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!