MATILDA at the Oliviers- Page 3

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/5/12 at 11:16am

You have a point with "freshness," but I miss the "old Broadway" (yes, I sound like THAT OLD PERSON again) ...

They used to write shows for people, not factory productions. It's all about the franchise now ... not about the actors on stage.

Who was it who originated Frankie Valli again in Jersey Boys? I forget (as did thousands of others). Didn't he win a Tony Award for it? No matter.

^ Maybe I'm exaggerating my point, but I don't really think so.

It doesn't matter who's on stage anymore in a "franchise show."

But a REVIVAL is entirely different. It's all about the stars and well-known faces then. That counts more than anything else.

Very strange (says the old man as he heads for his nap).

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/5/12 at 11:21am

Who was it who originated Frankie Valli again in Jersey Boys?

John Lloyd Young! Huge crush. When are they releasing Oy Vey, My Son Is Gay?

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 12:56pm

Going back to child labor laws, I find in absolutely heinous that a child should be allowed to do 8 performances a week, for any role in the theatre, it disturbs their education too much and potentially harms their social skills, as they cannot see their friends that much, also it is tiring and a big onus on a child to do that many shows a week, also pointed out if a juvenile does 2/3 shows a week gives them something to look forward to. USA needs child labor laws, so no more children, suffer physical abuse at the hands of greedy producers.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 1:03pm

There ARE child labor laws. LOTS of them. What is this PHYSICAL abuse you speak of?

How do YOU know they miss too much schooling or social time? They also learn DIFFERENT things and have different relationships.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 1:23pm

Not to mention most children aren't even involved in anything productive outside school hours. And those involved in competitive sports/pageants/dance etc. are exposed to far more strenuous and stressful schedules. US child labor laws exist for the theatre and these children are NOT being abused. I've never actually met a child whose life was destroyed or were socially inept by performing in a show. And given the rapid change in appearance during a child's development, their contracts are generally for short periods of time as compared to adult actors. AND they're getting paid. I also believe the law requires a percentage of their income to be placed in a trust as well. I imagine millions of children would have far better lives if they were performers rather than having to face their daily environments.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 1:26pm

Are there also not stipulations requiring tutors/home schooling/schooling of some sort?

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 6:08pm

So why does the role of Annie need the same person play the role 8 times a week, why can't the role be split four ways?

[Kad]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 7:04pm

Way to completely sidestep the rebuttals to your sensationalist and untrue claim of physical abuse.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 5/7/12 at 9:31am

Not a sidestep their isn't anything for me to answer, I repeat my last question, in some hope it might be answered.

So why does the role of Annie need the same person play the role 8 times a week, why can't the role be split four ways?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/7/12 at 9:46am

Probably because the role has never needed to be split four ways. Why does this production need to be treated differently than previous productions when children's lives were not destroyed as a result of their performance schedules?

[theatreguy]

Posted: 5/7/12 at 11:48am

Also, it would mean 3 extra salaries to pay every week. Which isn't as much of a problem for West End shows because kids there don't have to be paid Equity minimum.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 5/7/12 at 7:16pm

So is a child fee, the same as a adult actor, i.e. Equity minimum?
I understand Equity minimum to be not much?

How can you say a child doesn't suffer from doing 8 performances a week, which I suggest is over 40 hours, I imagine doing 40 hours, 6 days a week of theatre related work and around 30 hours of schoolwork, is too much for a child. it is not documented what every child actor goes onto become. A child will not get a job as an adult, just on the strength of being a young Broadway actor.

[theatreguy]

Posted: 5/7/12 at 7:24pm

Current Equity minimum for Broadway is $1,703 per week. That's the same for all actors regardless of age.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 10:39am

How can you say a child doesn't suffer from doing 8 performances a week, which I suggest is over 40 hours, I imagine doing 40 hours, 6 days a week of theatre related work and around 30 hours of schoolwork, is too much for a child.

Perhaps you should ask one of these children. They probably have a more accurate idea of the schedule and experience.

A child will not get a job as an adult, just on the strength of being a young Broadway actor.

Nobody said they did. Daisy Eagan can speak at length on the subject (and she does). And none of it has to do with "suffering" during her Tony-winning run in The Secret Garden.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 3:44pm

Daisy Eagan is just one example of a child actress.

No one kicked up on here when it was announced their would be 3 Billy Elliot's. Even with 4 Matilda's the actresses will be there over 50% of the time, which is still a lot for a child.

Even with a child actor earning $1,703 a week, (thanks theatreguy), which is $6.812 a week, which for a producer is a drop in the ocean, obviously The Matilda's and Annie will be earning more than this, but they probably will need this for rehab when they are older.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 3:53pm

Name one Broadway child star who has grown up and needed to go to rehab. Just one. Please.

The prototypical Broadway child star, Andrea McArdle, seems to be doing well for herself... no trips to rehab.

A child actor on Broadway is not at all the same as the child star of Hollywood, kids that are often catapulted to superstardom and are taken advantage of, given a small fortune, and seduced by a Hollywood party lifestyle.

You are making a sensationalist issue out of nothing.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 4:06pm

Daisy Eagan is just one example of a child actress.

One more example than you've provided for children with permanently damaged lives requiring rehab as a result of performing in a Broadway show.

I could also provide Andrea McArdle, Sarah Jessica Parker, Donna Vivino, Lea Michele...

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 4:25pm

Add Anna Kendrick to that list, who has been nominated for both a Tony and an Oscar and has, at least up to this point, avoided any perception of having had any sort of "former child star" problems.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 4:35pm

I am sure there has been child actors, who have had pushy parent/s and producers and been overwhelmed doing 8 shows a week, but for good reason it is not published, or maybe the kids who have come close to winning tho role and just failed.

So do you think it is right that a child, should be allowed to work 40 hours plus a week, missing out on important education, just so that you can be entertained?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 4:43pm

So do you think that making up statistics is a good way to make a point based on nothing other than your imaginary perceptions?

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 5:03pm

I literally have no idea what Phantom of London is saying.

If a child does 8 shows a week, and each show is hours long (adding in half-hour), then that's 24 hours of work a week. And most kids don't do 8 shows a week. I could easily imagine two Matilda's handling the role with an alternate available. Easily. Contrary to what people are saying, the role is not as difficult to sing as Annie, nor is it in any way comparable to the dancing in Billy Elliott. It's the producers' right to have as many Matilda's as they're willing to pay for. But I don't think they need more than 2 and an alternate.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 11:40pm

"So do you think it is right that a child, should be allowed to work 40 hours plus a week, missing out on important education..."

They're not missing out on important education. They're GETTING an important education. They have schoolwork and tutors. And moreover, I would argue they are learning a great deal about responsibility, working together, time management, and much more than traditional schooling provides.

Just because it's not a traditional education doesn't mean it's a lack of education.

Moreover, they are making a good deal of money- money that will undoubtedly be placed in savings to provide for them in the future.

This isn't some Dickensian torture tale. It's not a sweatshop. It's Broadway. These kids have a slew of people looking out for their welfare- their parents, the producers, the production staff, their tutors, their guardians.


You have literally no statistics or facts to back anything you're saying up. It's all conjecture. Your sense of outrage is greater than your sense of reality.