What many non-eq shows do in their advertising is paramount to outright deception. 'Direct from Broadway' or something similar.
I hear people complain about this, but I don't recall having ever seen this myself. Not in the last 20 years or so, at least. I don't remember having seen a non-Equity tour thinking I'd been deceived in any way. In Chicago, I have noticed that non-Equity tours have a lower price point for their tickets and a usually shorter run. If I saw a non-Equity show advertise itself as "direct from Broadway" or the official "Broadway tour", I might feel quite different, but there's definitely a grey area when an Equity tour ends and transitions to non-Equity, especially when they use the same sets and are directed by the same director (sometimes the same director from the Broadway production) or those Broadway productions that only offer non-Equity tours (eg Bandstand). For example, Fiddler on the Roof in Chicago was a non-Equity tour of the recent Broadway revival. Since I couldn't get to NYC during the revival's run, this was my only option to see this revival. I don't feel I was deceived at all.
I've seen several excellent non-Equity tours, including those that were almost indistinguishable from their previous equity runs (Once and American Idiot, which used the exact same sets when the equity tours finished, immediately spring to mind).
Personally, I don't have a problem with the existence of non-Equity tours. Generally, they cover a lot of markets that never see Equity tours at all, giving exposure to audiences that often can't afford to travel to the larger markets. And they offer work, experience and exposure to the millions of performers in the majority of the country where being a member of Equity means high competition for VERY few roles, many of which are cast out of NY or LA.
I do wish non-Equity performers received the same treatment and benefits as Equity performers, but realistically, if that were the case, I honestly think it would probably cause even more friction with Equity members. I've had several friends perform in numerous non-Equity tours who loved the experience (one of whom received such great exposure, it did lead to becoming an Equity performer and starring in regional and international productions when he'd previously been ignored for years at auditions). And I've definitely seen awful performances from Equity performers, so it's not like the union has a monopoly on performance quality. If I wanted all non-Equity tours to become Equity or have them simply no longer exist, I'd be wanting fewer opportunities to those performers for whom Equity is not a practical option if they want to work. Do I want better pay, conditions and health care for non-Equity performers? Of course I do. Who wouldn't? Do I demand Equity? No.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
Updated On: 10/23/19 at 10:57 AM