boycotting non-equity tours.

[kyle.]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 2:01pm

the following is an email i received from a friend in the broadway community. she received it from a friend of hers in the current les mis tour. i not posting this to start fights, i live in michigan and understand both sides. people who dont live in new york want to go see tours if they are equity or not because that might be their only chance to see that show. im just passing information along. its information a lot of us already know but, hey, it couldnt hurt to say it again.


AN OPEN LETTER TO THEATREGOERS EVERYWHERE

Dear fellow theatre lovers,

Professional theatre has a problem. And unfortunately, it affects you, the theater-going public.

For decades, every actor on a Broadway stage (or in a touring company of a Broadway show) had to be a member of the stage actors union, the Actors Equity Association. And that made sense. Because Broadway shows are state-of-the-art, top-of-the-line productions. That's what you pay for when you see one of these shows - the very best of what theatre has to offer.

Actors would struggle for years, paying their dues, to get their
Equity cards and join the ranks of the top-notch professionals. The idea was that not just anyone could be in a big Broadway show. You had to have achieved union status. That was the mark of the professional actor.

But in recent years, Broadway producers have figured out a way to save money by doing something rather alarming: They've started sending out tours of Broadway shows with entirely non-union casts!

Many of the performers you're currently seeing in so-called
"Broadway" tours are young, inexperienced amateurs. For some of them, it's their first professional job - the start of their career. They're not seasoned Broadway actors. In fact, they couldn't be on Broadway, because they're not in the union yet.

Of course, the producers don't tell you, the ticket buyer, about any of this. They don't indicate it in any of the advertising. In fact, they often bill the show as "Direct from Broadway," "Broadway's Best," or "The Broadway Series." We in the stage actors union think that's false advertising. We think you're being cheated. You'll notice they haven't lowered their ticket prices.

But worse than that, we're concerned for the future of theatre.
Theatre needs audiences. And the more audiences are disappointed with these so-called "Broadway" productions (by the way, they also scale down the scenery and eliminate crew positions), the more they'll go elsewhere for entertainment. If that happens, then everyone, including the non-union actors, will lose.

The last thing we union actors want is for an audience member to say "I saw a Broadway tour, and it really wasn't that good." At 80-100 bucks a seat, you deserve to see the very best possible stage entertainment. You deserve to see actors who have paid their dues, honed their craft, and become members of the union.

OK, that's the background on the situation. Here, in simple practical terms, is what you can do. And it's really not hard:

Before you buy a ticket to a touring show, call the theatre and ask whether or not the cast is Equity. If the actors are not Equity members, don't buy tickets. If the person at the box office isn't sure, don't buy tickets. And be sure to tell the theatre that you only see Equity tours.

It's as simple as that. You'll be doing us, yourselves, and the
theatre an enormous favor. Our interest is in preserving Broadway's reputation and in preserving the dignity and elegance of our profession.

Oh, one more thing. We're trying to educate our public, so please pass this letter along.

As always, I want to take the opportunity to thank you for choosing live theatre. There's really nothing like it.

Michael Kostroff
Proud union member
(Currently touring in the all-Equity cast of Les Misérables)

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 2:15pm

So it's ok if it's Union actors putting on a crappy performance?

[Matt_G]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 2:19pm

The problem is that most places in America don't get Equity tours close to them. Where I lived in Florida, it was a 3 hour drive to see an Equity show and I'm not about to drive 6 hours back and forth to see one production.
You just can't ask people to boycott shows because they are non equity. I understand the importance of it, but you are asking them to stay home instead of going to the theater. And in reality, how many people that go to see these shows even know the difference or would even care to learn? Not many.

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 2:27pm

Matt - I see what you're saying - but that is precisely why we have to educate them as to the differences, otherwise they will never know. It's like the Syms clothing advertisement - an Educated comsumer is our Best Customer.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 2:32pm

But the reality of the situation is that they just DON'T CARE. The general public could care less if the production of WEST SIDE STORY they're seeing is Equity or non Equity. I have seen some truly amazing N.E. productions and some absolutely horrid Equity productions. As long as the show is good, they don't care. And there's really no way you are going to get them to.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 2:33pm

Updated On: 5/27/05 at 02:33 PM

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 2:36pm

And how many of the actor's on "Non-equity" tours are non-equity because the union failed them? A lot are former union members who just want to work. And a lot of "Equity" tours are scaled down versions of Broadway,too. Does the first national tour of MILLIE have an evevator? No. Get real.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 2:36pm

exactly

[PitPro2004]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 2:39pm

"Many of the performers you're currently seeing in so-called
"Broadway" tours are young, inexperienced amateurs. For some of them, it's their first professional job - the start of their career. They're not seasoned Broadway actors. In fact, they couldn't be on Broadway, because they're not in the union yet"

You know, if I didn't know any better, I'd take a wee bit of offense to this.

Everyone has to start somewhere and heck, even Broadway shows have non union calls so as to see what the talent pool is if they are not happy with Equity calls.

Furthermore, in my non union touring days, I am proud to say that the actors in my show were wonderful, if not *better* than some of their forefathers who played their roles on Broadway. Non union does not mean untalented, it just means getting screwed economically.

If Michael Kostroff wants to take umbrage at the producers calling it "Direct from Broadway" that's fine. But to constantly harp on the so-called un-professional, no talent, haven't paid their dues NON UNION actors is really starting to grate my nerves a bit.

John Popa was correct...even Equity people can suck in a performance and I have seen enough Broadway shows to know he's right.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 2:40pm

I think it would help if non-equity shows would just not bill as "Direct from Broadway" or "Broadway Series." That's it.

Non-equity isn't BAD theatre, for example the latest SEUSSICAL tour was non-equity and it was rather good. I have seen the Broadway production and the first Equity National Tour. The Equity tour was so much better than Broadway, IMHO. They changed a lot of the show and it worked so much better. But for the Non-Equity tour, I could tell the budget was less, and the production of the show wasn't as good as it's previous ones. The actors were great, and it was still the same show, just not as good. It WAS misleading to have it billed as "Direct From Broadway!" and the person I saw the show with agreed. It was not "direct from Broadway" as it was a different show, that we enjoyed less, but paid the same amount of money for when we saw the first tour.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 2:44pm

Please take the time to read the AEA CONTRACT thread now that the MILLIE letter is posted in part (thank you, Zola) and also read the MISS SIAGON TOUR thread. These all are connected and add a great deal of insite to the problem.

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 2:53pm

I earned a good deal of my credits doing both Equity regional theatre and non-equity tours. I can see both sides of this story. I'd never have been able to do a couple of the tours I did had I been equity at the time, but I wouldn't trade my equity status for anything now (though I think the union is not doing its best to take care of us). This is a tough issue, but I must say that I agree completely with the cast of Millie in their letter.

[ckeaton]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 2:58pm

If Michael Kostroff wants to take umbrage at the producers calling it "Direct from Broadway" that's fine. But to constantly harp on the so-called un-professional, no talent, haven't paid their dues NON UNION actors is really starting to grate my nerves a bit.

I agree 100%.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 3:02pm

I'm sorry, but at this point I have yet to see a non-equity tour that didn't match and in some cases out do that of an equity tour. I mean in all honesty equity is like a colt and this entire issue is rather stupid. Go see a regional theatre production and you will see a non-equity cast and often time the young, fresh beginners making their debuts far out do the jaded talents of these so called "professionals". Just because you have an equity card does not mean you are necessarily a good performer. It just means that you are the member of a cult and nothing more. Perhaps if I see one of these "bad" equity shows I'll feel differently but for me a non-equity tour is a touring regional theatre production and that can be thrilling. If equity members are afraid of being put out of the job then they should be. Broadway should always be equity, but the rest of the U.S. has always been non-equity regional theatre. I don't see a problem with that.

[ckeaton]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 3:04pm

Actually, I've never been to a regoinal theatre that wasn't under an equity contract.

I currently work at a LORT theatre that is fiercely Equity.
Careful with the term "regional".

Updated On: 6/2/04 at 03:04 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 3:13pm

Well, for me in San Diego regional theatre is always non-equity with the occasional use of an equity member out of contract for a lead part. I just saw a regional performance of SOUTH PACIFIC and that was all non-equity with the exception of Bloody Mary. Which I'm sorry, but being surrounded by non-equity performers she didn't stand out as being anything special. This cast rocked, though. They were all extremly talented. Where does one draw the line?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 3:16pm

The current NON Equity company of CATS is coming through Austin this summer. My mother's boss is taking her grandaughter.. who LOVES Cats (God helps us all)... she shelled out 85 dollars A PIECE!!!!! for orchestra seats. I told her that she got ripped off.. NO sane person should pay that for a non equity tour!

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 3:17pm

And be careful with the world Cult. As an equity member - I resent that statement. I believe non-equity productions can be wonderful - I was in quite a few myself before earning the right to join the union, and I believe that there is good work done on both sides of the coin. But please don't call ALL equity actors members of a "cult".

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 3:18pm

I think the major problem is that these non-equity shows are presented as Broadway in ________ and the theaters often charge just as much as they would for an Eq show. A couple of friends of mine, who would definitely fall into the "just don't know or care" about the issue category, saw the non-Eq Oklahoma! the other night and told me it was "the worst thing they've ever seen in their lives." I asked them if they knew it was non-Equity (this isn't something they look for or think about) and they said no. But they hated it. HATED IT.

That's not good for developing new audiences.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 3:22pm

Yeah.. it REALLY irks me when they put in the "Direct From Broadway" series and such...

NO IT'S NOT!

[junglered]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 3:39pm

I have really enjoyed this thread and reading the inspired opinions of our BWW members. There are no easy answers here, but I concur that a blanket "boycott" by theatre patrons of Non-Equity tours that come to their hometown is ill advised. Oftentimes, the choice of these patrons is to see an Non-Equity touring show or no show at all. We need more folks excited about going to live theatre, not less.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 3:48pm

broadwayguy2, no sane person would pay $85.00 to see CATS period, apart from the union involvement.

Namo, did your friends say it was the CAST that ruined OKLAHOMA!? Perhpaps they just thought OK was the worst peice of theatre ever put onstage. Many might agree.

[ckeaton]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 3:48pm

True Statements:

• We need more folks excited about going to live theatre, not less.
  
• I think the major problem is that these non-equity shows are presented as Broadway in ________ and the theaters often charge just as much as they would for an Eq show.
  
• ...there is good work done on both sides of the coin.
  

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 3:55pm

Saying "direct form Broadway" is no different from when a non-equity regional theatre puts on a licensed Broadway show and uses the Broadway logo. That's false advertisement too, but MTI encourages the use of the official logos. Why? You sell more tickets.


Even so, I can't take this issue seriously when I read letters written by equity actors asking me to protest their competition. That's pretty vile. This is how we act professional???

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/2/04 at 3:56pm

hmmm...I just want to see talented people. If you're amazing and it's your first show, kudos to you...if you're vet and hacking through each line, you need to find a different job. I don't care whether you're carrying a card that proves you're a member of some club.

I'll pay what what the prices are and if I don't feel like it's worth the big bucks I'll sit in the last row, balcony. Problem solved.