Dirty rotten makeover

[Neverandy]

Posted: 1/31/07 at 12:34pm

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/105341.html

A little sobering from an actor's standpoint, but it's great they stayed Union! Less money is better than no money. I wonder though, when we will see the next full Production Tour.

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 1/31/07 at 12:46pm

I'm sorry, but...how is this a good thing? I know this is a polarizing issue, but it's my belief that unions (particularly stage hands and musicians) are bleeding professional theatre dry with their ludicrous costs and regulations.

I find it a truly sad commentary when shows have to be altered from their creators' original intent just to meet the questionable pay demands of those involved in them. Sets are getting cheaper and smaller. Orchestras are getting thinner and more electronic. Ticket prices are going up at rates ridiculously higher than inflation.

There's no logic behind that at all.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 1/31/07 at 1:45pm

The purpose of a union is to protect its members from unfair labor practices and to preserve the integrity of the working environment
It costs money to do that. Acting is a real profession and one that requires a lot of work and training. I noted last week in another thread how an actor's salary at the broadway and National touring level (both on the Equity production contract, averaging 1500 dollars with the increase this year) is on the low side when you consider that these are trained professionals working at the top of their profession. )I won't factor in the sporadic nature of continuous work, because honestly, that isn't the producer's concern). To deny Union work is to deny not only a fair salary, but also Health insurance, and pension benefits.
Also I think that the union made the right move(and one that some could consider against its best interest). They saw that the show wasn't making a profit for the producers and came in with a more workable contract. Considering that only 5 people left the company, it seems the cast was fine with this decision.

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 1/31/07 at 2:07pm

But the show was initially shut down because of operating costs, with NO guarantee of rebooting. The entire was in danger of losing their jobs because of their own unions' ridiculous demands. I'm not in a union job, but I'm protected by unfair labor practices by state and federal labor laws. Unions are simply outdated.

Why has the average ticket price doubled in the last 10 years? Why did a theatre ticket used to cost less than a movie ticket -- even when there were unions?? To pay an actor $1500 a week for working 3 hours a day seems pretty over the top to me, and more than "fair" -- and that's not even considering the top-name talent. I'm not attacking any specific branch of theatre here. I'm simply saying that they all seem pretty disproportionately high to me, and it's out of control. Fewer and fewer people can afford to see shows, and fewer and fewer shows can find the appropriate financial backing.

There's a reason for this, and it isn't the audiences' fault.

It saddens me how often I hear the phrase "scaled down" when referring to shows -- touring or not.

Updated On: 1/31/07 at 02:07 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/31/07 at 2:11pm

Some Playbill.com quotes:

"Bell said they "maintained the deck and turntables and the physical production remains first rate."

He added, "The only change is, we made some hard walls into soft pieces, but they are beautifully painted and look gorgeous."

"Per Equity rules, all company members were offered their jobs back — albeit under a different, lower pay scale. The show was re-rehearsed in New York and started up again in Appleton, with Tony Award nominee Hewitt as suave con man Lawrence Jameson, newcomer D.B. Bonds as crass Freddy Benson; Laura Marie Duncan as heiress Christine Colgate; Hollis Resnik as Omaha divorcee Muriel Eubanks; Drew McVety as accomplice Andre; and newcomer Paige Pardy as Oklahoma heiress Jolene (Jenifer Foote originated the role on tour)."

[Neverandy]

Posted: 1/31/07 at 2:18pm

I would fault the Producers. If ticket prices have doubled in the last decade It is not the actors' fault. In 1997 the production contract salary was in the neighborhood of 1100, not 750.
Another factor is that here also is a lot of product out on the road vying for people's entertainment dollar. Dirty Rotten was a good broadway show with some decent reviews. It didn't win the Tony which is usually a big marketing tool. Also the show lasted a little over a year on Broadway IIRC. It is by no means a Phantom Or a Les mis in terms of its prevalence in the national mindset.
I also want to say Top tier talent ( I assume you are talknig about Stars) are a very small percentage of the Broadway community. The majority are working at the minimum contract level.

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 1/31/07 at 2:20pm

So you're saying the producers have simply gotten more greedy, and it has nothing to do with the fact that they have to pay (unions) more in operating costs??

It's also not my intention to single out actors. There are other unions at play here too.
Updated On: 1/31/07 at 02:20 PM

[Neverandy]

Posted: 1/31/07 at 2:36pm

The point that you seem to be avoiding is that the ticket sales were not high enought to support this show's operating costs. This wasn't an enormous production along the lines of Lion king Phantom, saigon etc. This show was by no means small, but It didn't have a huge ensemble, big stars or an enormous set. It just never found an audience and that is why it lost money. These costs didn't just spring up out of nowhere. The show's budget is set and agreed upon based on a projected number of ticket sales. When tickets don't sell the profit margin lowers and that is when things like this happen.
As for greed on the part of the producers-I think that is far too simplistic of a premise.It is a combination of many factors. And I feel like this is going to turn into a "chicken or the egg debate. Which came first Higher ticket prices or higher salaries because of the higher ticket prices?
If anything Broadway attendance has gone up, so the people have shown that they are willing to pay these higher prices. Equity minimum salaries are not exorbidant at all in comparison to other top level jobs. 75 grand a year (If a show runs that long) is not making anyone rich in Manahattan. Remember thes aren't entry level positions.
Touring adds in the cost of per diem rates which are set by the union, which some say are too high. But ask any executive with any company who pays for his travel and living expenses when he is on a business trip. Why should it be any different for actors?

Updated On: 1/31/07 at 02:36 PM

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 1/31/07 at 2:58pm

You're quite right. We could go in circles with this one for days. It's too much like politics -- you're pro-union, and I'm not. Neither one of us is going to change each other's minds.

But, my inital (less-political) comment still stands: it saddens me that so many shows have to "scale down" just to stay operational...whatever the reason.

[JustinRZB]

Posted: 1/31/07 at 3:28pm

75 grand? really?

I'm so glad i stopped acting and took a job with the Internet - I'm richer than Broadway stars!