actor vs stagehand

And your point is...

?

Actors might have things in their contract that the stagehands don't, and vice versa. So? Why does it have to be a 'vs' situation anyway? Different departments have different talents, contracts and responsibilities on the show. Without any one of them, the show doesn't happen, and that's what is important.

yup.

I'd also add when they're all marching around holding venti Starbucks drinks, they can't be hurting for money that badly.

And yes, I saw that on 45th street the other night. Maybe one guy didn't have one.

---

I saw all but about one person on the picket lines drinking them. I'm just saying they're not cheap...so don't go whining about money if you can afford Starbucks.

And yes, I'd say the same if it had been Dunkin Donuts coffee or McDonalds food or anything. Bring your own coffee in a thermos if money is LEGITIMATELY a problem.

---

Updated On: 11/25/07 at 08:52 AM

And besides, who are you to tell people how to spend their money? People can use it on whatever they want, regardless of how much they're making.

---

I'm guessing that most stagehand work ends when you walk out the door at the end of the day.

Actors in musicals (for example) warm up and exercise their voices at home, take (and pay for) voice lessons, memorize scripts and script changes, and so forth. Many of those who have very physically demanding roles also work with trainers--usually on their own time.

It's not an exact correlation, but in my view actors (and musicians) are akin to teachers who spend many hours preparing for (and later evaluating) a "performance" (classroom time). That public "performance" is just the visible tip of a much larger time-and-effort iceberg that is necessary but often invisible. A friend of mine who used to be a teacher quit a year and a half ago to work for the government. She never takes work home (can't, for security reasons) and gets paid for every minute of overtime she works. (And--and this is off-topic, but I'm saying it anyway to forestall comments on this aspect, which would really take this thread off-topic--she says she doesn't miss the time off in the summer because she never gets tired enough to "need" it). It's true that those of us in teaching--or acting, or other professions that require a great deal off "off the clock, unpaid" work--did know that it would be required of us before we "signed on"; I'm not intending this post as a "poor me" complaint. I'm also not denigrating stagehands and their contributions, just responding to your complaint about the pay differential as you see it.

And why the heck is this thread called "actor vs stagehand"? Is there some kind of war going on somewhere that hasn't been advertised? Last time I checked, they both wanted to get back to work.

Updated On: 11/25/07 at 11:09 AM

Please STOP THE INSANITY-

Did nobody read my post earlier? Actors should be given a gold medal for their work. They aren't paid enough and yes, stagehands ARE paid quite well. Let's thank the actors for supporting the stagehands and stop all of the silly comparisons. We can only survive this with solidarity not divisiveness.