Posted: 8/18/16 at 12:39pm
Posted: 8/18/16 at 12:50pm
TonyVincent said: "Free market capitalists and union supporters have both expressed themselves clearly with a manageable amount of snark and condescension. Neither of these sides will ever make a point that will convince the other side, so maybe it's best to move on :)"
I'm actually the exact opposite of a capitalist. It's why I don't care that people can't buy a house from play-acting on a stage. But you're right, it's pointless to keep arguing about it.
Posted: 8/18/16 at 12:52pm
A Director said: "Is it correct to assume the backstage crew for a non-union production is also non-union? If so, this is an example of producer greed."
No, that's not a correct assumption. Most non-Equity tours still employ an IATSE touring crew, and some use AFM musicians. Most of the production companies have standing collective bargaining agreements with these unions, but AEA contracts are on a show-by-show basis.
Yes, RENT may be a "perfect show to cast non-union" because the characters are young. But they could hold open casting calls, find those same ideal actors, and hire them under AEA contracts and treat them fairly. Not to say that in this particular case the actors will not be treated fairly, but they certainly will be missing out on some legally-binding contractual protections.
Posted: 8/18/16 at 2:10pm
Yes, Trp, the actors are missing their piece of the pie. The piece that they received for the last seventy years. The piece that allows them to pay their college loans back, not live with their parents and someday be professional actors. That pie has gotten huge in the last ten years and the actor's portion had sunk to about 33% of what it once was.
Clearly Hork does not understand the ramifications of this or that actors should be paid for "play acting on the stage" at the top levels of their profession a greater salary than a NYC waiter would make.
Thanks for trying though ....
Updated On: 8/18/16 at 02:10 PM
Posted: 8/18/16 at 3:47pm
Yeah, thanks for trying Trp, because it's super important that I agree with Mike Costa on how much money actors should be making.
Posted: 8/18/16 at 8:15pm
hork said: "Yeah, thanks for trying Trp, because it's super important that I agree with Mike Costa on how much money actors should be making."
I don't particularly care if you agree with him or not, and your mind is clearly made up. Just stating facts.
Posted: 8/18/16 at 11:43pm
Oh, I know. I'm just teasing Mike for his "thanks for trying" comment.
Posted: 9/17/16 at 8:58pm
Well, this is a bummer. I have never seen Rent, and would like to see it. But I don't want to pay big bucks for a non-Equity production where the actors are getting the shaft, and I might be too. That would annoy me a lot more than just seeing a show I didn't like.
It's one thing to see a smaller-scale and less expensive production, and pay less as a result. I saw a nice version of In the Heights this summer, paid less than $100 for three tickets for their Opening Night.
Rent seems like the sort of show that doesn't require experienced Broadway talent to succeed, but that seems like an excuse. I guess the version that comes to San Francisco would have behind-the-scenes union workers and non-union performers onstage? I haven't seen the ticket prices yet, but my guess is that it won't be any cheaper than, say, The King and I, which will be presumably be scaled down from the New York version but still has some top-flight performers who presumably aren't working for non-union wages.
Posted: 10/3/16 at 5:58pm
bear88, I just saw the tour a few times this week. I'm someone that's extremely happy when I can see the show in any capacity, but I can still be objective and have high expectations. 
Having seen the original cast and everything in between, I'll say I was more than happy with this production. You can tell a lot of the original creative team is involved - for it's the closest I've felt to what I remember loving about it in '97...from the costumes, character movement, set design, high energy of people thrilled to be there, etc. There are some stand-out performances, and I'm sure people could pick apart a few things with a couple of people - but nothing major - and as a group vocally? They are outstanding. I felt like I had my show back, and I don't say that lightly.
*edited to say some of the cast members and said several cast members from the first few years of the Broaday cast had been around to help coach. They are truly trying to do justice to this anniversary tour.
Updated On: 10/3/16 at 05:58 PM
Posted: 2/16/17 at 8:58pm
Anyone else seen this recently? Never seen Rent tbh but excited to see this production!
Posted: 2/17/17 at 3:03am
just back from seeing rent tour in san francisco for second time in a week...kudos to everyone that put this very energetic and passionate production.together
i was worried when i read non equity
dont worry, this cast and production delivers
the audiences went bananas again, the buzz during intermission was about five times normal volume, the standing ovation at the end was almost instantaneous and well deserved.
i was not lucky enough to the see the OBC, ive seen several tour productions back to 97....My friend I went with saw the OBC many times and also said this production was incredible
Go see this tour
I may go back sunday for one more ride on the Rent express.....
Posted: 2/19/17 at 4:22am
I saw the show Saturday night ($40 rush tickets) and didn't like it at all. But I suspect my problems had more more to do with being underwhelmed by the source material (I had never seen the show before). There are a few good performances in it (Alia Hodge has a terrific voice as Mrs. Jefferson, Katie Lamark and Jasmine Easler are both excellent as Maureen and Joanne, respectively). Others were less impressive, at least to me. The central romance was deadly dull and unnecessarily confusing. There was also a problem with the clarity of voices, which is more of a problem for someone who hasn't seen the show than for someone who knows the songs by heart.
The audience in San Francisco enjoyed it much more than I did.
One thing for sure: Seeing Rent gave me a renewed appreciation for Hedwig, which I loved at the same theatre on its tour. The latter is coherent despite its weirdness, moving, funny, and has the best rock score I have ever heard. I am certainly aware that Rent is an influential show that inspired and touched many people (including many at the show I attended), and so I'm glad I saw it for that reason. It just wasn't my thing, and it felt like a relic of another time that hasn't aged very well. This was the first time in a while when I really didn't like a show.
The fact that broadwaysfguy loved the SF show and I didn't care for the exact same show proves nothing besides our differing opinions on Rent. That's a debate that has been hashed out on this board for years, so everyone has picked a side long ago.
Updated On: 2/19/17 at 04:22 AM
