takes care of performers in need; and theater trade unions that, Cohen says, approved the venture.
Smiley has sent letters requesting financial information from those unions. He's yet to hear back from them.
Michael Riedel: MUSICAL SHARES
Cohen dismisses Smiley's claims.
He says he worked out deals with two performers' unions - AFTRA and Equity - before launching "Broadway's Lost Treasures."
"We literally made a list of everybody who potentially had any involvement in these excerpts," he says. "We spent over two years tracking people down, and we've made payments to over 600 performers.
"What saddens me," he continues, "is that after all that hard work, anybody who feels they are owed something didn't just pick up the phone and call me. I'm not hard to reach. My number is in the phone book. If there are people who have not been paid, it is only because they have not been identified." ...
Chris Cohen says he developed "Broadway's Lost Treasures" to help put his mother, Hildy Parks, on sound financial footing.
She died in 2004. He says that, since her death, profits from the DVD sales have been divvied up among members of the Cohen family; PBS, which hawks "Broadway's Lost Treasures" during pledge drives; the Actors' Fund, the nonprofit organization that takes care of performers in need; and theater trade unions that, Cohen says, approved the venture.
Smiley has sent letters requesting financial information from those unions. He's yet to hear back from them.
Michael Riedel: MUSICAL SHARES
#48
Posted: 3/30/07 at 12:14am
The plot thickens.
As I've said, no one here knows all of the facts, so as of course we can form opinions on the information we do know, we cannot make judgements.
As I've said, no one here knows all of the facts, so as of course we can form opinions on the information we do know, we cannot make judgements.
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
--Aristotle
#49
Posted: 3/30/07 at 2:10pm
>> Smiley has sent letters requesting financial information from those unions. He's yet to hear back from them.
This just underscores what I've been saying to Wanda: she should be talking to her union, not Cohen. And given her 180 in this thread, I'm not surprised he'd ignore her calls. Nevertheless, it is the unions who should be explaining themselves right now.
This just underscores what I've been saying to Wanda: she should be talking to her union, not Cohen. And given her 180 in this thread, I'm not surprised he'd ignore her calls. Nevertheless, it is the unions who should be explaining themselves right now.
http://docandraider.com
#50
Posted: 3/30/07 at 2:28pm
My question remains what proof do we have that the unions approved this? The contract should be easy enough to produce. I can not believe a producer would use the "Oh, they TOLD me it was okay" excuse. Where is the paper trail that puts the responsibility on Equity's doorstep and excuses Cohen from any obligation to compensate the actors involved?
PEACE.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95