Country discrimination

Dave19
#1Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 7:32am

I have noticed that the West End welcomes performers from all over the world. For example, I believe there are 30 different nationalities in the current cast of Miss Saigon. They just like to hire the best people, it doesn't matter if they are British, Dutch, German, or American. Some of them don't even have a European passport.

 

Now, I remember when Miss Saigon came to Broadway in the 90's, "Equity" in the USA were hyperventilating that Lea and Jonathan Pryce came to play the roles. They were not welcome. It became a very nasty story, to the point where Cameron wanted to stop the transfer of the show. Same story for Phantom with Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman.

 

(Now, this post is not about the ridiculous race discrimination of Equity, because the barring of Mr. Pryce was insupportable on every level. By refusing to permit a white actor to play a Eurasian role, Equity made a mockery of the hard-won principles of non-traditional casting and practices a hypocritical reverse racism.

Even if there were some credible intellectual rationale (and formula) for an Equity policy calling for single-race exclusivity in the casting of some roles and complete racial freedom in the casting of others, Equity could hardly have picked a worse example to argue the case than the Engineer in 'Miss Saigon.)

 

So let's not get into Equity's race discrimination too much now, let's get into the problem of Equity's "country discrimination". Do they have a problem with the fact that Jon Jon Briones and Eva Noblezada performed on the West End? If not, why do they have a double agenda? If they do, what is the solution? Taking European actors to the Broadway transfer in exchange? Also, do they have a problem with Jon Jon and Eva transferring to Broadway? What if Eva was from the Philippines?

 

I think having a double agenda in this case is inexcusable.

Updated On: 11/25/15 at 07:32 AM

Hamilton22 Profile Photo
Hamilton22
#2Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 7:46am

Yes I remember all too well how terrible the Broadway community treated Miss Saigon when it played in the US. The Tony voters were particularly nasty. The whole cast of Miss Saigon knew they weren't going to win their deserved best musical tony because of Broadway's xenophobia and irrational biased. 

Updated On: 11/25/15 at 07:46 AM

Dave19
#3Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 7:52am

I am not saying the whole community supported this discrimination, because clearly they had more humanic views. I am talking about Equity. (why is it even called Equity?)

Obviously the Tony judges just judged the performances.

I think the producers of a show should get to decide whoever plays a role, not matter from what country the person is. It's their show. Because the rest of the show and everything around it will also employ Americans anyway. I also think this should change in the film world too.

temms Profile Photo
temms
#4Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 7:57am

Actor's Equity exists to protect its members' interests, those members being American actors.  There is an exchange program with British Equity - there needs to be an equal number of Americans on British contracts (Gavin Creel in "Book of Mormon" recently, for example) as there are Brits on American contracts.  There are also immigration/green card regulations that Equity has no jurisdiction over.  

 

Candian Equity and American Equity are sister unions so there is no issue of parity - American producers can hire Candians however much they like and vice versa.  Federal requirements regarding employment eligibility still have to be met.

 

Otherwise, a producer can apply to for permission to hire a foreigner if one of two conditions are met: the person in question is a "bona fide star performer", which has some grey area. (Daniel Radcliffe, obviously. Elaine Paige? Probably. Imelda Staunton? I don't know, that one might have to be an exchange if she came over in "Gypsy".) Also if the performer in question is doing something unique and no American performer can be found with the same skills. 

 

The British theatre scene is much smaller than the American - population-wise you can't even begin to compare.  It makes sense that they'd want to expand their number of performers.  NYC doesn't have that problem.  And besides, they do cast internationally very often (Elena Rogers, Bertie Carvel) particularly when a show has a stringent ethnic requirement ("Bombay Dreams", for instance.)

 

It seems to me like you're making an issue where one doesn't exist.  American Labor Unions exist to protect the rights of American workers.  There are plenty of international festivals and events where foreign performers are showcased here.  The "Saigon" controversy has nothing to do with that, and you'll have to take it up with the community of Asian artists (like David Henry Hwang, who you dismiss as "ridiculous"Country discrimination who have a stake in how their ethnicity is presented on the professional American stage.  You'd have more success citing the battle to refuse Sarah Brightman a few years earlier, which Equity ended up losing.

 

Do you have some specific examples of Broadway performers who you feel should be replaced by foreigners?

 

Hamilton22 Profile Photo
Hamilton22
#5Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 8:00am

It wasn't just equity. Broadway producers made a stink about yet  another British mega musical coming in and sweeping the tonys. Americans felt threatened by Miss Saigon and wanted to keep the illusion that they were  better than the brits at making musicals. Everyone in town liked Miss Saigon, but no one was about to let it win it's deserved best musical title. So the award went to the excessively patriotic Will Rogers musical. 

Updated On: 11/25/15 at 08:00 AM

Dave19
#6Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 8:12am

temms said: "It seems to me like you're making an issue where one doesn't exist.   

.....the battle to refuse Sarah Brightman a few years earlier, which Equity ended up losing."

 

I see your point, but my point is that (the Lea, Sarah or Eva cases) should never be a problem.

If a person is best for a role or the producers choose a person because they want him/her, they should have that possibility, without an exchange project. It's their production, and doing Phantom or Miss Saigon on Broadway has provided work for a lot of Americans compared to not doing the show at all. Equity should be more about people than about patriotism. Especially when it is about acting.

 

 

 

Updated On: 11/25/15 at 08:12 AM

temms Profile Photo
temms
#7Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 8:23am

And I disagree.  There are programs in place for producers to bring in non-resident performers if they want, but I think the American professional theatre should be primarily employing Americans and a labor union is right to insist on that.  Again, there are still Green Card and other eligibility issues on using foreign performers beyond Equity's rules.  INS has some strong opinions on this matter.

 

Not that you would have any way of knowing this, but I have been on the producer side of this.  A number of years back a production I was writing/producing wanted to use a semi-famous non-American in a Showcase production and Equity told us no.  They were wrong, and their reasoning was completely spurious on a lot of points.  We ultimately prevailed after British Equity stepped in and argued on our behalf.  So I am all too aware of how it can be abused on the Equity side.

 

Nevertheless, I understand why those regulations are in place even if I have come up against them myself.  It sucks being a professional actor, and anything that can be done to ease the plight of people who are trying to earn a living in this country doing it we should be doing.  A healthy ecosystem of performers is necessary to keep the work going.  Ensuring that American jobs in America are given first shot to Americans is a perfectly reasonable thing for a union to fight for.

Dave19
#8Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 8:31am

I understand.

 

I think it's just disappointing. And it's about principles.

 

If British equity would think and act like that, they did not have to use 30 nationalities in Miss Saigon, or that many Americans in other shows.

 

And if American equity was consistent in their behaviour, they would insist on having at least 2 Europeans in the Miss saigon cast next year too, as exchange for the work Eva and Jon Jon did in Europe. It's a principle matter.

 

It's like certain types of religion to me. Spreading is perfect, but everything else that comes in has to be excluded. It's more about patriotism than it is about casting.

 

Updated On: 11/25/15 at 08:31 AM

temms Profile Photo
temms
#9Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 8:41am

It's not about patriotism, it's about economics.  Equity doesn't fight for this for some ideological purity reason, they do it because they are trying to help ensure their members earn a decent living.  I'm certain that there are compensatory contracts for the "Miss Saigon" leads in the UK - they don't have to be the same show.  For every West End contract going to an American, there needs to be a Production Contract given to a Brit.  Tam Matu, for instance, played the lead in "Zhivago" despite not being American Equity.  There's one of your two from last season.  And they brought over the lead of "Color Purple".  It doesn't seem to me that Producers are being hamstrung by the primary insistence that they hire in-country.

 

Also, it wasn't American Equity insisting that those performers do "Miss Saigon", it was the Producers of the show.  Same as the Broadway "Matilda" producers and "Zhivago" producers and "Color Purple" producers who were allowed to hire the person they wanted for the role, regardless of nationality.

 

If you're arguing that there are ensemble tracks that have gone to less-capable performers due to these rules and it wouldn't have happened if the casting pool were expanded to include non-resident aliens, there I disagree with you.  Again, there are Green Card issues well beyond any Equity jurisdiction.  The US Department Of Labor has a stake in insuring that Americans remain employed.  Broadway is a business in the end, and I suspect that's where we fundamentally differ because I accept that as part of the bargain.

 

 

Updated On: 11/25/15 at 08:41 AM

LarryD2
#10Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 8:56am

The OP doesn't seem to be aware that Jon Jon Briones and Eva Noblezada are U.S. citizens. So...there's that.

Updated On: 11/25/15 at 08:56 AM

AEA AGMA SM
#11Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 9:13am

As soon as the OP threw the "reverse racism" card into his original post it became clear that this is just his attempt to resurrect the now locked (and deleted?) recent color-blind casting/racism thread.

Dave19
#12Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 9:15am

Of course I'm aware. But that's my whole point.

 

Yes, there are Greencard/government issues as well.

 

I think that after the initial cast of Miss Saigon on Broadway, they never had a good Kim. Voice or type-wise. That could have harmed the run of the show, and cost many Americans work.That's economics too.

 

LarryD2
#13Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 9:22am

Of course I'm aware. But that's my whole point.

 

Then your whole point is constructed on faulty ground. AEA cannot bar American actors and union members from performing on Broadway, and the idea that they would try to bar American actors from appearing on Broadway because they also appeared in the West End is patently absurd. But then again, so is nearly everything you've written in this thread.

Dave19
#14Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 9:26am

AEA AGMA SM said: "As soon as the OP threw the "reverse racism" card into his original post it became clear that this is just his attempt to resurrect the now locked (and deleted?) recent color-blind casting/racism thread."

 

Color blind reading. It is about a different subject, like I said.

 

Dave19
#15Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 9:28am

temms said: "Also, it wasn't American Equity insisting that those performers do "Miss Saigon", it was the Producers of the show. "

 

But it was American Equity who insisted on NOT having them in the show.

 

The producers just wanted the best people, it's just that back then one was Asian and now she's not.

 

Updated On: 11/25/15 at 09:28 AM

Kad Profile Photo
Kad
#16Country discrimination
Posted: 11/25/15 at 10:11am

There is no point in engaging with Dave19 in any of his fantastic delusions.


"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Updated On: 11/25/15 at 10:11 AM

Dave19
#17Country discrimination
Posted: 11/26/15 at 4:29pm

What's a delusion? That Miss Saigon UK has 30 nationalities? That Miss Saigon broadway probably won't? That all the Broadway Kim's after Lea were not so good? That Equity in 1991 did not want Lea? That bad/mediocre Kim's could have harmed the run of the show? That that had consequences for work of Americans involved in the show?

Do you homework first, Then speak.

 

The producers want someone for a reason. Best casting above patriotism. And the first has more influence on economics.

#18Country discrimination
Posted: 11/26/15 at 8:40pm

I was recently reading the book Nothing Like a Dame in particular the chapter interviewing Donna Mckechnie and it mentioned that she faced a similar situation with the original London production of A Chorus Line. She was originally hired to reprise her role in the London transfer of the show but producers pulled her under pressure from London Equity and Vanessa Redgrave who organized protests and paid nonworking actors a pound each to show up at British Equity and vote Donna out of the country. There isn't much dedicated in the book to it. Ms. Mckechnie is too gracious of a person to dwell on the negativity. What surprises me is how little there is online about it. Does anyone have any insight about the debacle? 

 

Phyllis Rogers Stone
#19Country discrimination
Posted: 11/26/15 at 9:27pm

I think part of the fracas was that she replaced the British actress who was originally cast as Cassie. 

Updated On: 11/27/15 at 09:27 PM

gypsy101 Profile Photo
gypsy101
#20Country discrimination
Posted: 11/26/15 at 10:00pm

Dave19 said: "That bad/mediocre Kim's could have harmed the run of the show? That that had consequences for work of Americans involved in the show?"

 

The show ran for like 10 years, I'm sure it was fine.


"Contentment, it seems, simply happens. It appears accompanied by no bravos and no tears."

FindingNamo
#21Country discrimination
Posted: 11/26/15 at 10:39pm

Do we think he meant country matters?


Twitter @NamoInExile Instagram none

Phyllis Rogers Stone
#22Country discrimination
Posted: 11/26/15 at 11:50pm

Do you think Dave19 gets a boner when he posts?

Jane2 Profile Photo
Jane2
#23Country discrimination
Posted: 11/27/15 at 12:13am

^ He must. After that epic, mammoth, hot mess of the other thread, to start in again with the same topic? it must be exciting for him.


<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES

Phyllis Rogers Stone
#24Country discrimination
Posted: 11/27/15 at 12:16am

And on American Thanksgiving!  This thread is terrorism. 

FindingNamo
#25Country discrimination
Posted: 11/27/15 at 12:17am

I get the occasional kick in the demimonde, but even I can't figure what's exciting about this drone!


Twitter @NamoInExile Instagram none