Non-Equity Tours: Should the Public be told?

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

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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....

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.

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.