Melissa Errico Fired From PASSION?- Page 6

[logan2]

Posted: 6/12/13 at 10:43pm

I don't know about the rest of you, but ill-advised blog postings by Broadway performers is what I live for.

I hope it happens more often by a wide range of performers in the future.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/12/13 at 10:43pm

It's not just a question of refunding, as CSC also has a subscriber base. That being the case, the initial response would be to reschedule a ticket for another date when Errico would presumably return. And, rather than issue refunds, I'm sure CSC would be more likely to offer an exchange for non-subscribers who wanted to see Errico. With Errico's absence dragging on without a clear end, CSC could have found a growing number of displaced ticket holders on their hands. Considering that the run was limited, this could have created a massive pressing concern. It would mean that there would be less seats to sell for the remaining performances. It would mean, if Errico's absence stretched on and on, eventually issuing refunds. CSC had to take action to prevent loss, to accommodate ticketholders, and to maximize sales.



Again: that is speculation.

Updated On: 6/12/13 at 10:43 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/12/13 at 10:46pm

Reg, what do I have to do to make peace? I have no quarrel with you.

And FTR, I dont take the word "sociopath" seriously. I think it (along with "psychopath") is a catch-all term that psychologists use for "really, really bad people" even though the shrinks themselves can't agree on what it means. (Again, I was using it only to make a point.)

Updated On: 6/12/13 at 10:46 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/12/13 at 10:49pm

Thanks, Kad. Your speculation is better informed than mine.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 6/12/13 at 10:50pm

Kind of the way some people use "faggot"?

No need to make peace, Gaveston. I think we understand each other. And I've already agreed that you're right,

[logan2]

Posted: 6/12/13 at 10:54pm

What I want to know is what does Judy Kuhn think of all of this.

Is Melissa a bigger draw than Judy? I have no idea on this one. But if people were coming to see Judy in the main role, would they care if Melissa was there or not?

And how fabulous an ill-advised Betty Buckley blog would be!

Gaveston, "more to be pitied than censured" was absolute poetry on your part.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 6/12/13 at 10:55pm

And FTR, I dont take the word "sociopath" seriously. I think it (along with "psychopath") is a catch-all term that psychologists use for "really, really bad people" even though the shrinks themselves can't agree on what it means. (Again, I was using it only to make a point.)

What the what? The path this thread has taken is so baffling to me. Why is it okay to throw around words like sociopath in this situation?

[logan2]

Posted: 6/12/13 at 10:59pm

Reg, I don't recall any time in history when people have been beaten or murdered while a group of straight guys stood around yelling "sociopath". So that comparison didn't resonate with me.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 6/12/13 at 11:01pm

No, but I'm familiar with people saying "Oh, 'faggot' doesn't mean gay. I just use it to mean lame-ass people I want to demean."

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 6/12/13 at 11:01pm

Double post.
Updated On: 6/12/13 at 11:01 PM

[logan2]

Posted: 6/12/13 at 11:06pm

Understood. When people want to demean me, they call me Reginald.



(I'm kidding)

That top hat in your pic is starting to do something for me.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 6/12/13 at 11:08pm

Good one.

[John Adams]

Posted: 6/12/13 at 11:59pm

all I meant to say here was that I feel sorry for Errico's disappointment.

For me, it's hard to feel sorry for someone who is so completely irresponsible. She makes little or no effort to understand and comply with the business aspects of her job, but feels victimized by the consequences of her ignorance.

The vocal issue is clearly not her fault, but blogging about it is a really poor choice. Updated On: 6/13/13 at 11:59 PM

[logan2]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 12:03am

No, the blogging about it is a brilliant choice, because when was the last time Melissa Errico had her own thread on this message board?

And you not feeling sorry for irresponsible people makes you deviant.

Updated On: 6/13/13 at 12:03 AM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 12:49am

Hey guys,
I read about 3/4 of the thread and just honestly don't have the energy or span at the moment to recall all of Errico's posts regarding the incident, let alone cross reference the AEA rule book governing contracts at Classic Stage, but I would just like to make one observation.
It is standard in Production contracts, and I assume CSC has a similar clause in their AEA agreement, that if someone is out of a show more more than two weeks / 16 performances consecutively, they must technically be "replaced". You can't refer to the person going on in the role as an "understudy". They have to "take over" the role. AEA pushed for this in agreements after what Michael Bennett would do during Chorus Line, where he'd fire an actor and put an 'understudy' on for 6 months.
if Errico was already well out on vocal rest and was let go with two weeks left of the run, CLEARLY the "two weeks / 16 shows" would be a fact and CSC may have been perfectly within their right or even obligated to release her from the show..

[mattac]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 1:13am

BTW -The OP never used the word "sucks" and it was allegedly from a director not somebody on the street. The OP asked what people thought of Mr. Tveit's acting ablity and did not say he "stunk".

Well, it indeed was NOT somebody on the street - the OP said it was "on a subway", lol.

And "allegedly a director"? I think to expand that phase you mean a director mentioned by someone (allegedly a certain co-star of Tveit) on subway, as overheard by the OP? That does sound so much better than
"someone on the street", doesn't it?

[John Adams]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 1:33am

No, the blogging about it is a brilliant choice, because when was the last time Melissa Errico had her own thread on this message board?

And you not feeling sorry for irresponsible people makes you deviant.

On Point #1 - I stand corrected.
On Point #2 - Guilty as charged.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 7:21am

I don't get the connection, John. I know plenty of actors who are careless with paperwork, but that doesn't make them (in my view) unworthy of compassion.

In Errico's case, neglecting to sign her contract is not what caused her vocal problems or her termination.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 9:17am

Broadwayguy3- as I posted, if a performer is out more than ten days, than either the theatre or the performer is entitled to terminate the contract.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 9:36am

You're REALLY hung up on the "compassion" part, Gaveston. Aside from that one poster I don't think anyone here is begrudging Errico for having a fairly serious health issue. This is a discussion on her blog posts (and the intention/motivation behind it). You are harping on an issue that actually isn't an issue, at this point.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 9:45am

Liza, I'm merely responding to posts addressed to me. I'm not "hung up" on anything and we aren't yet wearing mourning black at my house.

But I'll admit I was surprised that some (and it was more than one) were so self-righteously snarky just because a singer posted an ill-advised blog and overwrote a bit. Neither is a capital crime, to my knowledge.

[John Adams]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 9:52am

>> I don't get the connection, John. I know plenty of actors who are careless with paperwork, but that doesn't make them (in my view) unworthy of compassion.

I think her predicament offers an interesting example for actors (or really any employee) who might find themselves in a similar situation.

I'm not referring to the paperwork, alone. In her blog, she indicates over and over again that the responsibility for being knowledgeable about the business aspects of her career rest on anyone's shoulders but her own. I don't think she realizes the impression of irresponsibility she is leaving when she writes:

"There is a team of leadership there, I don’t know who really is the producer. That doesn’t matter to this story."

That's her team of employers. The people at CSC (who she will later find out) are responsible for her staying employed, yet she feels they do not matter to her story.

She goes on to say,

"I thought, 'Oh, right, ****, this is a business relationship, i had a contract, like a piece of paper.' It hadn’t felt like business. Thinking back, I didn’t sign it because it was the first day of rehearsal when it was handed to me, and I forgot. I was in my heaven, and I didn’t need to sign anything to commit."

That last statement is troublesome. Regardless of how amicable the employment relationship was for this particular show, that mindset demonstrates an air of self-centeredness. She's not accepting responsibility for playing Russian roulette regarding her employment right out of the gate. Why should she feel that she is exempt from following standard practices? ...and "I don't understand it, so I'll ignore it" is not a responsible excuse.

"He had to sense I wasn’t accepting this information (but what could he do?). I hadn’t been telephoned. Patrick hadn’t been called by CSC. Dr. Korovin, who treats Nathan Lane, Audra, Kristin, Ron Rifkin, Brooke Shields, etc. etc. etc., was never called."

Errico seems to feel that the responsibility for updating her status regarding her absence lies with CSC. Although the text she initially wrote has been deleted, she originally asked why CSC hadn't taken the initiative to give her a cutoff date.

Why is it CSC's responsibility to be proactive regarding her return to work date (even to the point of expecting that they call her doctor)? She is not taking responsibility for reporting information regarding her RTW status. She took the time to write about her casual communications with the cast, but there is no mention of any effort to update CSC regarding her status. Even after she was informed about being released from the show, did she contact CSC? Instead, she contacted two influential parties to plead with them to do that for her. I can't help but feel that if she had acted responsibly regarding communication of her status to CSC, she might have become aware of that dreaded clause. ...and that whole "clause" drama:

"Why couldn’t I be in the show again? A clause?

Did they have a clause that said that actors had to love their jobs and care about absolutely everything? I believe I did that."

Would I be guilding the lily if I were to point out that Errico does not care about "absolutely everything"? How much of an extraordinary effort did it require for Errico to love her job? Enough to justify ignoring a clause it's her responsibility to be aware of?

"I guess what I am not getting is that there is a business to run there. I became bad for business."

OK! Now we're showing a little acceptance and responsibility!

"I am guessing now, but somehow I became bad for business because I got hurt."

Dang. So close... Updated On: 6/13/13 at 09:52 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 10:04am

What I got from her post was "I LOVE ACTING SO MUCH WHY DO THE RULES HAVE TO MATTER."

There seems to be a whole naivete about the whole, uh, business aspect. She seems to think theatres just throw money at her to do what she loves, like a kid being paid to play with Legos, with no strings. There are strings, for both parties. Hence the contract she stuck in the back of her binder and forgot.

If she is going to compose overwrought blogs every time she feels she has been taken advantage of by a theatre acting in its best interest and taking action as explicitly laid out by the union to which she belongs, she is not going to be working much.

[John Adams]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 10:10am

What I got from her post was "I LOVE ACTING SO MUCH WHY DO THE RULES HAVE TO MATTER."

Although I do empathize about her vocal issues, I'm in the same camp as you on this.

[artscallion]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 10:11am

I haven't read the whole blog. But where is her agent in all of this? Why isn't he/she making sure everything is signed, sealed and delivered?