| re: Alternates for Baby June | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 02:42 am EDT 10/01/24 | |
| In reply to: Alternates for Baby June - mikem 02:02 am EDT 10/01/24 | |
|
|
|
| The only major production I know of to have done that was the Imelda Staunton / Jonathan Kent production. In Chichester, the roles of both Baby June and Baby Louise were shared by two young actresses. In London, three young actresses alternated as June, while two alternated as Louise. I believe this has to do with British Equity rules, which may have to do with British law (although I'm not sure about that). It started in the 1970s, sometime between the 1973 Lansbury production, which had no alternates, and the 1978 London production of Annie, in which there were several alternates for each orphan. At least at the time of Annie, the rule did not prohibit child actors from performing a role eight times a week. What was limited was how many performances a child could give a year. Hence it made sense to have alternates for any production hoping for a long run. Otherwise, they would have to replace the young actors on a very regular basis. It may be that now the number of performances a week may be limited. I don't know. | |
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: Alternates for Baby June - conciergekey 09:34 am EDT 10/01/24 |
| Next: | re: Alternates for Baby June - sirpupnyc 08:15 am EDT 10/01/24 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.323831 seconds.