Re: RAT terminologically hip, but

[ActorsGng1@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/15/00 10:49:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, jonoh1@juno.com 
writes:

<< 
 >
 >>An actor is "ethically obligated" to stay with the show for the 
 >announced
 >>run unless the actor signs with a more remunerative 4A's production 
 >that
 >>conflicts with the rest of a run. Otherwise a two week termination 
 >notice
 >>is required.
 >
 >So the more remunerative production is basically judged as the more 
 >ethical 
 >production.  This peculiar concept would of course make acting in film 
 >or 
 >television a much more ethical life and career to pursue than 
 >theater.
 
 
 isn't that interesting? The assumption is rather spooky. I never really
 looked at it that way. Off to the showers now.
 Jonathan
 
 
  >>

I think rather than a strictly ethical question, it's one of that nasty ol' 
capitalism thang:  Market rates, auction rules, etc.  If you get a gig that 
pays more, take it - wonder how New Line would feel if Jim Carrey dropped out 
of Ace Ventura II 'cause the Taper offered him Twenty-ONE Million dollars to 
do The Dinner Party...hmmm

Mark