Posted 13 October 2007 - 10:46 AM
There's a lot more fun in being listed alphabetically that there is in being put at the bottom of a hierarchy. In fact, if I were a young actor, and my name were given equal prominence with, for example, Diana Rigg, I'd probably be fairly pleased about that.
Her argument is weak- a star name will sell a play regardless of how high up it is in the cast list- look at McKellen's Lear/Seagull; he was listed alphabetically, yet still sold out, but the Seagull productions in which Gaunt played Sorin didn't.
I also diagree with her in her arrogant supposition that people don't see plays because of directors and designers- I do, and I doubt that I'm alone. Also, posters can often be designed long before the cast list is confirmed, but probably not before the creative team.
As for actors who are unknown outside of the theatre world, they are unlikely to sell more tickets than they would do anyway (i.e. the coach trade wouldn't be interested in them), so what we're basically talking about is filmstars/TV stars (such as Rigg) who feel that because they're 'famous' they should be shown off as being better than their less well established colleages.
Sorry if this is very jumbled, I just disagreed with so many things in that article, and tried to get them down concisely!
Reminds me of the old joke, forgive me for making a second McKellen reference;
"Have you heard? Ian McKellen's joined the actor's company!"
"Really? What's he playing?"
"The servant."
"Blimey, didn't see that coming. What's the play?"
"The Servant."