3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 21, 2022 8:34:44 GMT
If it had been the other way around, and it was Eddie Redmayne who was repeatedly off, do you think the producers/theatre would have issued an explanatory statement?
I think they would.
|
|
19,803 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 21, 2022 9:08:30 GMT
If it had been the other way around, and it was Eddie Redmayne who was repeatedly off, do you think the producers/theatre would have issued an explanatory statement? I think they would. You’d hope and expect them to, but nothing would surprise me anymore. And seeing as the ticket prices are exactly the same for the second cast and apparently the third cast too it would suggest people are not actually paying for a name here. Because let’s face it not many people know who Fra Fee and Annie Amy Lennox are. |
|
2,859 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Mar 21, 2022 11:17:20 GMT
New cast pics!
|
|
|
|
Post by nisev on Mar 21, 2022 11:21:48 GMT
Fra looks quite threatening in the Emcee getup. It's interesting to have such a physically different man in that role and to see how that impacts it.
Looking forward to hearing what people think! Is anyone going tonight?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2022 13:18:57 GMT
Most of this falls on the "lack of transparency" - putting it diplomatically - of the producers. If Jessie Buckley had a fixed arrangement with the show to do limited performances, which it would appear she did, then questions have to be asked of them. If no such arrangement was reached and Buckley has had a "poor run", she simply won't be back in these types of high profile musical theatre roles. I am annoyed by rather cynical nature of the whole thing. The lack of transparency was an issue for me. I think we are safe to assume Jessie had some sort of vocal issue but we don't know whether it was a day to day thing or whether she was advised only to do a certain amount of shows a week ( 5 or 6). If it was a day to day thing she could have been having to test her voice either at home/where she was staying or at theatre and then the decision was made whether she performed or not. This accounts for the notification being late. But if Producers knew and had agreed a reduced schedule lets day no matinees. I'm no vocal expert but doing a show every 24 hours might be okay on her voice. Doing 3 in just over a 24 hour period or 2 in 6/7 hours on matinee day may not have been okay for the voice. So they decided to manage her condition that way. But I think if it was known she would be off that needed to be relayed better. Well cast has changed. I hope new leads have a great opening night. |
|
|
|
Post by shambles on Mar 21, 2022 13:28:34 GMT
Why does Fra not get the gloves? I suppose because of the jacket, but the gloves did add a slightly sinister vibe, especially when he clapped his hands. |
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Mar 21, 2022 13:29:45 GMT
All my posts are based on is the legal position... Much of the disagreement appears to come from cross-purposes, then. I think many of the posts are discussing the moral/ethical/responsible position rather than legality. After all, it's "legal" for me to know I have COVID, go to the theater tonight maskless, and cough down someone's neck without covering my mouth. Legal doesn't always mean proper. |
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Mar 21, 2022 14:20:05 GMT
Most of this falls on the "lack of transparency" - putting it diplomatically - of the producers. If Jessie Buckley had a fixed arrangement with the show to do limited performances, which it would appear she did, then questions have to be asked of them. If no such arrangement was reached and Buckley has had a "poor run", she simply won't be back in these types of high profile musical theatre roles. I am annoyed by rather cynical nature of the whole thing. The lack of transparency was an issue for me. I think we are safe to assume Jessie had some sort of vocal issue but we don't know whether it was a day to day thing or whether she was advised only to do a certain amount of shows a week ( 5 or 6). If it was a day to day thing she could have been having to test her voice either at home/where she was staying or at theatre and then the decision was made whether she performed or not. This accounts for the notification being late. But if Producers knew and had agreed a reduced schedule lets day no matinees. I'm no vocal expert but doing a show every 24 hours might be okay on her voice. Doing 3 in just over a 24 hour period or 2 in 6/7 hours on matinee day may not have been okay for the voice. So they decided to manage her condition that way. But I think if it was known she would be off that needed to be relayed better. Well cast has changed. I hope new leads have a great opening night. I think that's reasonable. It's all very well saying that legally people are paying for the show, not any specific performers, but this production of Cabaret has been promoted as starring two well known performers, with them doing a lot of promotional work in advance, and their names being at the top of the poster and the ticket prices reflecting an audience hoping to see at least one of them in the flesh. Most people are able to rationalise the announcement of an understudy along those lines, but better to do it in advance, and not when you see the sign in the foyer, or worse, hear the announcement just before curtain up. It's all speculation, as none of us know the details for this case, but in my experience producers are often coy about scheduled absences of the star/celebrity names if they can get away with it. So I'd say the bulk of the frustration should be aimed at the production team. If her absences were scheduled, then they could have announced it. If there was a recurring issue with a pre-show check, then it might have been better to block of a few days of proper rest and/or plan for a reduced schedule. Of course it's entirely possible she has had some vocal problems, but they coincided with a family emergency, which she'd want to keep private. |
|
8,168 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Mar 21, 2022 15:36:25 GMT
What about renaming this thread "let's all have a moan about Jessie Buckley"
And start a new one called "Cabaret - The actual show"?
Just a thought 😀
|
|
|
|
Post by thistimetomorrow on Mar 21, 2022 15:55:07 GMT
there's some really good £70 seats for tonight if anyone can make it (front row dress!!)
|
|
|
|
Post by A.Ham on Mar 21, 2022 15:58:17 GMT
What about renaming this thread "let's all have a moan about Jessie Buckley" And start a new one called "Cabaret - The actual show"? Just a thought 😀 Kind of agree… we’ve all had chance to express our opinions / frustrations / rants / support, but she has left the production now. I for one am looking forward to hearing what those going tonight / this week make of Fra and Amy. All the comments and posts about Jessie’s absences, the way the show has been promoted and the high prices, reminded me of Glenn Close’s and Sheridan Smith’s absences from Sunset Boulevard and Funny Girl back in 2016 so I took a look at those threads. It’s both interesting and perhaps disappointing that very little has changed since then in terms of how the show is advertised vs producers’ responsibilities if their star name can’t perform. Yet we still keep getting excited about these shows, booking tickets and crossing our fingers that the stars we’ve paid big bucks to see will make it to the theatre for the performance we’ve booked for! |
|
544 posts
|
Post by amp09 on Mar 21, 2022 16:07:35 GMT
No surprise that there’s plenty of available seats from next week onwards. Hopefully dynamic pricing will kick in and they’ll bring prices down to sell off the remaining tickets on the day/provide more for the lottery. "Plenty"....? Do you mean less than 30 per performance? Wicked, Mary Poppins, lion King, matilda all sell 100-150 tickets a day on doors. By no means is Cabaret struggling. Let me know when you buy a cheapy ... “Cheapy” purchased on day 1 of the new cast… £200 ticket reduced to £70. Point proven. |
|
|
|
Post by shadypines on Mar 21, 2022 16:54:01 GMT
"Plenty"....? Do you mean less than 30 per performance? Wicked, Mary Poppins, lion King, matilda all sell 100-150 tickets a day on doors. By no means is Cabaret struggling. Let me know when you buy a cheapy ... “Cheapy” purchased on day 1 of the new cast… £200 ticket reduced to £70. Point proven. I'm very happy for you. Also glad you agree £70 is cheap. |
|
|
|
Post by FrontrowverPaul on Mar 21, 2022 17:33:43 GMT
There are currently two seats in stalls row P @ £50 for Saturday 26 March 19.30.
|
|
1,933 posts
|
Post by LaLuPone on Mar 21, 2022 17:51:24 GMT
There are currently two seats in stalls row P @ £50 for Saturday 26 March 19.30. Coming up as £120 for me! |
|
|
|
Post by dchesnutny on Mar 21, 2022 17:55:30 GMT
Was anyone there on Saturday night? Would love to hear any reports on the final performance of the original cast, etc!
|
|
|
|
Post by FrontrowverPaul on Mar 21, 2022 18:00:37 GMT
There are currently two seats in stalls row P @ £50 for Saturday 26 March 19.30. Coming up as £120 for me! I had them in my basket @ £50 but then decided it was too tight to get from Newbury Watermill on Saturday, where I'm seeing a matinee, to London for Cabaret at 19.30. It did seem too cheap and possibly a pricing error on a couple of returns as they are indeed £120 each now. Sorry for any hopes raised and dashed. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2022 19:28:35 GMT
I think that's reasonable. It's all very well saying that legally people are paying for the show, not any specific performers, but this production of Cabaret has been promoted as starring two well known performers, with them doing a lot of promotional work in advance, and their names being at the top of the poster and the ticket prices reflecting an audience hoping to see at least one of them in the flesh. Most people are able to rationalise the announcement of an understudy along those lines, but better to do it in advance, and not when you see the sign in the foyer, or worse, hear the announcement just before curtain up. It's all speculation, as none of us know the details for this case, but in my experience producers are often coy about scheduled absences of the star/celebrity names if they can get away with it. So I'd say the bulk of the frustration should be aimed at the production team. If her absences were scheduled, then they could have announced it. If there was a recurring issue with a pre-show check, then it might have been better to block of a few days of proper rest and/or plan for a reduced schedule. Of course it's entirely possible she has had some vocal problems, but they coincided with a family emergency, which she'd want to keep private. If there is a vocal issue then I would assume the performer would see a Dr and what they advised the Producers would be duty bound to follow. If Jessie was advised to rest and they pressured her to perform then they risk being sued if it did permanent vocal damage (Ben Forster case) or Jessie just quits roll and goes public about what producers have done. Likewise if Jessie is cleared to perform and she no-showed then she gets a bad reputation and could be in breach of contract. |
|
80 posts
|
Post by theatrekiwi on Mar 21, 2022 19:57:14 GMT
A few table seats for £120 showing for tomorrow night.
|
|
1,291 posts
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Mar 22, 2022 1:00:18 GMT
Considering that the new leads are paid peanuts compare to the original ones, the producers will still make a huge profit even if it doesn't sell out anymore. I mean Fra Fee doesn't even get 5% of what used to be Redmayne's salary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2022 1:14:22 GMT
Yeah, its not as if they still have to pay the rest of the cast anything, or any of the backstage crew, or theatre rent, or marketing costs, or any of the production team, let alone the general day to day stuff. Yeah, they'll make a huge profit on the cheap tickets...
|
|
|
|
Post by ladidah on Mar 22, 2022 8:19:20 GMT
Considering that the new leads are paid peanuts compare to the original ones, the producers will still make a huge profit even if it doesn't sell out anymore. I mean Fra Fee doesn't even get 5% of what used to be Redmayne's salary. Really? Wow. |
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Mar 22, 2022 8:21:11 GMT
I think that's reasonable. It's all very well saying that legally people are paying for the show, not any specific performers, but this production of Cabaret has been promoted as starring two well known performers, with them doing a lot of promotional work in advance, and their names being at the top of the poster and the ticket prices reflecting an audience hoping to see at least one of them in the flesh. Most people are able to rationalise the announcement of an understudy along those lines, but better to do it in advance, and not when you see the sign in the foyer, or worse, hear the announcement just before curtain up. It's all speculation, as none of us know the details for this case, but in my experience producers are often coy about scheduled absences of the star/celebrity names if they can get away with it. So I'd say the bulk of the frustration should be aimed at the production team. If her absences were scheduled, then they could have announced it. If there was a recurring issue with a pre-show check, then it might have been better to block of a few days of proper rest and/or plan for a reduced schedule. Of course it's entirely possible she has had some vocal problems, but they coincided with a family emergency, which she'd want to keep private. If there is a vocal issue then I would assume the performer would see a Dr and what they advised the Producers would be duty bound to follow. If Jessie was advised to rest and they pressured her to perform then they risk being sued if it did permanent vocal damage (Ben Forster case) or Jessie just quits roll and goes public about what producers have done. Likewise if Jessie is cleared to perform and she no-showed then she gets a bad reputation and could be in breach of contract. I wasn't suggesting they pressure Jessie to perform against doctor's orders, and I doubt any doctor would object to planning rest as a precaution. Without seeing the books it's hard to know how much everyone was paid and how much profit was left over. Costs at the beginning of a run are always higher, and it may be that actual profit doesn't come until later on. People who book early may get the benefits of the star cast and associated bragging rights, but there's a risk it's not that great or you won't like artistic choices. Booking later gives you the benefit of plenty of reviews and word of mouth so you can be confident you are spending on a show you'll enjoy. |
|
ppp
Auditioning
|
Post by ppp on Mar 22, 2022 9:14:31 GMT
I was at first performance…. All I have to say is actress playing Sally Bowles has a nice voice at least ….
And I can’t compare to previous cast , didn’t get a chance . I have seeing the last NYC revival
Considering it’s first performance, it can only improve
|
|
19,803 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 22, 2022 10:24:48 GMT
I was at first performance…. All I have to say is actress playing Sally Bowles has a nice voice at least ….And I can’t compare to previous cast , didn’t get a chance . I have seeing the last NYC revival Considering it’s first performance, it can only improve Oh dear, a Sally with a nice voice? Not wanted these days apparently! |
|
