|
|
Post by floorshow on Mar 13, 2022 20:16:20 GMT
Whoever is running Jessie’s PR is getting things very very wrong. Dipping out of shows repeatedly with no explanation then filmed throwing her head back and laughing with luvvies at the BAFTAs is NOT a good look. Try to justify it all you want, try to close the discussion down all you want. It looks terrible. I saw an Oscar Lunch tweet earlier today - Jesse absent due to Cabaret commitments, except she wasn't at that either. But she was at the Baftas. I wholly agree with it not being a good look, the last bit of that Baftas clip is her laughing about not having to sing that night. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Mar 13, 2022 20:19:46 GMT
Can we just summarise and be clear here Poster J: you continue to place the mental and physical well being of individual Hollywood actors over the financial and (indirectly perhaps) mental well being of those shelling out their hard earned cash to go and see them, and coming away disappointed? Said artist is widely advertised to be part of the show but very often is not, with no public explanation for fear of offending said highly paid artist? And you think this is acceptable, ney preferable to being upfront and letting people have a refund because what they were coming for isn’t there? (But looks well enough at the BAFTA’s tonight?) Is this correct? I place the wellbeing of someone who is in their place of employment first over someone who bought a ticket for a show, yes. This has nothing to do with Buckley being a Hollywood actor, the same applies to every performer. The actor is there to do their job. The patron is there because they chose that form of entertainment. This isn't Broadway, above the title refunds aren't a thing as you well know, but whether they are or not is irrelevant because you are also making the mistake of conflating the theatre's behaviour with the performer's absence. One has control over refunds, one doesn't, yet the anger seems to be mostly directed at the one who doesn't. And sorry, but anyone who buys a ticket for anything had to appreciate that no-one in the world can guarantee the appearance of any artist in any circumstances. Things happen, unless you have a crystal ball no-one knows what will happen tomorrow. So people can be disappointed when a performer isn't on, but there seems to be some heightened sense of entitlement when it comes to star names for which people only have themselves to blame, so no, I don't have much sympathy in that respect. Buckley's appearance at the Baftas is also irrelevant - managing a vocal issue (which is the obvious guess given she is doing some but not all shows) doesn't stop her attending an event. She doesn't have to be a hermit, and Cabaret is a very small part of her career. Her being in the Baftas room makes a huge amount of sense for her career, one which may well increasingly draw her away from the stage now I suspect. If you are seriously saying that a performer's mental and/or physical wellbeing is less important than an audience member's wallet then I really have no words. That wouldn't be tolerated in most other workplaces, so why should it be here? The lack of detailed announcement is exactly the same - if she doesn't want anything said then there probably isn't much the producers can do about it, whether that is helpful for anyone's image or not. Not everyone is a fan of social media. Many of you seem to be forgetting that the bottom line here is employment law, and that and pleasing the public don't always go together. I shouldn’t reply because you’ve said nothing new. You think that the psyche (or vocal folds) of an individual artist trumps that of the collective psyche of ALL of those those who have shelled out HUNDREDS (not tens) of pounds, looked forward to it after eighteen really sh!tty months and have no opportunity to mitigate against it? Not just the money, for me it would be the upset and the ruined day. Take your employment law and stick it with your terms and conditions. This is about the producers thinking they are important enough to disappoint people without warning or consequence. Nobody would ever go anywhere if the ‘norm’ was having it altered or spoilt ‘but tough, we’re allowed to do it’. It’s not on. Defend it all you like. I favour hope, joy & looking forward to stuff over ploughing through the small print; just in case there is a bigger than average chance of some avaricious shill continually changing the advertised artists without notice or the chance of a different date. |
|
19,736 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 13, 2022 20:29:58 GMT
Whoever is running Jessie’s PR is getting things very very wrong. Dipping out of shows repeatedly with no explanation then filmed throwing her head back and laughing with luvvies at the BAFTAs is NOT a good look. Try to justify it all you want, try to close the discussion down all you want. It looks terrible. That would matter if anyone else in the world apart from people on this forum knew about her absences. They don't. I think you underestimate how many views this forum gets every day. It is a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 20:33:42 GMT
I place the wellbeing of someone who is in their place of employment first over someone who bought a ticket for a show, yes. This has nothing to do with Buckley being a Hollywood actor, the same applies to every performer. The actor is there to do their job. The patron is there because they chose that form of entertainment. This isn't Broadway, above the title refunds aren't a thing as you well know, but whether they are or not is irrelevant because you are also making the mistake of conflating the theatre's behaviour with the performer's absence. One has control over refunds, one doesn't, yet the anger seems to be mostly directed at the one who doesn't. And sorry, but anyone who buys a ticket for anything had to appreciate that no-one in the world can guarantee the appearance of any artist in any circumstances. Things happen, unless you have a crystal ball no-one knows what will happen tomorrow. So people can be disappointed when a performer isn't on, but there seems to be some heightened sense of entitlement when it comes to star names for which people only have themselves to blame, so no, I don't have much sympathy in that respect. Buckley's appearance at the Baftas is also irrelevant - managing a vocal issue (which is the obvious guess given she is doing some but not all shows) doesn't stop her attending an event. She doesn't have to be a hermit, and Cabaret is a very small part of her career. Her being in the Baftas room makes a huge amount of sense for her career, one which may well increasingly draw her away from the stage now I suspect. If you are seriously saying that a performer's mental and/or physical wellbeing is less important than an audience member's wallet then I really have no words. That wouldn't be tolerated in most other workplaces, so why should it be here? The lack of detailed announcement is exactly the same - if she doesn't want anything said then there probably isn't much the producers can do about it, whether that is helpful for anyone's image or not. Not everyone is a fan of social media. Many of you seem to be forgetting that the bottom line here is employment law, and that and pleasing the public don't always go together. I shouldn’t reply because you’ve said nothing new. You think that the psyche (or vocal folds) of an individual artist trumps that of the collective psyche of ALL of those those who have shelled out HUNDREDS (not tens) of pounds, looked forward to it after eighteen really sh!tty months and have no opportunity to mitigate against it? Not just the money, for me it would be the upset and the ruined day. Take your employment law and stick it with your terms and conditions. This is about the producers thinking they are important enough to disappoint people without warning or consequence. Nobody would ever go anywhere if the ‘norm’ was having it altered or spoilt ‘but tough, we’re allowed to do it’. It’s not on. Defend it all you like. I favour hope, joy & looking forward to stuff over ploughing through the small print; just in case there is a bigger than average chance of some avaricious shill continually changing the advertised artists without notice or the chance of a different date. The producers and the performer are not one and the same. Not sure how hard it is to understand that, but if you want to ignore the entire rest of my post that is your prerogative. And what you are describing is how theatre in this country has always been (and I am not saying that is right, all I am doing is splitting the producers from the performer!) and theatre has survived this long, so I'm not sure your hyperbole is justified. Like it or not, both contract law and employment law are the law, and no one is above them. The producers can't just do what you want because you demand it. Despite your seeming determination to misinterpret what I'm saying, I am not saying the producers shouldn't give refunds. That is policy that could well be changed. But it doesn't mean that digs at a particular performer are warranted, or that you are entitled to information about someone else's private life. That's all there is to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 20:43:12 GMT
I think there would be far more people making a fuss about him being out - when I went everyone was talking about him, not her! Yes, so let’s say you had a £250 ticket for the Eddie and Jessie show, you get there, down your schnapps, take your seat, and neither of them are on. You didn’t know this because as a general Theatre punter you don’t go seeking out (disappearing) cast boards. Do you think you got what you paid for? Legally you did. But obviously most people won't think that way, and I do think they should make cast announcements in the auditorium at a minimum. But none of that means people are entitled to know WHY anyone is absent. All it means is that refund policies should be like Broadway. At the minute they aren't, and that is the the only relevant legal point now. At the end of the day you buy the ticket, you take the risk. If people choose not to read the small print that is up to them, until the policies change. British theatre has pretty much always been thus. Should it change? Yes. But complain to the producers about that. Doing it on here isn't going to change anything. |
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 13, 2022 20:45:10 GMT
‘Views’ is not the same as ‘unique viewers’ though.
Whatever opinion you have about these particular absences, it is undeniable that unless the mainstream media picks it up and makes it a story, no-one who is not a theatre geek will even remember this by next year.
As for mental health and well-being affected by the disappointment of not seeing an actor in a show…puh-lease.
I was meant to see Hugh Jackman in Music Man in January. Planned an entire holiday in New York around it. The show was cancelled after he got Covid a couple of days before our flight. Too late to cancel our trip for a refund.
The show was back in the day after we flew home. It cost us a small fortune as well because it was straight after New Year.
We got over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Mar 13, 2022 20:45:55 GMT
I’m under no illusion of that thanks, but I’d love to see it challenged in court. If they know more than a day beforehand people should at least be given the opportunity of not traipsing all the way to London to see something different than advertised. That’d be over £100 saved for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Mar 13, 2022 20:48:00 GMT
‘Views’ is not the same as ‘unique viewers’ though. Whatever opinion you have about these particular absences, it is undeniable that unless the mainstream media picks it up and makes it a story, no-one who is not a theatre geek will even remember this by next year. As for mental health and well-being affected by the disappointment of not seeing an actor in a show…puh-lease. I was meant to see Hugh Jackman in Music Man in January. Planned an entire holiday in New York around it. The show was cancelled after he got Covid a couple of days before our flight. Too late to cancel our trip for a refund. The show was back in the day after we flew home. It cost us a small fortune as well because it was straight after New Year. We got over it. Well done for getting over it. Not everyone is quite as resilient. Does that make them somehow less? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 20:54:08 GMT
I don't think anyone needs to know WHY someone is absent. But I think when it's this frequent, you've gotta give folks something. Even if it's simply an acknowledgment that they realize it's happening and that folks are disappointed and that they "cannot reveal the reasons". I'd just like to see the fat cats, if you will, take some semblance of responsibility (for lack of a better word) for the fact their star attraction is out quite consistently.
I do find it hard to believe some of these absences weren't scheduled with management for film work commitments. And if they were, and the producers chose not to disclose it, I think that's quite cheeky.
|
|
19,736 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 13, 2022 21:00:16 GMT
Yes, so let’s say you had a £250 ticket for the Eddie and Jessie show, you get there, down your schnapps, take your seat, and neither of them are on. You didn’t know this because as a general Theatre punter you don’t go seeking out (disappearing) cast boards. Do you think you got what you paid for? Legally you did. But obviously most people won't think that way, and I do think they should make cast announcements in the auditorium at a minimum. But none of that means people are entitled to know WHY anyone is absent. All it means is that refund policies should be like Broadway. At the minute they aren't, and that is the the only relevant legal point now. At the end of the day you buy the ticket, you take the risk. If people choose not to read the small print that is up to them, until the policies change. British theatre has pretty much always been thus. Should it change? Yes. But complain to the producers about that. Doing it on here isn't going to change anything. I think people aren't so much looking for the specifics of whatever medical condition is going on, I don’t think I have seen that asked for. I think people want it to be publicly acknowledged that she isn’t appearing in some way prior to seeing the cast board (which they they may or may not see). And to be given the opportunity for a refund or voucher of some sort despite the very well known legal stuff which protects the producers. Really, most people would not take up the offer but there would be a SHED load of good will as a result of being given the option. |
|
19,736 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 13, 2022 21:07:02 GMT
‘Views’ is not the same as ‘unique viewers’ though. We see the analytics. |
|
139 posts
|
Post by Joseph Buquet on Mar 13, 2022 21:07:11 GMT
The performer is absolutely welcome to take care of their mental and physical wellbeing. NO ONE is taking that away from them. Illness is absolutely a reason to miss a performance. But what we're questioning is when the producers have to acknowledge that the star of their musical - which featured advertising banking heavily on this star's name - is out. Not just once in a blue moon, but very frequently. And when do the producers, and insurance, kick in for audience members who choose to get a refund because they only booked because said star was in the show? That's not saying actors can't get ill or have an impossible day and have to disconnect from work. That's not saying they're not human beings. No one is saying that. We're talking about a product here - and that product is CABARET - and that product was advertised with her being a part of it. At some point, the producers must address the customers who are not getting what they paid for. Because THAT is how the producers chose to advertise it. That is all fair and I don't disagree with any of that, but that is a debate about whether we should have an above the title refund policy like Broadway. It has nothing to do with any particular performer, nor is it any reason to kick a performer while they're down. And it doesn't entitle anyone to be given an explanation for absence if the performer doesn't want them to, or the production doesn't choose to. Bad PR? Quite possibly, but that is the performer or production's choice and no amount of complaining in the world will change that. Or change employment law. That's why I've been trying to separate the performer and the producers. I don't think anyone is really on a different page regarding the latter, except I can see the legal reasons why they aren't giving the juicy details so many people want. I would hope that people aren’t looking for “juicy details” - but instead just want some level of courtesy and decency from the producers, which they aren’t currently getting. When Glenn Close was absent from Sunset Boulevard, there was a notice on the website, and an announcement made in the auditorium acknowledging her absence. Yes, at Cabaret, there is a cast board (at least there was when I went), but I think that this level of absence from a performer of Jessie’s profile (and billing) needs more than that. It requires specific acknowledgement. There was no slip in the programme. No announcement. No wall signs. Nothing on the website. Nothing on their social media pages. No other communication. It feels like the producers know that legally, audience members have no comeback, so that’s that. The producers have their money, so they’re alright. The audience hasn’t got the performer they were expecting/paid for, but tough luck - the producers aren’t going to address it with their disappointed customers. The situation is totally imbalanced. I get the point that Jessie may be well enough to attend the BAFTAs, but not to sing 8 shows a week. But (while acknowledging that my frustration is primarily very much aimed at the producers), I agree with others that it doesn’t sit very well to see her laughing away on the red carpet while so many performances are being missed… |
|
|
|
Post by stagebyte on Mar 13, 2022 21:13:57 GMT
Ok so quick question. Has anyone asked for and been refused a refund. When Idina was out in West end Wicked they refunded. Ditto Alyson Hannigan in When Harry Met Sally (light years ago) so it has been done in the UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Mar 13, 2022 21:26:19 GMT
I've always been very lucky and somehow never missed a "star" when I saw a show with star billing (Although I've probably now just jinxed myself).
I think if I did, I wouldn't so much want a refund, I'd want to exchange my ticket for a different performance. I understand this isn't possible for every audience member though, so I think the classy thing to do in this situation might be to offer something extra. A free programme and a drink perhaps?
I may be misremembering, but I read years ago that audience members seeing On The Twentieth Century were sent a copy of the cast recording after Kristin Chenoweth missed a performance (I believe, I can't remember the exact details). Little things like this don't make up for it entirely of course, but it does seem like a much nicer gesture than just saying "Soz, those are the terms and conditions, next please!"
|
|
19,736 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 13, 2022 21:49:04 GMT
Totally.
|
|
311 posts
|
Post by showoff on Mar 13, 2022 22:08:43 GMT
I've always been very lucky and somehow never missed a "star" when I saw a show with star billing (Although I've probably now just jinxed myself). I think if I did, I wouldn't so much want a refund, I'd want to exchange my ticket for a different performance. I understand this isn't possible for every audience member though, so I think the classy thing to do in this situation might be to offer something extra. A free programme and a drink perhaps? I may be misremembering, but I read years ago that audience members seeing On The Twentieth Century were sent a copy of the cast recording after Kristin Chenoweth missed a performance (I believe, I can't remember the exact details). Little things like this don't make up for it entirely of course, but it does seem like a much nicer gesture than just saying "Soz, those are the terms and conditions, next please!" I've been lucky, but in a different way. I've missed Jessie in this but absolutely loved Emily's portrayal so count myself lucky there. I also had tickets for Funny Girl during Sheridan's famous absence. I went to the show not knowing what to expect from the understudy and was completely blown away by Natasha Barnes, she gave an unbelievable performance I still put up there as one of the best I've seen on the WE stage. We went back to see her in the role even when Sheridan was back and I remember arguing at the time of the awards that it was crazy that Sheridan should get the nomination as she wasn't even the best person performing that role at the time. So I've been lucky in seeing the understudies I have. I do, on the other hand think some kind of explanation should be made, especially if she's not too ill to not do the show the whole time and is fine otherwise, and if there is a new schedule they've put her on, let people know. In the ROH if a principal dancer is unable to perform beforehand you get an email to let you know and the director comes out before the show to let you know too. I had tickets to Swan Lake the other week and Marianela Nunez caught COVID and I had an email the day before to say she wouldn't be performing(luckily I also had tickets for her performance on the 10th too). I think with the money spent, it would be a courtesy to fans to let them know what's going on. |
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Mar 13, 2022 22:14:31 GMT
Would you quit your job if you had an illness that suddenly meant you could only work part-time? I think not. I wouldn't have had to quit my job... my employer would have let me go. (US law may be different than the UK.) Surely someone being unable to do the job they were hired to do would be grounds for discharge in the UK? And if the problem is something like she isn't up to the demands of x number of shows per week, a reasonable accommodation would be to regularize her schedule to 1/2x shows per week and work out a set schedule (every other day and no matinees, for example). They could then communicate this to ticketholders to set expectations. The performer's need is accommodated, and nobody is blindsided that they can't see the cast they were expecting. Although that brings up a question... do contracts for shows include an expectation of the number of shows per week (barring unforeseen events)? Or set other performance standards? (Note to admins: it occurs to me that some of these discussions about policy, illness, etc. might be better on the Business Questions thread... and might allow this one to get back to discussing Cabaret. I was going to post this there, but it wouldn't make sense since it's referring to previous posts here.) |
|
|
|
Post by sph on Mar 13, 2022 22:27:16 GMT
I've always been very lucky and somehow never missed a "star" when I saw a show with star billing (Although I've probably now just jinxed myself). I think if I did, I wouldn't so much want a refund, I'd want to exchange my ticket for a different performance. I understand this isn't possible for every audience member though, so I think the classy thing to do in this situation might be to offer something extra. A free programme and a drink perhaps? I may be misremembering, but I read years ago that audience members seeing On The Twentieth Century were sent a copy of the cast recording after Kristin Chenoweth missed a performance (I believe, I can't remember the exact details). Little things like this don't make up for it entirely of course, but it does seem like a much nicer gesture than just saying "Soz, those are the terms and conditions, next please!" I've been lucky, but in a different way. I've missed Jessie in this but absolutely loved Emily's portrayal so count myself lucky there. I also had tickets for Funny Girl during Sheridan's famous absence. I went to the show not knowing what to expect from the understudy and was completely blown away by Natasha Barnes, she gave an unbelievable performance I still put up there as one of the best I've seen on the WE stage. We went back to see her in the role even when Sheridan was back and I remember arguing at the time of the awards that it was crazy that Sheridan should get the nomination as she wasn't even the best person performing that role at the time. So I've been lucky in seeing the understudies I have. Oh of course! And no disrespect to understudies, some of the biggest stars started out understudying the lead and of course the understudy who takes over and becomes the "star" is one of the great showbiz fables. I believe Natasha Barnes became a huge breakout success from Sheridan's absence, even landing the lead role in the Palladium's Cinderella that year. Good for her! |
|
189 posts
|
Post by saral on Mar 13, 2022 22:57:32 GMT
If we see anything my mam always says beforehand...you do realise xxx wont be on when we go...just as a way of preparing for disappointment
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Mar 13, 2022 23:06:48 GMT
If we see anything my mam always says beforehand...you do realise xxx wont be on when we go...just as a way of preparing for disappointment The optimist is constantly disappointed - the pessimist is often pleasantly surprised! |
|
|
|
Post by dnool on Mar 13, 2022 23:08:23 GMT
I'm here from NYC and have primo table seats for tomorrow night. Please send all your best vibes in the direction of the Playhouse Theatre!
|
|
2,757 posts
|
Post by n1david on Mar 13, 2022 23:20:18 GMT
Would you quit your job if you had an illness that suddenly meant you could only work part-time? I think not. I wouldn't have had to quit my job... my employer would have let me go. (US law may be different than the UK.) Surely someone being unable to do the job they were hired to do would be grounds for discharge in the UK? No, it's not as simple as that in UK employment law. If someone is inhibited from being able to do their job to its fullest extent due to a health reason, the employer is required to attempt to make appropriate accommodation for the health issue. Yes, it might ultimately result in a parting of the ways with a payoff, but the employer would be expected to explore other options such as jobshare, change of duties, altering the way that work was done, etc, in order to accommodate the health issue. Of course, this is somewhat more of a challenge when the role is performing on stage rather than a regular office job, and may be further complicated by the nature of the engagement in this case (e.g. is the performer an employee of the production, or have they been engaged in a contract for services). But the bottom line is, no, in the UK you cannot immediately dismiss someone if they develop a health problem which inhibits their ability to do their job. |
|
189 posts
|
Post by saral on Mar 14, 2022 8:44:01 GMT
If we see anything my mam always says beforehand...you do realise xxx wont be on when we go...just as a way of preparing for disappointment The optimist is constantly disappointed - the pessimist is often pleasantly surprised! It's worked so far, the only person that was missing that i really wanted to see was Imelda in Gypsy, i believe she missed 3 shows in 6 months and it was one of mine |
|
2,012 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Mar 14, 2022 8:54:10 GMT
Whoever is running Jessie’s PR is getting things very very wrong. Dipping out of shows repeatedly with no explanation then filmed throwing her head back and laughing with luvvies at the BAFTAs is NOT a good look. Try to justify it all you want, try to close the discussion down all you want. It looks terrible. I was working at the BAFTAs last night and briefly spoke to her. Didn't dare mention the "C" word though, LOL!!!!!!!!! |
|
638 posts
|
Post by jek on Mar 14, 2022 9:12:01 GMT
It's all a bit of a mess isn't it? But to be fair I presume that the quip about not having to sing at the BAFTAs, and her laughing response, was because she had to sing a song from Wild Rose at a previous BAFTA ceremony. Presumably that is terrifying - singing in front of all those industry professionals (thought Emilia Jones did really well last night).
|
|
