The thing that’s foremost on my mind this week is the 99-seat kerfuffle in
Los Angeles. I’m sure many of my constant readers are aware of the situation,
but for those who aren’t, here’s a precis (as best I understand it). Back in
the ‘80s, a plan was implemented in Los Angeles theatres to allow members of Actor’s
Equity to act in theatres with 99 seats or fewer at pay rates below Equity
minimum. This usually amounted to token payments (in the low single or double
figures) for rehearsals and performances. The most contentious part of this was
that Equity had to be forced into the plan because of a court order.
Now, I’ll stipulate that, in a perfect world, anyone involved with a
theatrical production – actors, designers, directors, technicians, stage
managers, running crew, front-of-house staff – would be paid a living wage, but
anyone in this business knows that we don’t live in a perfect world, do we? If we get paid at all, it’s a token amount
that pays for gas or BART or Muni fare. And that’s fine. There’s an old saying
that you can make a killing in the theatre, but not a living; none of us does
this to get rich. It’s all about – or should
be about – the creative process and the chance to do interesting work.
When I started auditioning for shows in Los Angeles in the late ‘70s, it was
(for the most part) not good. The scene was filled with shows that were
intended mainly as showcases for people to get agents to do film and
television. There was some quality work – at The Odyssey, The Matrix, South
Coast Rep; some other places – but most was middling or bad or featured TV and
movie stars who wanted to tread the boards, to mixed results. (The Charlton
Heston/Deborah Kerr Long Day’s Journey
was particularly gruesome, but Dana Elcar, Donald Moffat, Ralph Waite, and
Bruce French did an unforgettable Godot;
the second-best I’ve ever seen).
Didi, Gogo, Pozzo
Heston as Tyrone. *Shudder*
After the waiver was implemented, LA theatre bloomed and entered, if not a
golden age, then an explosion of creativity. Companies sprang up and thrived as
actors, both known and unknown were able (to use a phrase I hate) to “practice
their craft,” be creative, take artistic risks, and find their own level of
success, unhampered by undue financial concerns.
For the last twenty-some years, this system must have stuck in Equity’s
craw, and in recent months, they’ve announced plans to get rid of the waiver
and ensure union actors are paid, at the very least, minimum wage. Now in
theory, who could object to that? Actors should
be able to make at least as much as the kid at McDonald’s who runs the
drive-thru (a job that actually requires him or her to act being friendly for
at least part of a shift), but doing that will drive up production costs to
ruinous levels (I’ve read between 5,000% and 9,000%) that will drive a lot of
companies out of business – ironically depriving the very actors whom the union
wants to be paid for working. It seems Equity’s position is that actual work at
small compensation is preferable to no work at minimum wage.
I was stunned to hear that there are 8,000 Equity members in the Los Angeles
area. I don’t think there are 8,000 actors in the Bay Area, let along Equity
members. (Of course, it seems like a good portion of the Equity actors working
here live in New York … ) Now, obviously, not all of those union actors are
working on stage, either fully paid or underpaid, but even if half of them
were/are doing waiver shows, that half will soon be deprived of work, because
the companies that have allowed them to do something with substance (or even something
frivolous) won’t be there anymore.
As might be guessed, this proposal is causing large rifts in the LA theatre
community, with plenty of actors – and plenty of them famous, if that makes any
difference – pitted against their own union. (And let it be notes, the new plan
has plenty of supporters.) While both sides are pretty adamant in their
stances, Equity isn’t really playing fair, using phone banks to spread, if not
misinformation, then incomplete information and deleting opposing comments from
their Facebook and other web pages. And, on top of that, even though Equity members
will be voting on whether to institute a new plan, it’s strictly advisory, and
the union’s board will be free to dump the old plan and put in a new one. (And
let me hasten to add, many of the people against the new plan acknowledge that
the current one could stand some changes – just not the proposed one.)
Even Hal Holbrook is in favor of the waiver. (Hey, that rhymes.)
Now, even though I’m a member of two unions (which will go unnamed) myself,
not only am I in favor of keeping the waiver in Los Angeles, I wish we here had
something similar; not because I don’t want actors to be paid, but because the
talent pool available to a lot of directors and theatre companies in the Bay
Area would rise dramatically (no pun intended). I haven’t been a member of the
LA theatre community for over 20 years, but from what I read and hear about it,
it’s vibrant, experimental, bold, and, most important, open. Even though theatre
space has always been at a premium in the Bay Area – now (when it seems like
any building in mid-Market is being replaced by skyscraping condo projects) more
than ever – I’d have to think that a move that allowed actors to work in so
many venues and with so any company that met the criteria would be a shot in
the arm and kick start the golden age of theatre that San Francisco’s been on
the verge of for the last 20 years. #pro99
