Melissa Errico Fired From PASSION? — Page 6

It's not just a question of refunding, as CSC also has a subscriber base. That being the case, the initial response would be to reschedule a ticket for another date when Errico would presumably return. And, rather than issue refunds, I'm sure CSC would be more likely to offer an exchange for non-subscribers who wanted to see Errico. With Errico's absence dragging on without a clear end, CSC could have found a growing number of displaced ticket holders on their hands. Considering that the run was limited, this could have created a massive pressing concern. It would mean that there would be less seats to sell for the remaining performances. It would mean, if Errico's absence stretched on and on, eventually issuing refunds. CSC had to take action to prevent loss, to accommodate ticketholders, and to maximize sales.



Again: that is speculation.

---

Updated On: 6/12/13 at 10:43 PM

Thanks, Kad. Your speculation is better informed than mine.

What I want to know is what does Judy Kuhn think of all of this.

Is Melissa a bigger draw than Judy? I have no idea on this one. But if people were coming to see Judy in the main role, would they care if Melissa was there or not?

And how fabulous an ill-advised Betty Buckley blog would be!

Gaveston, "more to be pitied than censured" was absolute poetry on your part.

Reg, I don't recall any time in history when people have been beaten or murdered while a group of straight guys stood around yelling "sociopath". So that comparison didn't resonate with me.

Double post.

Updated On: 6/12/13 at 11:01 PM

Good one.

No, the blogging about it is a brilliant choice, because when was the last time Melissa Errico had her own thread on this message board?

And you not feeling sorry for irresponsible people makes you deviant.

Updated On: 6/13/13 at 12:03 AM

BTW -The OP never used the word "sucks" and it was allegedly from a director not somebody on the street. The OP asked what people thought of Mr. Tveit's acting ablity and did not say he "stunk".

Well, it indeed was NOT somebody on the street - the OP said it was "on a subway", lol.

And "allegedly a director"? I think to expand that phase you mean a director mentioned by someone (allegedly a certain co-star of Tveit) on subway, as overheard by the OP? That does sound so much better than
"someone on the street", doesn't it?

I don't get the connection, John. I know plenty of actors who are careless with paperwork, but that doesn't make them (in my view) unworthy of compassion.

In Errico's case, neglecting to sign her contract is not what caused her vocal problems or her termination.

You're REALLY hung up on the "compassion" part, Gaveston. Aside from that one poster I don't think anyone here is begrudging Errico for having a fairly serious health issue. This is a discussion on her blog posts (and the intention/motivation behind it). You are harping on an issue that actually isn't an issue, at this point.

>> I don't get the connection, John. I know plenty of actors who are careless with paperwork, but that doesn't make them (in my view) unworthy of compassion.

I think her predicament offers an interesting example for actors (or really any employee) who might find themselves in a similar situation.

I'm not referring to the paperwork, alone. In her blog, she indicates over and over again that the responsibility for being knowledgeable about the business aspects of her career rest on anyone's shoulders but her own. I don't think she realizes the impression of irresponsibility she is leaving when she writes:

"There is a team of leadership there, I don’t know who really is the producer. That doesn’t matter to this story."

That's her team of employers. The people at CSC (who she will later find out) are responsible for her staying employed, yet she feels they do not matter to her story.

She goes on to say,

"I thought, 'Oh, right, ****, this is a business relationship, i had a contract, like a piece of paper.' It hadn’t felt like business. Thinking back, I didn’t sign it because it was the first day of rehearsal when it was handed to me, and I forgot. I was in my heaven, and I didn’t need to sign anything to commit."

That last statement is troublesome. Regardless of how amicable the employment relationship was for this particular show, that mindset demonstrates an air of self-centeredness. She's not accepting responsibility for playing Russian roulette regarding her employment right out of the gate. Why should she feel that she is exempt from following standard practices? ...and "I don't understand it, so I'll ignore it" is not a responsible excuse.

"He had to sense I wasn’t accepting this information (but what could he do?). I hadn’t been telephoned. Patrick hadn’t been called by CSC. Dr. Korovin, who treats Nathan Lane, Audra, Kristin, Ron Rifkin, Brooke Shields, etc. etc. etc., was never called."

Errico seems to feel that the responsibility for updating her status regarding her absence lies with CSC. Although the text she initially wrote has been deleted, she originally asked why CSC hadn't taken the initiative to give her a cutoff date.

Why is it CSC's responsibility to be proactive regarding her return to work date (even to the point of expecting that they call her doctor)? She is not taking responsibility for reporting information regarding her RTW status. She took the time to write about her casual communications with the cast, but there is no mention of any effort to update CSC regarding her status. Even after she was informed about being released from the show, did she contact CSC? Instead, she contacted two influential parties to plead with them to do that for her. I can't help but feel that if she had acted responsibly regarding communication of her status to CSC, she might have become aware of that dreaded clause. ...and that whole "clause" drama:

"Why couldn’t I be in the show again? A clause?

Did they have a clause that said that actors had to love their jobs and care about absolutely everything? I believe I did that."

Would I be guilding the lily if I were to point out that Errico does not care about "absolutely everything"? How much of an extraordinary effort did it require for Errico to love her job? Enough to justify ignoring a clause it's her responsibility to be aware of?

"I guess what I am not getting is that there is a business to run there. I became bad for business."

OK! Now we're showing a little acceptance and responsibility!

"I am guessing now, but somehow I became bad for business because I got hurt."

Dang. So close...

Updated On: 6/13/13 at 09:52 AM

What I got from her post was "I LOVE ACTING SO MUCH WHY DO THE RULES HAVE TO MATTER."

Although I do empathize about her vocal issues, I'm in the same camp as you on this.