Jump to content


- - - - -

Jodie Prenger


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
29 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 June 2008 - 10:30 AM

I can see both sides of this argument, but I do think that saying a teacher will not expend in one week what an actor will in one performance is slightly ridiculous I think you would be rather surprised how exhausted you would get after a weeks work as a teacher Annasette.

As far as saying that an actors job is part time is also slightly misguided - assuming you get to the theatre at 6 and by the time you have finished the show and got out it will often be 10:30 that is 4 and a half hours a show multiply that by 8 shows and you are looking at 36 hours a week, you will also often have to come in for understudy calls etc which takes you over the 40 hours p/w norm for a full time job. If you are on tour you will finish on a sat night, have to travel on a sunday and start again on mon so effectively no day off - so part time is a little unfair. (Obviously there are exceptions some very short shows etc)

I also think that 550 p/w week isn't unfair to ask for a west end wage it is not a ridiculously high amount in the grand scheme of things and considering that between jobs you can generally only be earning 200 a week to survive it seems to be a happy middle ground. But then its the life we chose as actors, no one forces us to do it and if we find it just too tough we can always give up and do something else - there are plenty there to take our place.

#22 Guest_Emma_*

Guest_Emma_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 June 2008 - 10:42 AM

QUOTE(Oxford Simon @ Jun 16 2008, 10:08 AM) View Post
Am I alone in thinking that the discussion of what someone earns it a little distasteful?

If we were talking about the level of some TV performers - ($1million dollars each for the 6 Friends stars in the final series or the multi-million pound deals of Messers Ross and Norton) - then that is worthy of comment because the sums are extreme

However it feels somewhat intrusive to go over the deal that Jodie/Connie etc might have struck.  It does no-one any good


I agree - I think it is also a bit pointless for us to speculate on what is fair or unfair in this situation.  The deal is ultimately between Jodie Prenger's agent and Cameron Mackintosh.

I think there is an argument, however, for bringing into the public domain discussions about equity minimum wages etc, just as there is an argument for letting people know how much nurses or firemen earn.  This is an industry standard so affects everyone, and I believe that theatregoers have a right to know about this (especially if it is generally considered too low - eg nurses or teachers).  However, individual earnings should be private.

And I agree that 550 a week isn't a particularly high wage - but then we are talking about a minimum here, and to me there is no reason why actors should get a minimum that is twice as high as ordinary members of the public, when we all choose this incredibly over-subscribed profession in the first place.  But I see all the points you are making.

And to Annasette - I actually don't think that post was at all clear that it was referring to actors' salaries in general.  I think the poster could quite easily just have been talking about Jodie Prenger's salary of 3000 as being too high.  The only sweeping statement about actors was that we work part-time - OK, so this is incorrect (as the poster above says) but I think you are being quite rude in your post ("at least bother...") when there is enough ambiguity in the original post to make either of us correct.  There's really no need to be this aggressive to either us or the original poster.

#23 Guest_Emma_*

Guest_Emma_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 June 2008 - 10:51 AM

QUOTE(Annasette @ Jun 15 2008, 10:11 PM) View Post
She doesn't have to live from hand to mouth most of the time. She doesn't have to do a job that precludes a normal social life because of antisocial hours. She doesn't have to work over the holiday periods like Christmas. She doesn't have to expend hugely more energy in a few hours than a teacher would have to in a week. She doesn't have to maintain the level of fitness required to be able to do that.

...
I have long thought that it would be a good idea to somehow oblige everyone to have to work for at least 5 years in some self employed capacity. I have been on the receiving end of the most ridiculous attitudes too many times. Those working in sinecure jobs, with a regular salary coming in at the end of every month that you can rely on, should know how much tougher the alternative is and what the real world is like when you don't have that.


To me, this shows a lack of understanding.  None of us 'have' to do any of this!  We all choose it, and are incredibly fortunate to be in one of the most competitive and desirable jobs in the world!!

And you call acting 'the real world' - come on, you must see how silly that sounds.  The real world is far more likely to be teaching in a class of 30 with pupils who might physically threaten you at any minute, and working 12 hour days (and, yes, at weekends too!) to keep up with marking, admin and the syllabus.

I don't mean to attack you and I know first hand how tough acting is, but I just think that this is why actors get a bad reputation and other people (and producers) don't listen to us when we have genuine grievances to air.

#24 Guest_Gillypanda_*

Guest_Gillypanda_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 June 2008 - 04:03 PM

Yes I heard she moved into a flat owned by Cameron in London and rumour has it she has split with her fiancee too!
They havent been seen together since the finals. Jodie went back to Blackpool straight after without any signs of her other half and was seen out again on her birthday weekend in Blackpool him being absent again....


#25 Matthew Winn

Matthew Winn

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bletchley

Posted 16 June 2008 - 07:05 PM

QUOTE(Guest @ Jun 16 2008, 10:50 AM) View Post
I think the thing is, 3k a week is a fortune for most professions, including the west end, but wheres the money going from the mass ticket sales? Straight to Cameron Mackintosh.

In my opinion that's exactly where the money should go. I disagree with the idea that big names should get a hefty cut of the profits.

There are advantages and disadvantages to being a salaried employee. The main advantage is that if the entire enterprise of which you're a part goes belly up you can leave all its problems behind you. You don't have to cover the debts and you don't have to deal with the creditors. You don't have to accept legal responsibility for anything. You can just shrug it off and walk away.

Not so if you're the employer. As an employer you take a huge risk. I feel that as the employers are the ones who take all the risks they should be the ones who reap the rewards when those risks pay off.

A couple of times in my life I've been in a position to make a fortune for my employers. I didn't get to see any more of that money than the regular salary my contract of employment gave me. I'm fine with that, because if my work had earned my employer nothing at all I'd still get the same money. I was cushioned from the unpredictabilities of the financial world and the price of that protection was that I had no right to dip into the profits. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same of actors, no matter how famous. If they want a cut of the profits because they're big names then they should be prepared to stand side by side with the producers when the show flops and pay the outstanding debts out of their own pockets. If they want to earn more than 99% of the population they should actually do something to earn it.

So yes, I think the money should go to Cameron Mackintosh. He's the one who does the hard work and takes the risks. He's the one whose reputation is on the line with each show. He's the one who has to sort out the mess if a show fails. Why shouldn't he be the one who gets the reward on the minority of occasions when a show succeeds?
I have always hated eggs. I remember back when I was a sperm I tried to head-butt one. It did not end well.

#26 Haz

Haz

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1264 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 16 June 2008 - 07:18 PM

QUOTE(Guest @ Jun 14 2008, 04:02 PM) View Post
Its the same as being paid for a TV advert, you may only film for 2 days but you can easily take home 15000 for those 2 days, the advertisers are paying you for the money they will make out of using your skills.


not really - they're paying for the exclusivity of your face more so than anything else. if you advertise mcdonalds, you cant turn around and advertise burger king the next month. in fact, you probably couldn't advertise burger king in the next 2-5 years, depending on how strict they are. so they're not really paying for your skills at all, but for the fact that by working for one company, you sign yourself away from working for any of their competition for a considerable period of time.

whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should

http://curtain-up.blogspot.com/

#27 Elle

Elle

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 09:39 AM

QUOTE(Gillypanda @ Jun 16 2008, 05:03 PM) View Post
Yes I heard she moved into a flat owned by Cameron in London and rumour has it she has split with her fiancee too!
They havent been seen together since the finals. Jodie went back to Blackpool straight after without any signs of her other half and was seen out again on her birthday weekend in Blackpool him being absent again....

I passed her near Leicester Square and congratulated her very recently and she was extremely nice, very striking and just as personable as she seemed on tv ~ she was still wearing her ring and confirmed she was getting married... but I did read somewhere they were going to delay the wedding till after she's settled into the show. She was walking with a very handsome man who is the new Marius (Les Mis).

#28 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 June 2008 - 03:21 PM

QUOTE(Haz @ Jun 16 2008, 07:18 PM) View Post
not really - they're paying for the exclusivity of your face more so than anything else. if you advertise mcdonalds, you cant turn around and advertise burger king the next month. in fact, you probably couldn't advertise burger king in the next 2-5 years, depending on how strict they are. so they're not really paying for your skills at all, but for the fact that by working for one company, you sign yourself away from working for any of their competition for a considerable period of time.

Fair point - but I think at the root of it the premise is still the same they are using the actor to maximise profits and the actor is being paid in recognition of that.



#29 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 June 2008 - 09:16 AM

QUOTE(Guest @ Jun 17 2008, 03:21 PM) View Post
Fair point - but I think at the root of it the premise is still the same they are using the actor to maximise profits and the actor is being paid in recognition of that.


Agreed

#30 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 June 2008 - 02:00 PM

QUOTE(Matthew Winn @ Jun 16 2008, 07:05 PM) View Post
In my opinion that's exactly where the money should go. I disagree with the idea that big names should get a hefty cut of the profits.

There are advantages and disadvantages to being a salaried employee. The main advantage is that if the entire enterprise of which you're a part goes belly up you can leave all its problems behind you. You don't have to cover the debts and you don't have to deal with the creditors. You don't have to accept legal responsibility for anything. You can just shrug it off and walk away.

Not so if you're the employer. As an employer you take a huge risk. I feel that as the employers are the ones who take all the risks they should be the ones who reap the rewards when those risks pay off.

A couple of times in my life I've been in a position to make a fortune for my employers. I didn't get to see any more of that money than the regular salary my contract of employment gave me. I'm fine with that, because if my work had earned my employer nothing at all I'd still get the same money. I was cushioned from the unpredictabilities of the financial world and the price of that protection was that I had no right to dip into the profits. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same of actors, no matter how famous. If they want a cut of the profits because they're big names then they should be prepared to stand side by side with the producers when the show flops and pay the outstanding debts out of their own pockets. If they want to earn more than 99% of the population they should actually do something to earn it.

So yes, I think the money should go to Cameron Mackintosh. He's the one who does the hard work and takes the risks. He's the one whose reputation is on the line with each show. He's the one who has to sort out the mess if a show fails. Why shouldn't he be the one who gets the reward on the minority of occasions when a show succeeds?

I agree with you to a degree, and I think Cameron Mackintosh should receive financial reward for the risk he has taken and this is true for all producers. However by hiring Jodie via a TV show and Rowan Atkinson he has significantly reduced the risk he is taking and in accordance with that I think their salary should increase.

If Cameron had played a more risky card and hired complete unknowns in those 2 parts then his risk would be far greater and the actors I would argue would need to be compensated less as they are contributing less to the financial success of the show.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users