Do you agree or disagree with this "letter"?

If this has been posted before, I'm sorry.

I was researching something and came across this "letter" below:

Article | An Open Letter to Theatregoers Everywhere...
By:Michael Kostroff

MODA MAG.COM --Dear fellow theatre lovers,

Professional theatre has a problem. And unfortunately, it affects you, the theatergoing public.

For decades, every actor on a Broadway stage (or in a touring company of a Broadway show) had to be a member of the stage actors union, the Actors Equity Association. And that made sense. Because Broadway shows are state-of-the-art, top-of-the-line productions. That's what you pay for when you see one of these shows - the very best of what theatre has to offer.

Often, actors would struggle for years, paying their dues, to get their Equity cards and join the ranks of the top-notch professionals. The idea was that not just anyone could be in a big Broadway show. You had to have achieved union status. That was the mark of the professional actor.

But in recent years, Broadway producers have figured out a way to save money by doing something rather alarming: They've started sending out tours of Broadway shows with entirely non-union casts!

Many of the performers you're currently seeing in so-called "Broadway" tours are young, inexperienced amateurs. For some of them, it's their first professional job

If this has been posted before, I'm sorry.

In fact, the guy who wrote it has posted it here before. But I guess it was due for another reposting.

Like Old Faithful, I tells ya.

---

"And that made sense. Because Broadway shows are state-of-the-art, top-of-the-line productions. That's what you pay for when you see one of these shows - the very best of what theatre has to offer. "

Hmm. In theory, yes. I'm afraid I lost the will to read on with any degree of seriousness after that rose-tinted view.

She's also a voting member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

I think the public at large is comparing the union/non-union issue to other professions. Would you pay the same money to go to a non-licensed MD? Would you even go to a non-licensed MD?

I think this is their perception of a non-union show.

I've been Equity for 20 years now, but I've seen plenty of non-union talent out there. And the argument that you might be seeing someone in a non-union show who's performing for the first time? That might also be true in an Equity show.

---

I agree with the letter in the sense that actors deserve to be protected under a union and thus, I don't tend to support non-equity shows. (In theory...I admit to have seen quite a few...most of which I probably didn't know were non-eq until after the show.) But I don't agree about the performers. Every performer deserves their shot, no matter where it is.

That is pathetic. So a card is the only thing that determines how good an actor is?

---

Ah, the good old Equiy vs. Non-Equity fight. Someone wake Jerby up, quick!

---

From a producing standpoint I completely understand why producers do this. Aside from the financial issues involving equity (bonds, dues, ect) they can also be a nightmare to deal with. Unorganized and some of their rules can be quite silly. Going non-equity saves money...and after all this is a business.

However, I don't agree calling a non-equity tour a "Broadway Tour". Non-equity talent is out there, but *most* actors working on broadway pay their dues, get the training in the field that they need to be the highest caliber of performer they can be. I've seen these so-called "Broadway Tours" before and the talent is decent...but certainly not my "Broadway" standards.

Mr. Kostroff doesn't present the argument very well at all.

A more tactful (and, in my opinion, true) way to approach this issue is the fact that a lot of the actors on non eq tours ARE talented, and they are getting shortshrifted in terms of salary by the producers who are charging full price. Therefore, what should happen is that producers should either use non equity actors, and reduce the price of tickets, or pay for an equity tour, whether that be with equity performers, or a mix of non eq and equity, and pay for the non eq's to join the union.

The other piece of this is not about taking work away from equity actors. It is also about the fact that it makes the union less powerful if non equity tours do go out.

Mr. Kostroff is displaying a semi elitist attitude about the whole thing, and its not about the possible fact that SOME may be categorized as "amateur", but its more about the fact that producers are taking ADVANTAGE of both equity and non equity actors by sending out these low paying, high charging tours.

Well said JRB!

By the way my problem isn't so much with the concept of Equity...but more with the way that letter is worded. I think this debate is an important one to have, and sometimes I play devil's advocate.

Akiva

i don't know enough about equity to challenge the process, but unfortunately for SAG, it's more about who you know, not any thing else. there may be certain protocol for getting one, but if you know the right people, the rules are very easy to get around, if this is true for equity also, the the system doesn't work and should be fixed, i hope broadway isn't as corrupt as hollywood

---

Don't forget, he also wrote a book.

http://www.allworth.com/Pages/PR_PA388.htm

---