Non-Equity Tours: Should the Public be told?

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 1/31/04 at 11:35pm

Recently, some news paper reviewers are coming out of the closet and boldy blasting some productions and blaming it on the quality of the production.(this is not an invitation to question the actors talent or working conditions, please). But, the $64 question is should theatergoers pay $64 or more to see a show that they beleive comes from Broadway blood and involves actors with Broadway credits?

So, should the public be made aware that the "Broadway" show they are seeing is a non-Equity production? Should the veunes continue to mix and match the tours, some Eq. some non Eq. and continue to advertise it as "Broadway Series"?

As a reviewer, I have to sometimes cross the Equity picket line into the theater. I cover shows, knowing they are non-Eq. I sometimes feel obligated to let readers know that I am reviewing a non-equity show. However, I choose my words carefully. I do not wish to insult the actors, nor the venue but also need to tell the truth.

The latest Oliver! show is a prime example. The involment of MacIntosh really made eyebrows rise, especially since the tour is getting overall lame reviews as people expected this to be an equity show with CM's tradmark on it.

So, who's responsible to set things straight? Or does the public continue to pay top dollar for everthing that plays on their stages?

Updated On: 1/31/04 at 11:35 PM

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 1/31/04 at 11:46pm

The shows are still "Broadway" shows, so of course they can still be part of a Broadway Series. Ticket prices should be extremely lower than for an Equity production. I think it is ok for Equity and non-Equity shows to be mixed in, but they need to be obviously advertised that they are NON-EQUITY and what that means...some might not know.

[MyQueenPattiLupone]

Posted: 1/31/04 at 11:49pm

I think the public most certainly deserves to be informed if a production is Equity or not. It's their money and have every right to know what they are about to pay for. As for me, I saw the tour of Les Miserables today. I was expecting it to be the Equity, Third National Tour (correct me, if this current tour isn't the 3rd)of Les Miserables starring Randal Keith as Valjean and if it had ended up not being this tour when I was expecting it to be, you had better believe I would be furious. But of course it was, and it was a glorious show

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/1/04 at 12:02am

The question is: does it matter? As someone said in another post, just because it has Equity actors doesn't mean it's "quality". We've discussed in other posts about Idina & Kristin breaking character and fooling around in "Wicked". They are Equity and people must pay $100 on Broadway to see them. I don't consider their breaking character as "quality".

The audience knows the price of the ticket. It's up to them whether they want to pay it or stay home.

[etoile]

Posted: 2/1/04 at 12:55am

But the problem comes when these non-equity shows are literally forced fed and paid for, months and months beforehand, and without that little detail of non-equity information, in a "Broadway" subscription series. And yes, it was worth giving up my subscription/primo seats that took me years and years and years to obtain. Now if they wanted to offer these shows in addition to and at a reduced rate, then I might reconsider renewing my subscriptions.

But they way things are now, I'm still smarting from their deceptive practices. And prefer to take the money donate more to non-profits.

[ChrisLovesShows]

Posted: 2/1/04 at 1:06am

Everything etoile said. It is absolutely a deception and a scam and the public should know.

Let's take the subjective notion of "quality" completely out of it for a second.

Regardless of quality, the non-Equity tours pay the actors less so the production costs less, but when they get lumped in with the series, the prices are often the same. So, for the non-Equity tours, less of your money goes to the actors and more to line the greedy production company's pockets. That's the real scam and ripoff. And yes, PB, I think the public absolutely should be told. As a reviewer I hope you will continue to provide that very important public service.

Updated On: 2/1/04 at 01:06 AM

[TG4802]

Posted: 2/1/04 at 12:24pm

Your comments are "right on the money" (sorry). When a musical theatre piece is advertized as part of a "Broadway Series" there is obviously an assumption on the part of the consumer that what they are paying top dollar to see is from "Broadway". Since there are currently NO (and thankfully never will be any) non-equity productions on "Broadway", this is indeed a scam and in my opinion bordering on false advertizing. A production is not a Broadway Show just by virtue of being a musical.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/1/04 at 12:42pm

Was David Hasselhoff "Broadway Quality" when he did Jekyll & Hyde? Guaranteed any one doing a non equity tour would have been better. You paid Broadway prices for what was not a Broadway performer. Let people know & than let people decide. Guaranteed anyone ( including me) would have taken a non equity J/H over Hasselhoff.

Just because someone sets foot on a Broadway stage does not make them Broadway caliber . Conversely , just because someone is non equity does not make that person a non quality performer.

[MyQueenPattiLupone]

Posted: 2/1/04 at 12:49pm

I don't think the general problem is the "talent" or people don't want to see a performer who hasn't been on Broadway. What the real issue is that often times there isn't a distinction of whether or not a show is or is not Equity and people should know what they are paying for. It's your money, you should not have to pay for a ticket blindly. And of course there is the issue that non-Equity prices are just as high as Equity, so once again, the public shouldn't have to pay the same price.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/1/04 at 12:50pm

Chris, it is not the audience's decision to decide how much a producer makes.

There is no copyright on what "Broadway" is. It is an idea that is generated in the minds of people but doesn't hold a guarantee with it.

People told me all the time how wonderful Florida was and how great it was to vacation there. When I went, it didn't live up to my expectations. Do I complain to the airline that took me there that Florida wasn't everything I thought it was? Of course not.

[chasing_rainbows43]

Posted: 2/1/04 at 1:14pm

I think the public should be told.

I have tickets for THE FULL MONTY on Tuesday at NJPAC, which were purchased some time again under the notion that it was an equity tour. Although the show itself is fantastic, there were certain performers on the tour who greatly affected by decision to get those tickets. NJPAC made no move at all to give advanced notice that the company they were presenting would be non-equity. I have nothing against non-eq actors in the least and don't think that this production would suffer in quality as such, however when those tickets were purchased, it was with intent to see the equity touring cast of the show.

NJPAC will not refund those tickets. Coincidentally, anyone who's interested in them can PM or email me....

[ChrisLovesShows]

Posted: 2/1/04 at 3:05pm

Gotham, don't understand your statement at all. It is absolutely the audience's decision to decide how much a producer makes by deciding whether or not to buy a ticket. Again, taking the notion of quality (or "expectations" as you say) out of the argument, I personally would rather pay $50 for a ticket to an Equity production and know that more of that money goes to the actors than pay $50 for a production that I know cost less and give more of my money to the producers. My choice.

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 2/1/04 at 3:19pm

Should the audience be informed? Yes.

Will the majority of the general public seeing the production know what that implies? I would guess not.

Should the audience pay as much for a non-Equity show and an Equity show? No!

Living in Chicago, we have a wide spectrum of productions. I've seen non-Equity productions which were extraordinary and I've seen Equity production that were plain awful.

[chinkie azn jai]

Posted: 2/1/04 at 5:15pm

I think it should be manditory that Non-equity tours should be marketed that way. Though the talent is there, sometimes the sets and effects is way different from broadway or equity (ie. 42nd street tour). Though someone new to theatre might not care or might not kno the difference between the two the educated theatre goer would like to know. (ie ME) I also agree about the lower price.

[lysie1103]

Posted: 2/1/04 at 6:09pm

I run a performing arts series for my university and due to budget and technical constraints, we book non-Equity. We're also a definite "B" market.

From talking to our audience, most of them have no idea what Actor's Equity is, much less what it does. A show is a show in many areas and ours is one of them. And like has been mentioned before, you can get a non-Equity show that is a complete gem and a disappointing Equity production. It's really all in the cards.

In terms of publicizing Equity or non-Equity, all that would happen is a confused audience. As I said before, most don't know what Equity is and even once they know, they look at me and ask, "So what's the difference?" Most theatregoers are casual participants, involved in the event but not in the industry. It seems that the distinction exists mainly in the minds of those in the industry.

I agree that Equity is a wonderful organization and is much needed. However, without non-Equity tours, these "B" markets are going to be deprived of the bits of culture available to those on an already small budget. There has to be some kind of middle ground.

[Broadwaylilhead]

Posted: 2/1/04 at 6:35pm

The average theatre going patron across the US does not equity from non-equity and as someone mentioned, equity does not always mean it's a better show. I have some extremely talented friends in non-equity shows. Actors want to work and until actors stop coming forward to audition and accept non-equity roles, producers will continue to send them out and save costs to make more money.