Country discrimination

I have noticed that the West End welcomes performers from all over the world. For example, I believe there are 30 different nationalities in the current cast of Miss Saigon. They just like to hire the best people, it doesn't matter if they are British, Dutch, German, or American. Some of them don't even have a European passport.

Now, I remember when Miss Saigon came to Broadway in the 90's, "Equity" in the USA were hyperventilating that Lea and Jonathan Pryce came to play the roles. They were not welcome. It became a very nasty story, to the point where Cameron wanted to stop the transfer of the show. Same story for Phantom with Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman.

(Now, this post is not about the ridiculous race discrimination of Equity, because the barring of Mr. Pryce was insupportable on every level. By refusing to permit a white actor to play a Eurasian role, Equity made a mockery of the hard-won principles of non-traditional casting and practices a hypocritical reverse racism.

Even if there were some credible intellectual rationale (and formula) for an Equity policy calling for single-race exclusivity in the casting of some roles and complete racial freedom in the casting of others, Equity could hardly have picked a worse example to argue the case than the Engineer in 'Miss Saigon.)

So let's not get into Equity's race discrimination too much now, let's get into the problem of Equity's "country discrimination". Do they have a problem with the fact that Jon Jon Briones and Eva Noblezada performed on the West End? If not, why do they have a double agenda? If they do, what is the solution? Taking European actors to the Broadway transfer in exchange? Also, do they have a problem with Jon Jon and Eva transferring to Broadway? What if Eva was from the Philippines?

I think having a double agenda in this case is inexcusable.

Updated On: 11/25/15 at 07:32 AM

I am not saying the whole community supported this discrimination, because clearly they had more humanic views. I am talking about Equity. (why is it even called Equity?)

Obviously the Tony judges just judged the performances.

I think the producers of a show should get to decide whoever plays a role, not matter from what country the person is. It's their show. Because the rest of the show and everything around it will also employ Americans anyway. I also think this should change in the film world too.

It wasn't just equity. Broadway producers made a stink about yet another British mega musical coming in and sweeping the tonys. Americans felt threatened by Miss Saigon and wanted to keep the illusion that they were better than the brits at making musicals. Everyone in town liked Miss Saigon, but no one was about to let it win it's deserved best musical title. So the award went to the excessively patriotic Will Rogers musical.

Updated On: 11/25/15 at 08:00 AM

And I disagree. There are programs in place for producers to bring in non-resident performers if they want, but I think the American professional theatre should be primarily employing Americans and a labor union is right to insist on that. Again, there are still Green Card and other eligibility issues on using foreign performers beyond Equity's rules. INS has some strong opinions on this matter.

Not that you would have any way of knowing this, but I have been on the producer side of this. A number of years back a production I was writing/producing wanted to use a semi-famous non-American in a Showcase production and Equity told us no. They were wrong, and their reasoning was completely spurious on a lot of points. We ultimately prevailed after British Equity stepped in and argued on our behalf. So I am all too aware of how it can be abused on the Equity side.

Nevertheless, I understand why those regulations are in place even if I have come up against them myself. It sucks being a professional actor, and anything that can be done to ease the plight of people who are trying to earn a living in this country doing it we should be doing. A healthy ecosystem of performers is necessary to keep the work going. Ensuring that American jobs in America are given first shot to Americans is a perfectly reasonable thing for a union to fight for.

It's not about patriotism, it's about economics. Equity doesn't fight for this for some ideological purity reason, they do it because they are trying to help ensure their members earn a decent living. I'm certain that there are compensatory contracts for the "Miss Saigon" leads in the UK - they don't have to be the same show. For every West End contract going to an American, there needs to be a Production Contract given to a Brit. Tam Matu, for instance, played the lead in "Zhivago" despite not being American Equity. There's one of your two from last season. And they brought over the lead of "Color Purple". It doesn't seem to me that Producers are being hamstrung by the primary insistence that they hire in-country.

Also, it wasn't American Equity insisting that those performers do "Miss Saigon", it was the Producers of the show. Same as the Broadway "Matilda" producers and "Zhivago" producers and "Color Purple" producers who were allowed to hire the person they wanted for the role, regardless of nationality.

If you're arguing that there are ensemble tracks that have gone to less-capable performers due to these rules and it wouldn't have happened if the casting pool were expanded to include non-resident aliens, there I disagree with you. Again, there are Green Card issues well beyond any Equity jurisdiction. The US Department Of Labor has a stake in insuring that Americans remain employed. Broadway is a business in the end, and I suspect that's where we fundamentally differ because I accept that as part of the bargain.

Updated On: 11/25/15 at 08:41 AM

As soon as the OP threw the "reverse racism" card into his original post it became clear that this is just his attempt to resurrect the now locked (and deleted?) recent color-blind casting/racism thread.

Of course I'm aware. But that's my whole point.

Then your whole point is constructed on faulty ground. AEA cannot bar American actors and union members from performing on Broadway, and the idea that they would try to bar American actors from appearing on Broadway because they also appeared in the West End is patently absurd. But then again, so is nearly everything you've written in this thread.

temms said: "Also, it wasn't American Equity insisting that those performers do "Miss Saigon", it was the Producers of the show. "

But it was American Equity who insisted on NOT having them in the show.

The producers just wanted the best people, it's just that back then one was Asian and now she's not.

Updated On: 11/25/15 at 09:28 AM

What's a delusion? That Miss Saigon UK has 30 nationalities? That Miss Saigon broadway probably won't? That all the Broadway Kim's after Lea were not so good? That Equity in 1991 did not want Lea? That bad/mediocre Kim's could have harmed the run of the show? That that had consequences for work of Americans involved in the show?

Do you homework first, Then speak.

The producers want someone for a reason. Best casting above patriotism. And the first has more influence on economics.

I think part of the fracas was that she replaced the British actress who was originally cast as Cassie.

Updated On: 11/27/15 at 09:27 PM

Do we think he meant country matters?

^ He must. After that epic, mammoth, hot mess of the other thread, to start in again with the same topic? it must be exciting for him.

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