|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 13:41:46 GMT
Some well known musical theatre stars have suggested there should be more role sharing in shows which would allow working mums in particular to return to roles when they have a young family. I think this is an excellent idea and roles often have alternates for bigger singing roles and so extending this to more roles could be a mutual benefit to all.
It would enable more performers with younger families to be able to manage their childcare easier and more cheaply and would enable producers to have the option of using performers whose circumstances may not allow them to do a full 8 show per week run.
Role shares could allow a younger performer to potentially share a role with an established performer who may have a young family. The producers may not want to risk a young talent in the full 8 shows but by doing 4 they get some leading role experience alongside the performer with the young family whose circumstances are far better suited to her also only doing 4 shows.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 14:32:20 GMT
That would be a terrific idea. Acknowledging that performers aren't just robots with no outside obligations, allowing (predominantly, let's be realistic) women to have a family without sacrificing their career, and giving a boost to young talents who may not have the profile to single-handedly lead a show without *such* a gamble on the part of the producers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 14:34:29 GMT
Yup crack on lads. Or lasses mostly. Probably. But seriously the option exists in almost all other industries (granted with varying degrees of success) there's no reason theatre can't try it. If anything theatre is the perfect industry for it, in that there's already a built in 'understudy/standby' systems that we accept, so why not extend it to job share.
Plus it gives us as audiences a variety of performers, which is always fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 15:10:36 GMT
Why not do a twist? If you have two performers of relatively equal standing who are both suited to the same role but neither of whom would want a full 8-show commitment, then split the role, bill it as "LOOK AT THIS AMAZING OPPORTUNITY TO SEE TWO AMAZING PERFORMERS IN THIS ROLE!" (similar to how Mary Stuart is billed as role-swapping, but the one who loses the coin-toss gets to go home, also it would be timetabled rather than decided on a coin-toss), and you will almost certainly get super-fans booking to see the show twice as often to see the differences. You get job-share in all kinds of work, seems foolish to leave out theatre when you could take a negative and spin it as a positive, and when there could well be performers who'd much rather have a part-time contract than have to jack it in entirely to raise their family.
Realistically, audiences will book to see a performer rather than a show, but legally you're already on solid ground reminding them that the ticket explicitly states it is for the show only with no guarantees of who's going to be on, so with full timetabling transparency and a reiteration of what their expectations re performer vs show should really be, it really could work from that perspective at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Feb 7, 2018 15:14:59 GMT
It's a good enough idea, but the practical problems are first the obvious - audiences expect "names" to be on, meaning some more famous parents wouldn't be able to take advantage (and even less famous actors have fans who would be disappointed). Second, it would mean re-drafting all Equity contracts to split a role as well as divide pay equally between each performer covering that particular role or track. That itself could cause two problems - if it did happen, it would mean a pay cut (quite probably significant) to both performers. If it did not happen, it would mean twice the pay having to be found - which means higher production costs and far higher ticket prices. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but I'm not sure how practical it may prove. Hope I am proved wrong, though. Why would a pay cut be a problem? It's no different from what happens in any other workplace where staff jobshare? Nobody would expect that same pay for 4 performances as for 8. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 16:50:04 GMT
Perhaps it wouldn't work too well in the case of the most famous names, but that's a small proportion of the total number of roles available.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 17:01:17 GMT
If we're talking standard musical theatre roles- let's say someone in Les Mis for example, then it's unlikely the audiences will mind. Aside from some hardcore musical fans who will likely as above book twice as much. Imagine if Wicked did a job share with two 'faves' their bookings would actually increase to see all the combinations etc etc.
As for pay, it's widely accepted by new parents that they'll either lose out on pay and/or have to pay nearly as much as they earn in childcare over the first however many years of childbearing. At least with job sharing there's a chance to coordinate with a partner/family/friends to cover some of that and take some of the expense which offsets what you lose in income. Plus it's not just about the money- working part time allows parents a 'best of both worlds' in that they still keep their careers ticking over and have an identity beyond Mum but they still get time with the Spoglets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 18:11:23 GMT
Like we did last summer? Or like we did last year? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 18:27:31 GMT
The only potential difficulty I can see is if reviews are markedly different between the performers, leading to smaller houses for half of the week (or alternate weeks) and one ‘carrying’ the other. I imagine that happens in other job shares too in different ways. For that reason it would probably be more attractive to shows that are already running and, as has been said, there are many positives as to companies doing that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 18:41:48 GMT
it's widely accepted by new parents that they'll either lose out on pay and/or have to pay nearly as much as they earn in childcare over the first however many years of childbearing True. It was just I was thinking about London specifically, and the cost of living / commuting to work in the West End, with the added late finish issues. Would just think half a theatre salary wouldn't even start to touch the sides of that, before even paying for childcare. That applies to anywhere/salary pretty much- I read an article recently that said women have to earn 40k a year just to 'break even' (now I'm sure as all things are this was skewed towards the London bias but it works in the context of this discussion). And it's not just about those childcare years though- it's an insurance against future earnings. If a woman just stops for say 5 years (until the kid is in full time school) they're less likely to get a 'foot in the door' when they try to return, and so will earn less over the course of a career. If they keep at least a part time role, no they aren't earning anything in 'real terms' for say 5-6 years or beyond. BUT they do keep a stronger possibility of a career they can return to without the childcare losses after the little darlings are off their hands. In the case of performers, well none of them are in it for the money in that sense. Many also are probably only able to have kids because they have a partner whose income will 'cover' the losses anyway (as in this is a choice they've made in that respect) so all in all a PT income is better than none, and is a trade-off for the future. |
|
7,190 posts
|
Post by Jon on Feb 7, 2018 19:03:57 GMT
I remember Romola Garai mentioning that theatre isn't good for new parents a few months back so it's not restricted to musicals and a lot of actors like Helen McCrory and Damian Lewis alternate their schedules for TV and film. I imagine when you work in an creative industry like acting, it must be difficult to have a family especially if your partner is also an actor.
|
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Feb 7, 2018 19:32:24 GMT
Plenty of couples have to work different shifts so as to cover childcare. I would have thought stage acting quite well suited to that. And I have plenty of colleagues who are making almost nothing from part-time work - as emicardiff says, it's a way of keeping in the job market.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 20:21:17 GMT
I think it's more a problem of convincing management that it will work than one of feasibility.
In my last job the directors decided to sell the company they'd built up (on the basis of "you can't take it with you", and if you can retire at 50 then why wouldn't you) but before they left they decided to give us a parting gift of extending the slightly flexible working hours we'd always had into full formal flexitime. The new owners of the company were not happy. As far as they were concerned proper company hours were 09:00 to 17:30. If you weren't working those hours you weren't doing it right. It was no good pointing out to them that staff were happier because they could work the hours that suited them most or that customers were happier because we were able to provided extended support hours for free. They were upper management and They Knew Better, and they weren't going to be convinced otherwise by mere facts and practical experience.
They couldn't do anything about our contracts, but they did make a point of scheduling mandatory company meetings to end at 17:30 just to inconvenience people who liked to leave earlier.
So I think that when it comes to greater flexibility in working the employees will find a way to make it work. The problem is convincing the people at the top that things don't have to be done they way they've always been done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 20:30:46 GMT
The problem is convincing the people at the top that things don't have to be done they way they've always been done. Try telling that to the Jerome Robbins Rights Trust. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2018 15:54:44 GMT
(Aha! I knew there was a thread about this somewhere.)
On the front page of The Stage this week there's an article about how 42nd Street is a West End first by having two people job-share a role. It mentions that the producers were initially resistant to the idea because "they wanted 42nd Street to be performed by the same company, eight shows a week".
But there's no explanation of why they wanted that. I could understand concerns about the additional overhead of rehearsing extra people, but this is a situation where the people involved already know the parts. Also, the entire concept of covers is based around the idea that people can swap in and out of roles from day to day. It's difficult to see this resistance as anything other than a quasi-religious "but we've always done it this way".
But at least they decided to give it a try in the end. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't work so perhaps we'll see more of this sort of flexibility soon.
|
|
19,794 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 14, 2018 16:09:36 GMT
No-one’s mentioned the additional costs for the employer which might discourage them from going for this. The cost of employing a person isn’t just how much you pay them, it’s all the extra stuff as well. Training, managing their pay, HR support, elf & safety obligations, leave rosters etc etc so if you suddenly have 20 cast members instead of 10 you’ve landed yourself with twice the costs. Can’t see it happening except in a very few examples.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2018 9:29:49 GMT
I think this is great news and is it so different where a heavy vocal role is shared or sometimes with "celeb" or name casting the performer only does certain weeks. For the West End it is a great thing to take forward, touring productions will also open up more roles for working performer parents whereby a several week run away from home may not be appealing but half a week might be far more manageable with domestic arrangements.
Having spoken to a fair few performers who I know have young families at Post Show events, Stage Door or on Twitter etc. The bigger issue is when children start school as up to then they can often be taken on the tour by the performer.
|
|
