Melissa Errico Fired From PASSION? — Page 5

It's not uncommon for productions to go up without having all the contracts signed. Sometimes things happen: some artists operate as corporations, which requires some different things, and there are of course the agents agents and other extraneous factors. But it could be argued that rehearsing and performing is tantamount to signing the contract. By going through the process, you've essentially agreed to follow the rules set down to go through the process. I don't know of precedence, though.

Performers certainly can't be expected to know every clause in every Equity rulebook by heart- there are too many of both things. But how does one reach Errico's age and breadth of experience and be, apparently, so ignorant? Section 5 of the contract she scanned very clearly says that the Rules are part of the contract despite not being physically on the document she was to sign. And one of the first things that occurs in an Equity production is an Equity meeting, which is not exactly a short talk and touches on all these things.

And I confess to being at a loss to why she's sharing this. As I said before, it does NOT make her look good.

---

Here's what I don't get. If she had been cleared of vocal rest and, as she says, was able to perform that week, why did the producers fire her on Sunday? They obviously didn't want her coming back, but why? I don't believe the "continuity" excuse.

Updated On: 6/12/13 at 09:54 PM

Logan, I apologize if I misunderstood a post you meant as a joke.

But please don't let's start urban legends: I never called any group of ya'all "sociopaths".

***

Kad, I don't know about Equity specifically, but I think there's plenty of precedent that would hold that a contract existed between Errico and management. For one thing, she admits she merely "forgot" to sign and submit the contract; she doesn't even claim she objected to its provisions.

Intending to sign and behaving as if you have (and being allowed to do so by management) would all be evidence of a binding contract, I think.

I'm frankly surprised by you in this thread.

So, Regi, everyone is allowed to joke but I?

What do YOU call a person who doesn't experience an empathic connection to those who suffer everyday misfortunes?

Now, do I really think the poster in question lacks that capacity? No. But THAT's WHAT S/HE WROTE and I merely hinted at the logical extension of the argument.

Thanks, logan, but please don't hurt my good friend, Regi. He and I are just having a misunderstanding due to there being no tone of voice over the internet.

Really, folks, some joking aside, all I meant to say here was that I feel sorry for Errico's disappointment. I haven't even argued that the theater was wrong.

I'm sure everyone would probably agree with Logan that I'm a troll, so I'm happy to yield the field to him and his like.

I feel sorry that Errico became ill and lost a role she so obviously identified with and saw as a career highpoint. I feel sorry that situation occurred.

But these blog posts? Her rambling, bizarre blog posts, where she managed to link her sadness to that of disabled children and The Year of Magical Thinking? In which she shows that she doesn't understand basic contracts and paperwork she has been asked to fill out since she started working? What are we to make of these? She's turning an unfortunate situation- in which no side really did anything wrong- into some odd writing exercise that says to me nothing more than that she should start seeing a therapist.

---

Logan, you thought trolling is when one poster disagrees with another? You should probably keep thinking of me as a troll, because I often disagree with others, though I hope I'm always polite about it.

I may be a glutton for punishment based on other readers' assessments, but does anyone have the link to Blog 5?

Thanks, givesmevoice. But I actually never criticized Errico. As I said, I'm only sorry I never saw her in the role.

Updated On: 6/12/13 at 10:27 PM

Someone in a Tree:
Blog Five

---

So everyone has an opinion on whether Melissa should have blogged or not, what the definition of a troll is, and the extensive Equity rule book, but no one has an opinion on why the producers didn't want Melissa to return?


Is this happening or is it the meth.

And right when I post this, I see that Gaveston answered my question. Sorry Gaveston.

Updated On: 6/12/13 at 10:40 PM

I'm sure whatever Gaveston says is correct.