Local One LJ goes after ATC

I am curious what in that made you want to side with the League and not Local One.

---

"The chat rooms there are mainly populated by frustrated Corky St. Clairs, pimply teen-queens and assorted wash-ups, has-beens and never-wases who all have an opinion about Broadway and how the industry works, none of which are actual informed opinions."

BINGO! He got it right on his very first visit! Read any of the Strike threads on the first page, from "The Union never does any charity work" to "How Dare they ruin my trip to New York" to "Who has inside information on when the strike will end" and you'll have to agree- he got it dead on.

I'm sorry, but with a handful of exceptions, that is EXACTLY how ATC and often times BWW looks to people.

And like the examples Joe sited--can you really blame people for thinking that?

What's more important is the insight in the rest of his words. This is a huge issue. I pray it can be solved amiably and that the relationship between producers and the stagehands (and rest of the theatre) isn't ruined.

---

I agree to call someone a queen is uncalled for and homophobic. For that alone one should be mad.

When one resorts to name calling to me I stop listening to their agrument as I find them to be uneducated.

Updated On: 11/13/07 at 02:05 PM

Sorry Walt but they hit that nail so directly on the head it's painful which is why everyone is going to be up in arms. The truth, especially on message boards, hurts a great deal. With VERY few exceptions, both ATC and BWW are populated by little more than the aforementioned. They forgot indignant stage door Johnny's from their list and that's about all. It's been a long time since I felt the need or want to post and in the midst of the 700 strike threads it almost seems pointless but never has it been MORE obvious what and who lives on these chat boards. And there's my 25 cents.

Updated On: 11/13/07 at 02:09 PM

Okay, I have a question. It's possible this has been addressed elsewhere, but I haven't seen it and it's brought up in the linked letter.

"Put another way, in this fight the stagehands are financing our end of the strike out of our own pockets through lost wages. The producers are covering their asses with the public's money. It's that simple. If you have seen a Broadway show in the last three years, you have contributed to the producers' strike breaking fund and have abetted the destruction of one of the last strong unions left in America. Don't worry, we're not angry at you, the ticket-buying public. You didn't know and even if you did, you didn't have much of a choice anyway."

Most of Broadway--in fact, all of Broadway directly involved with the strike--is commercial theatre. The producers and investors are out to make a profit. So, what business is it of ours what they do with their profit? This letter says: "The producers are covering their asses with the public's money". The way I see it, the minute I voluntarily give my money in exchange for my ticket, it stops being my money and becomes the producers' money.

Yes, an argument can be made that the producers are making too much profit at the expense of the public, but that isn't the issue that's being raised. The union keeps insisting that there is s "surcharge" added to tickets for the producers' "strike fund". Well, the only surcharge on my ticket is the "theatre restoration" charge. Anythng else is simply use of profits.

Lastly, the writer can assume all he wants about who posts on ATC and BWW, but the safe assumption is that these are people who spend more money per person on theatre and things related to theatre than most. In essence, these are the people whose sympathies the union should be trying to secure. Instead, he has chosen to alienate them. These are the reasons that this letter makes me want to side with the League.

Updated On: 11/13/07 at 02:11 PM

No, it's not but anything to create drama where none is necessary. you're also going to get a mad influx of posts from people saying they do indeed work as professionals in theater. It's going to be very interesting if nothing else.


*in response to justaguy

Updated On: 11/13/07 at 02:12 PM

Well, I never think homophobia is acceptable, but I definitely think Corky St. Clairs is accurate and appropriate.

---

Robbie, he's making a list: "frustrated Corky St. Clairs, pimply teen-queens and assorted wash-ups, has-beens and never-wases"

Walt, you know I love ya but what exactly are you doing in the biz right now? I'm honestly posing the question because as I said 2 moments ago, there's going to be a ton of these sorts of responses and I am curious.

Whether or not Corky is a homophobic construct I can't even begin to worry about. I don't think it was intended to be homophobic in that film. I think it was a highly accurate depiction and hilarious as well. It's a truth, whether we like it or not. We've all known Corkys.

---

Al, I'll PM you.