|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 17:31:57 GMT
When folks continually and consistently miss work, there are consequences. It happens in the real corporate world, and it should happen in the theatre world. It's not just about disappointing audiences, it's about professionalism. At what point does a professional say "I am not able to fulfill my duties and am doing a disservice to customers"? Because that point should've come by now. People who pay hundreds deserve a little acknowledgment. No one's asking for her blood type or other intimate details. But a simple acknowledgment from producers isn't out of the realm of realistic expectations for ticket-buyers. Yes, there are consequences, it's called employers making reasonable adjustments. That is what happens in the corporate world. It's why we have sick leave, and one of the many reasons for flexible working patterns, part time work etc. Employers are required to accommodate health matters, but that doesn't mean someone is incapable of doing some but not all of the shows. Would you quit your job if you had an illness that suddenly meant you could only work part-time? I think not. There is no disservice to customers - they are still getting the show they paid for. Jessie Buckley isn't the show. And no, you aren't entitled to anything. If Buckley doesn't want it to be disclosed that she is ill (if that is what is going on), that is her prerogative and the producers cannot overrule that unless it is reasonable. They are telling audiences she isn't on, there is no reasonable reason to break her privacy to say why. Audience curiosity isn't sufficient. You aren't entitled to know if a co-worker is off because of sickness or otherwise, this is no different. And what you appear to be concerned about is the producers not making an announcement. That is an entirely separate point to the question of whether or not Buckley is performing, which is what the sarcastic comments I was complaining about concerned. Please don't conflate the two, as they are separate things. The producers' behaviour doesn't justify negativity towards the performer herself. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Mar 13, 2022 17:33:59 GMT
It's not a good look, however you try and spin it. In fact, the whole thing is very poor form. It shouldn't be happening.
Redmayne hasn't missed a single show.
|
|
19,738 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 13, 2022 17:42:51 GMT
Meanwhile no one is in any doubt about why Carrie is off, she’s not stopped going on about it!
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Mar 13, 2022 17:47:13 GMT
When folks continually and consistently miss work, there are consequences. It happens in the real corporate world, and it should happen in the theatre world. It's not just about disappointing audiences, it's about professionalism. At what point does a professional say "I am not able to fulfill my duties and am doing a disservice to customers"? Because that point should've come by now. People who pay hundreds deserve a little acknowledgment. No one's asking for her blood type or other intimate details. But a simple acknowledgment from producers isn't out of the realm of realistic expectations for ticket-buyers.
And no, you aren't entitled to anything.![]()  From the landing page of the official website. |
|
5,168 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Mar 13, 2022 17:49:44 GMT
Lol AS IF we are having this argument for the 7283737th time.
This thread is HYSTERICAL 😂
|
|
8,138 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Mar 13, 2022 18:08:48 GMT
Will someone do me a favour and send me a message when this thread gets back on track and resumes talking about the musical please?
It will save me a lot of time and effort 😀
|
|
19,738 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 13, 2022 18:13:00 GMT
Jessie at the BAFTAS this evening.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Mar 13, 2022 18:16:28 GMT
I am glad she is feeling better - she looks terrific.
|
|
19,738 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 13, 2022 18:48:20 GMT
What was the last stage musical Jessie did and when? According to wiki it was A Little Night Music in 2009 but she’s presumably done some stuff since then?
|
|
311 posts
|
Post by showoff on Mar 13, 2022 18:50:00 GMT
Hand on heart, I really genuinely think Sutton Foster was incredible. Not knocking this or any other show or performance, but it feels so clear cut if you're basing it on quality of performance. For the sheer amount of work she had to do on that show, the singing combined with the dancing, the very high energy dancing she would do just to turn around and then belt out the killer notes for the end of the songs, it was a performance that needed absolutely everything and massive talent and stamina, and she had it all. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Mar 13, 2022 18:54:34 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?
|
|
8,138 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Mar 13, 2022 18:57:11 GMT
What was the last stage musical Jessie did and when? According to wiki it was A Little Night Music in 2009 but she’s presumably done some stuff since then? It was actually November 2008 and went into 2009. It was my first show working at the Menier. I remember the first preview and she was quite nervous but really grew as she got into the run. I bumped into a couple of people in the show earlier this week and we were reminiscing about it. |
|
19,738 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 13, 2022 18:58:23 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? And please… we don’t need to read the “name above the title broadway versus west end” info nugget again. Really, we know it. I think we are talking principles rather than the letter of theatre “law”. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Mar 13, 2022 19:16:52 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? And please… we don’t need to read the “name above the title broadways versus west end” info nugget again. Really, we know it. I think we are talking principles rather than the letter of theatre “law”. Principles. Yes, thats exactly what I’m talking about. The needs of the individual over the needs of us many cash cow plebs. Corporates who are happy to rip people off and throw them the t&c’s because they know it protects their morally dubious practices. It is disgusting and immoral when the producers appear quite happy with how often their turn actually ‘turns up’. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 19:43:34 GMT
When folks continually and consistently miss work, there are consequences. It happens in the real corporate world, and it should happen in the theatre world. It's not just about disappointing audiences, it's about professionalism. At what point does a professional say "I am not able to fulfill my duties and am doing a disservice to customers"? Because that point should've come by now. People who pay hundreds deserve a little acknowledgment. No one's asking for her blood type or other intimate details. But a simple acknowledgment from producers isn't out of the realm of realistic expectations for ticket-buyers. Performers have to make that judgement all the time. They have to decide if they are not well enough that the audience would get a better show if the understudy goes on instead. That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't well enough to do something less strenuous than a full show (or two full shows on a day) like appear in public or sing one song for a charity gig where they can choose the song and key. It might also be influenced on whether there is an understudy available if others are also away. This is the real world and these are real people and they get sick or twist an ankle or maybe need compassionate leave. The difference is that in the theatre world it seems they also get attacks from anonymous people on the Internet some of which thanks to social media gets sent direct to them. Oh, I'm well aware what performers have to do, thanks. But questioning why they're out so often, and suggesting that perhaps their substitute should be considered for awards, isn't really "attacking". They're valid questions, and MOST performers are proud of their reliability and would have the same questions about their co-workers that some of us are asking here. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 19:45:24 GMT
Lol AS IF we are having this argument for the 7283737th time. This thread is HYSTERICAL 😂 If you don't want to participate, you don't have to. Because contributions like this add absolutely nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 19:47:46 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. |
|
19,738 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 13, 2022 19:48:12 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 19:51:27 GMT
When folks continually and consistently miss work, there are consequences. It happens in the real corporate world, and it should happen in the theatre world. It's not just about disappointing audiences, it's about professionalism. At what point does a professional say "I am not able to fulfill my duties and am doing a disservice to customers"? Because that point should've come by now. People who pay hundreds deserve a little acknowledgment. No one's asking for her blood type or other intimate details. But a simple acknowledgment from producers isn't out of the realm of realistic expectations for ticket-buyers. Yes, there are consequences, it's called employers making reasonable adjustments. That is what happens in the corporate world. It's why we have sick leave, and one of the many reasons for flexible working patterns, part time work etc. Employers are required to accommodate health matters, but that doesn't mean someone is incapable of doing some but not all of the shows. Would you quit your job if you had an illness that suddenly meant you could only work part-time? I think not. There is no disservice to customers - they are still getting the show they paid for. Jessie Buckley isn't the show. And no, you aren't entitled to anything. If Buckley doesn't want it to be disclosed that she is ill (if that is what is going on), that is her prerogative and the producers cannot overrule that unless it is reasonable. They are telling audiences she isn't on, there is no reasonable reason to break her privacy to say why. Audience curiosity isn't sufficient. You aren't entitled to know if a co-worker is off because of sickness or otherwise, this is no different. And what you appear to be concerned about is the producers not making an announcement. That is an entirely separate point to the question of whether or not Buckley is performing, which is what the sarcastic comments I was complaining about concerned. Please don't conflate the two, as they are separate things. The producers' behaviour doesn't justify negativity towards the performer herself. Look, I think she's unprofessional. I think her attendance is atrocious, and seeing her schmoozing at awards shows when she was off just the day before (presumably not for scheduled other work which should be disclosed to ticket-buyers in advance) is pretty ridiculous. I don't think she's a bad person, or a lousy actress or anything like that. I just think her attendance here is pretty unprofessional. Mostly, though, I think the producers are the ones who have explaining to do. It's hard to believe that a lot of these outs weren't for other work commitments (which are understandable at this highlight point of her amazing career), and it's hard to believe they couldn't have disclosed some of that to ticket buyers in advance. There's also been multiple reports here that finding the cast board is very difficult (I myself never saw it and I explored the whole of the place before the show). Not sure if there's a "conspiracy" there, but I do wish I'd been able to find that in a more prevalent location. Perhaps it's because I'm in NYC where the rules are different, but I don't think of it as "entitled" to want a refund, or a change (if possible) to see the star who is billed above the title. I don't regret seeing Emily Benjamin - she was astonishing. No insult meant to Jessie, I'm not sure she could've been much better than Emily. But I'd very much looked forward to seeing Jessie, and I was disappointed, and it certainly muted the beginning of the evening for me. I'm sure there are many who were even more disappointed than I. And I get it, it sucks. But when it's THIS frequent, I don't know. Something seems rotten to me in the state of Berlin, to paraphrase Billy Shakes. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 19:55:47 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. 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. |
|
19,738 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 13, 2022 19:59:01 GMT
If (heaven forbid) Eddie was to be struck down by Covid and couldn’t perform, and Jessie was only doing the shows she feels she can do, and people have paid £250 for a pair of (undoubtedly talented) unknown names… are they allowed to ask for compensation?
|
|
|
|
Post by shambles on Mar 13, 2022 19:59:02 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 20:06:08 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 20:07:41 GMT
If (heaven forbid) Eddie was to be struck down by Covid and couldn’t perform, and Jessie was only doing the shows she feels she can do, and people have paid £250 for a pair of (undoubtedly talented) unknown names… are they allowed to ask for compensation? 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! |
|
19,738 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 13, 2022 20:13:28 GMT
If (heaven forbid) Eddie was to be struck down by Covid and couldn’t perform, and Jessie was only doing the shows she feels she can do, and people have paid £250 for a pair of (undoubtedly talented) unknown names… are they allowed to ask for compensation? 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? |
|
