Thursday, October 30, 2003

Unions on the Road?

Prominent members of Actors' Equity held a rally in Times Square yesterday to protest the plethora of non-union tours. A couple of quick thoughts:

1. What should Equity do? Seems like their only options are a) maintain the structure of the touring contract, insist that all tours should be Equity, and accept that most tours will continue to hire non-union actors or b) lower the costs of the current contract across the board by reducing salaries and benefits, thus penalizing the very members that can least afford it. I'd venture that b) is the better option, as the tours will still have the Equity imprint, and actors will have at least some protection from unethical producers, but Equity will have a hard time selling that to its members. They've had enough resistance reducing salaries on a case-by-case basis.

2. Why doesn't the public care about the Equity status of a tour? Lots of reasons, but the main one is that, many times, there is no discernable difference in quality. Why should there be? Equity is union for professional actors, which signifies only that the actors get paid for their work (and are unable to take non-paying gigs except with Equity's permission) and that the actors have been hired for previous Equity productions. You don't need to have a certain amount of positive reviews or pass a quality test or anything. Of course, the process of being hired for a professional production does tend to separate the wheat from the chaff, but there's no reason why a non-union actor would be any less talented than an Equity actor. Hell, Heather Graham is an Equity actor. Another factor in the apathy of the public is summed up in these sentences:

"For a union tour, an actor can make, with benefits and travel, about $2,300 a week.
The non-union salary comes in at around $700 a week."

How many people do you know making $119,600 a year? How 'bout $36,400? Not me. Not a lot of my friends. Equity bases their salary demands on the fact that actors seldom work year-round, and therefore an actor making $2,000 a week may only take home $24,000 because he worked on a 12-week tour. I think Equity would get a lot farther with this argument if they pointed out that the $700 reduced salary also has to cover room and board (in many cases), and also needs to pay the rent back in New York or LA or wherever home is. A lot of non-union actors lose money by going on tour, but they take the gig because they need the exposure.

3. Producers don't want to pay union rates because they say that it's impossible to make money of a tour paying those salaries, especially one with a large cast. However, if a star goes out on the road (and I mean a current star, not Ann-Margret), would audiences pay more to see her? Would they pay hgher ticket prices? Would the big-name actors who rallied in NYC agree to commit to a US tour following their Broadway appearances, thus guaranteeing union work for their less-fortunate chorus brethren? (This practice used to be quite common, but has pretty much died out due to the economics of film and television. Or, to translate, more money in Hollywood.) Some shows tour well without stars, but imagine how well even old chestnuts would do with some bonafide big names...

Wednesday, October 29, 2003

Accentuate the Positive, Eliminate the Negative

At the end of another snarky (or bitchy) piece by the New York Post's Michael Riedel, there's mention of a new twist on an old game. Apparently, instead of merely inflating the amount of ticket sales on a flop, producers are now also stealthily "lowering" the production costs.

So how much will Taboo end up costing? Current estimates say $10 million. I'll keep you posted.

"Death" and the Turner Prize

Yesterday's Guardian has an interesting analysis of this year's Turner Prize winner, and of "shock art" in general. "Death," a bronze sculpture by Jake and Dinos Chapman depicting oral sex and a vibrator, took the honors this year. (I wonder what sort of hits I'll get from that sentence?)

I didn't know the Turner Prize had an age restriction on its nominees. Wouldn't it be better to honor artists who have had a lifetime to develop their craft? I'm not saying that young artists don't produce prizeworthy works, but automatically excluding anyone over 50 makes the prize about youth, not about art.

If you'd like to see more work from the trendy Young British Artists (jauntily known as YBAs), check out this online gallery. It even has Giuiliani's favorite, The Blessed Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili. Oh, for the days when elephant dung was the most pressing news item!

Friday, October 24, 2003

Conservative Christmas Gift?

If someone special in your life thinks all liberals are treasonous, buy them the new talking Ann Coulter doll.

When you press her button, she says one of 14 stock phrases. Much like the real Ann C.

Your Trident, Sir.

Apparently, no one's listening to me as I rant away about the pletora of film-to-musical adaptations. The newest kid on the block? Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

Potential plusses:

1. David Yazbeck wrote a kick-ass score for The Full Monty. Hopefully, he can repeat his accomplishment.

2. DRS will be reuniting Norbert Leo Butz and Sherri Rene Scott, which is always a good thing. Add Denis O'Hare, and you've got a cast worth seeing.

Potential minuses:

1. Does Dirty Rotten Scoundrels sing? It's possible that some Cole Porter/40s-style songs would play nicely, but it depends on how the book goes, and if the writers keep the light-but-serious fun of the movie.

2. I am so over Brian Stokes Mitchell. There - I've said it. Liked him in King Hedley II, but his comedic style was too broad for Fred in Kiss Me, Kate. I would think the "Michael Caine role" would require a lighter touch.

Fair warning: if anyone sings a song entitled "Oklahoma! Oklahoma!" in this musical, I will cry.

Message from the Big Guy

Dear Mel,

I am not amused.

Sincerely,
God

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

Githoniel! O Elbereth!

Lord of the Rings: The Musical finally has a song team - it's an Indian composer and a Finnish folk group.

According to the article, there are now four separate composers/groups working on the score. Too many cooks...?

Then again, you can't beat the Bollywood/Finnish folk hybrid. Or so I've been told.