On Doing FREE Theatre: to be or not to be
A colleague recently informed me they were done with doing "free" theatre.
After numerous starring roles in well received productions they had come to the conclusion that it was all just not worth it. The implication, of course, in their statement was that it wasn't worth it for FREE. Days earlier I had noted a lament in another blog by a noted monologist on the loss of artists in the paying theatre to jobs of greater security. He lamented after years of a formidable career on the West coast in regional theatres, an actress was hanging up her proverbial "toe-shoes" and seeking a more secure nest for her future. So....they were being paid in Seattle. Just not paid enough. It didn't make headlines.
I am questioning the put down of "free theatre" when it is used as a phrase to disparagingly refer to theatre activity that is inferred to be less credible because there was no remuneration. If there is no remuneration it normally means the endeavor is working around the personal and professional schedules of all involved. There is a shared sacrifice and committment and those who have done many projects of this kind and are asked back again and again by different companies take their work and commitment just as seriously as a performer making a salary. Their efforts and the recognition of them can often be just as high if producers have taken funds and channelled them into the resource of hiring a publicist for a production, generating more publicity for actors for a project , which arguably is more valuable to young actors than a $250 paycheck which the government would tax and which would diminish their potential return from an unemployment claim rather than improve it .
When is paying an actor or actress actually doing them a gross disservice because the pay actually under values them? Major stars regularly do projects of merit for a fraction of what they would ordinarily demand. Why are less established actors rlegated to lesser status for making the same choice for the same reasons?
Concurrently, if we stick with monetary valuation to judge opportunities, it begs the question: So is $250/week theatre not as good as $500/week, which is twice as bad as $1200 per week which isn't nearly as valid as a $1000/ day television or movie , all of which pales in comparison to a $40,000/year of a commercial that shoots in one day?
I think the first question actors should ask themselves when getting involved with theatre or film on any level at any point in their lives is, is it credible? Do the players and artists involved have a script, idea or play worth giving some of your life and vision to? But or most of us , myself included, when the price is right, the need to consider such question is often enough completely overlooked, whereas we scrutinize projects with less remuneration with a weighty eye.
It's a question of survival, obviously its a priority.
But it can be used as a sole marker for success. And the reality is , once you are paid, if you're not being paid by people who are within a circle of recognition , it often makes no difference.
if your project hasn't at least received some other media attention.
To be paid or not also sometimes has greater cultural implications. In New York independent theatre if you are an actor of color , it is expected you should be paid for your time in an endeavor or it is not considered to be worthy of your time. Not long ago I met with a playwright of color writing plays about the African American experience who could not pay for a theatre because paying her actors a salary came first in her budget. It hearkens back to an idea that has echoes of slavery - working without pay - and is looked down upon. In leading a company that has espoused color blind casting , we've come face to face on several occasions that if you weren't paying a regular stipend for a production to actors then the actors of color were going to have a hard time
justifying their participation, regardless of whatever outside support systems they may have discovered to maintain their lives at the time. The message is clear : you don't work for free. You put value on your participation and that value will come to you
To be fair, economic snobbery in the theatre comes from the top down and the bottom up.
It brings into question the hierarchy and class of the paying theatre in the American theatre and the age old question of how does it corrupt or enhance the artistic output and professional standing . I would propose being offered pay has nothing to do with whether or not the work is actually good, since the offer of pay normally comes before the work is created and only very few of the most elite collaborators in our business are entitled to a share of the profits if a work is actually successful. It has to do with who is involved in producing the project and how much money they would like to make with the project. Since it has to do with how much money they want or hope to make , it has everything to do with how much money they are willing to leverage. In order to make back money on their investment , in america, producers traditionally charge patrons, the higher the investemtn the higher the ticket price , the more a producer stands to make as profit the more her or his collaborators can insist on as compensation for your efforts. Our trade unions in the theatre would have you believe that union memberships is a stamp of quality or excellence in craft and at one time in our industry that may have been a fair statement but at this time in the performing arts industry, union membership is a reflection of previous economic engagement with producers. So an actor may be in the union and be mediocre. The union is a function of the economy not a function of the craft or the status high or low of an artist. The union would have you believe otherwise, it's understandable as that is what they are selling to producers but in the theatre especially most producers are employing the union as much for their own convenience.
Likewise, how much you are paid has nothing to do with whether a project will enhance your career. The reputation of the institution and collaborating artists is as much a factor as any other.
How do you get a reputation? Simple, be seen with others who have a favorable one . Or have one at all. Again, not an issue of the paycheck, but the company you keep.
I spent the first ten years of my life in New York, giving greater and lesser weight to opportunities based on the paycheck that could be attached. I passed actors along the way, of great quality, who had found "survival jobs" to pay the rent so they could invest in opportunities based on artistic merit. Over time I saw (amongst the best of them) their reputations rise and they went onto prosperous careers. The operative word was over time. It took along time.
There isn't a substitute for patience in our industry Nor, unfortunately, is there much of a paycheck.
But I would suggest that the vast amount of money and talent in our industry is left on the table and never collected by others who leave the field seeking other more reasonable opportunities.
The investment is tremendous and without it , the theatre and perfroming arts in America as we know them would certainly suffer.
A colleague recently informed me they were done with doing "free" theatre.
After numerous starring roles in well received productions they had come to the conclusion that it was all just not worth it. The implication, of course, in their statement was that it wasn't worth it for FREE. Days earlier I had noted a lament in another blog by a noted monologist on the loss of artists in the paying theatre to jobs of greater security. He lamented after years of a formidable career on the West coast in regional theatres, an actress was hanging up her proverbial "toe-shoes" and seeking a more secure nest for her future. So....they were being paid in Seattle. Just not paid enough. It didn't make headlines.
I am questioning the put down of "free theatre" when it is used as a phrase to disparagingly refer to theatre activity that is inferred to be less credible because there was no remuneration. If there is no remuneration it normally means the endeavor is working around the personal and professional schedules of all involved. There is a shared sacrifice and committment and those who have done many projects of this kind and are asked back again and again by different companies take their work and commitment just as seriously as a performer making a salary. Their efforts and the recognition of them can often be just as high if producers have taken funds and channelled them into the resource of hiring a publicist for a production, generating more publicity for actors for a project , which arguably is more valuable to young actors than a $250 paycheck which the government would tax and which would diminish their potential return from an unemployment claim rather than improve it .
When is paying an actor or actress actually doing them a gross disservice because the pay actually under values them? Major stars regularly do projects of merit for a fraction of what they would ordinarily demand. Why are less established actors rlegated to lesser status for making the same choice for the same reasons?
Concurrently, if we stick with monetary valuation to judge opportunities, it begs the question: So is $250/week theatre not as good as $500/week, which is twice as bad as $1200 per week which isn't nearly as valid as a $1000/ day television or movie , all of which pales in comparison to a $40,000/year of a commercial that shoots in one day?
I think the first question actors should ask themselves when getting involved with theatre or film on any level at any point in their lives is, is it credible? Do the players and artists involved have a script, idea or play worth giving some of your life and vision to? But or most of us , myself included, when the price is right, the need to consider such question is often enough completely overlooked, whereas we scrutinize projects with less remuneration with a weighty eye.
It's a question of survival, obviously its a priority.
But it can be used as a sole marker for success. And the reality is , once you are paid, if you're not being paid by people who are within a circle of recognition , it often makes no difference.
if your project hasn't at least received some other media attention.
To be paid or not also sometimes has greater cultural implications. In New York independent theatre if you are an actor of color , it is expected you should be paid for your time in an endeavor or it is not considered to be worthy of your time. Not long ago I met with a playwright of color writing plays about the African American experience who could not pay for a theatre because paying her actors a salary came first in her budget. It hearkens back to an idea that has echoes of slavery - working without pay - and is looked down upon. In leading a company that has espoused color blind casting , we've come face to face on several occasions that if you weren't paying a regular stipend for a production to actors then the actors of color were going to have a hard time
justifying their participation, regardless of whatever outside support systems they may have discovered to maintain their lives at the time. The message is clear : you don't work for free. You put value on your participation and that value will come to you
To be fair, economic snobbery in the theatre comes from the top down and the bottom up.
It brings into question the hierarchy and class of the paying theatre in the American theatre and the age old question of how does it corrupt or enhance the artistic output and professional standing . I would propose being offered pay has nothing to do with whether or not the work is actually good, since the offer of pay normally comes before the work is created and only very few of the most elite collaborators in our business are entitled to a share of the profits if a work is actually successful. It has to do with who is involved in producing the project and how much money they would like to make with the project. Since it has to do with how much money they want or hope to make , it has everything to do with how much money they are willing to leverage. In order to make back money on their investment , in america, producers traditionally charge patrons, the higher the investemtn the higher the ticket price , the more a producer stands to make as profit the more her or his collaborators can insist on as compensation for your efforts. Our trade unions in the theatre would have you believe that union memberships is a stamp of quality or excellence in craft and at one time in our industry that may have been a fair statement but at this time in the performing arts industry, union membership is a reflection of previous economic engagement with producers. So an actor may be in the union and be mediocre. The union is a function of the economy not a function of the craft or the status high or low of an artist. The union would have you believe otherwise, it's understandable as that is what they are selling to producers but in the theatre especially most producers are employing the union as much for their own convenience.
Likewise, how much you are paid has nothing to do with whether a project will enhance your career. The reputation of the institution and collaborating artists is as much a factor as any other.
How do you get a reputation? Simple, be seen with others who have a favorable one . Or have one at all. Again, not an issue of the paycheck, but the company you keep.
I spent the first ten years of my life in New York, giving greater and lesser weight to opportunities based on the paycheck that could be attached. I passed actors along the way, of great quality, who had found "survival jobs" to pay the rent so they could invest in opportunities based on artistic merit. Over time I saw (amongst the best of them) their reputations rise and they went onto prosperous careers. The operative word was over time. It took along time.
There isn't a substitute for patience in our industry Nor, unfortunately, is there much of a paycheck.
But I would suggest that the vast amount of money and talent in our industry is left on the table and never collected by others who leave the field seeking other more reasonable opportunities.
The investment is tremendous and without it , the theatre and perfroming arts in America as we know them would certainly suffer.
posted by Unknown at 8:00 AM
0 comments
