For the past 30 years, some of the finest acting talent in the United States have taken it upon themselves to create a rich, cultural tapestry of theatre in Los Angeles. This was enabled by a 99 seat plan which allowed actors to produce and create art without the constraints of an AEA contract, although there were price caps, restrictions on theatre size, and length of run agreed upon by the Union and the LA reps. This allowed for like-minded actors to form companies and produce work, sometimes the Classics and many times World Premieres under a non-profit status. Many of these artists cobbled together their livelihoods with TV and film, but sought out live theatre to enrich their souls as well as the heart and soul of the Los Angeles community. The AEA proposal will only decimate the theatrical Eco-system in place, much like a big-footed interloper in a forest. Hopefully the Union will take heed of the results of the recent advisory vote, which was 2 to 1 against this specific AEA proposal and now come to the table to talk with the actors of Los Angeles about how to enliven, enrich, and grow this amazing garden (which, by the way, creates Equity contracts when shows move to bigger venues, tour, etc.). I hope this enlightens some readers who think that these actors are less than sane because they believe that some things are more important than money (minimum wage)!
5
The incredible diversity of Los Angeles intimate theatres is a primary reason Actors Equity Association’s proposal falls short. A one-size-fits-all solution requiring all small houses to pay minimum wage is not the answer. A tiered plan being advocated by members that correlates salaries to production budgets and box office gross is more preferable.
The proposal also falls short in other areas as it offers no health benefits or pension contributions.
Plays developed in these theatres have moved to larger venues that provide lucrative contracts for Equity members nationwide. Intimate theatres are not a place for an actor to simply practice his craft anymore than a tech startup exists for an engineer to simply hone her coding skills.
Los Angeles has a thriving, innovative theatre scene that helps make the city culturally vibrant as well as a great place to live and work. Intimate theatres offer affordable ticket prices, maintain strong neighborhood roots and help many small businesses that rely on their patrons to thrive.
It is advantageous for Actors Equity to consider the alternatives and work with its members before rushing through a shortsighted proposal.
The proposal also falls short in other areas as it offers no health benefits or pension contributions.
Plays developed in these theatres have moved to larger venues that provide lucrative contracts for Equity members nationwide. Intimate theatres are not a place for an actor to simply practice his craft anymore than a tech startup exists for an engineer to simply hone her coding skills.
Los Angeles has a thriving, innovative theatre scene that helps make the city culturally vibrant as well as a great place to live and work. Intimate theatres offer affordable ticket prices, maintain strong neighborhood roots and help many small businesses that rely on their patrons to thrive.
It is advantageous for Actors Equity to consider the alternatives and work with its members before rushing through a shortsighted proposal.
1
Let me correct some misunderstandings being perpetuated in these comments... 1) No one is making money doing 99-seat theatre. Sometimes the shows move on to another venue which might be able to provide Equity contracts, but until then everyone is working at a loss 2) This proposal from the union would prohibit volunteering. What other labor union prohibits it's members from donating their time and labor to non-profits? 3) The proposal throws many of the union members under the bus,. Any union member who is currently a member of a membership company, or who self produces, will go from receiving $9-14 per performance to receiving nothing and will also lose the minimal protections currently provided by the 99-seat code. No minimum wage for them. And no guarantee of water, cots, breaks or proper billlng.
5
It maybe fun for actors to do these little showcase shows, but I'm pretty sure in their minds someplace is the idea they're a kind of showcase auditions.
Equity might investigate the possibility of their producing a couple of hundred actors' showcases a year - and inviting managers, agents, producers, casting directors, etc. And Equity could subsidize the actors based on the contributions of the very-highly paid stars they represent in bigtime shows.
On a selfish note, these waiver shows are also a boon for writers and other artists and craftspeople. Ticket prices are low, so they're popuar enough with audiences, and if the house is small enough every show can be a sellout just based on the actors' friends and families.
Equity might investigate the possibility of their producing a couple of hundred actors' showcases a year - and inviting managers, agents, producers, casting directors, etc. And Equity could subsidize the actors based on the contributions of the very-highly paid stars they represent in bigtime shows.
On a selfish note, these waiver shows are also a boon for writers and other artists and craftspeople. Ticket prices are low, so they're popuar enough with audiences, and if the house is small enough every show can be a sellout just based on the actors' friends and families.
This is similar to being a musician (without the union). I played in several bands over the years. I sunk almost every penny I made into buying equipment, making records, printing up flyers, touring costs, and sometimes paying to play shows. The average audience size was usually around 10 people (although I once counted 50 people at a show). We rarely got paid and most club owners acted like they were doing us a favor when they let us play (and they probably were). We played every hole-in-the-wall and dive bar we could find. If I could do it all over again I wouldn't change a thing. What memories. Glad to see these actors keeping these small venues alive.
2
It's not that we 'don't want it' as the header of this article implies. It's that we can't take it without risking the decimation of a very thriving theatre scene here in LA. A wonderful community thousands strong. These reputable intimate theaters here cannot afford to pay AEA actors minimum wage and stay afloat. It is just not a viable economic option. We are faced then with the decision not whether or not we want to get paid (and by the way, we are getting paid; we are not working for absolutely zero dollars) but whether we want the community and the scene to continue and to thrive, or to have it annihilated. AEA's proposals would, in essence, burn the enterprise to the ground. The way they have dealt with this whole thing is shameful. It would make a great Alexander Payne movie. One of those bitter-sweet satires that knows exactly who to skewer, and how.
For me, this is not even really about the LA theatre scene at all. This issue exists at the national level. It is about the astonishing imbalance of wealth and funding in this country for arts and artists.
For me, this is not even really about the LA theatre scene at all. This issue exists at the national level. It is about the astonishing imbalance of wealth and funding in this country for arts and artists.
3
"The actors who oppose the union’s efforts... argue that in many other cities, small theaters are dying out, and that Los Angeles has a large and innovative scene unlike other cities"
Clearly, these actors haven't been to the Twin Cities theatre scene. Our small, and innovative, theatres thrive!
Clearly, these actors haven't been to the Twin Cities theatre scene. Our small, and innovative, theatres thrive!
1
It has been my experience that the theaters that swear they can't possibly pay actors more than gas money are usually paying their administration and technicians a living wage or they would have no administrators or technicians. Minimum wage is more than fair when you consider that the actors are the face of the production. Show some respect for the actors talent and time.
3
I am not a working or struggling actor, just a theater goer, so please forgive my potential ignorance. It seems to me, however, as an economics teacher, that two separate issues have been conflated. The right for actors to have an opportunity to work for no-- , or close to no pay in exchange for the opportunity to hone their craft is not necessarily being taken away. Theater houses or acting "schools" could still operate with donated time of non-union actors. What the labor union seems to quite rightfully want to demand for its members is a fair wage for the labor used in the production of a product (a show) that financially benefits from the use of specifically skilled, as opposed to unskilled, labor. If a theater house would like to use the wonderfully special talents of craft union members, they must pay a fair wage for it. If theater audiences want the extraordinary experience of seeing live shows with excellent performers, they must pay, also, for it.
4
Definitely an interesting situation, but this is hardly "a new front in the nation’s battle over the minimum wage." as the writer states. This proposal affects a very specific profession in a very specific market. Any attempt to make it relevant to our current discussions on minimum wage is a stretch at best....
3
Let's squash something right away.
Actors in L.A. are NOT primarily doing small theater for Showcasing. That is stereotype that is constantly perpetuated pretty much exclusively by people outside of the L.A. theater community. Any actor who is in L.A. who thinks small theater will showcase them to the "industry" probably just landed at LAX. Because let me tell you truly, the casting directors and most other industry people in a position to hire actors are NOT showing up in any significant volume at the theaters we are discussing! Bless the handful that consistently do show up (and some who help create theater too) but even so, showcasing is NOT a primary reason actors in Los Angeles are volunteering their time to not only get on stage, but run and operate these theaters. Not by a long shot.
Actors in L.A. are NOT primarily doing small theater for Showcasing. That is stereotype that is constantly perpetuated pretty much exclusively by people outside of the L.A. theater community. Any actor who is in L.A. who thinks small theater will showcase them to the "industry" probably just landed at LAX. Because let me tell you truly, the casting directors and most other industry people in a position to hire actors are NOT showing up in any significant volume at the theaters we are discussing! Bless the handful that consistently do show up (and some who help create theater too) but even so, showcasing is NOT a primary reason actors in Los Angeles are volunteering their time to not only get on stage, but run and operate these theaters. Not by a long shot.
5
Top of the artcle,42 seats. Theatres all over diverse Los Angeles landscape as small, a bit bigger.99 seats tops.There is no money made in these venues only art, development, strides towards growth artistically and in brotherhood and sisterhood.
I am a progressive in my political stance. This is not politics at play. Common sense .Allow L.A.to be itself.
I am a progressive in my political stance. This is not politics at play. Common sense .Allow L.A.to be itself.
2
@Jones: As the writer clearly states, there is a unique set of circumstances behind the conflict about minimum wage for actors in LA. They have a ton of little theaters and a ton of actors who need to keep their acting muscles in shape. That does not make them glamorous or rich so they can work for free. It makes them idealists, who deserve our patronage and respect.
9
The majority of these actors are looking for a "showcase" of their talent. They're in LA to book TV and movie gigs. Most of them are happy to develop their craft in an artistic environment. With that said, on some shows they probably deserve a more fair shake at sharing the proceeds than $7/show. The other issue is - Does the current system incentivize the 99-Seat plan for producers who would otherwise produce "bigger" productions? And therefore more money for all involved? Are we limiting the ability to support "living wage" theater productions in LA by only aiming to fill 99 seats?
1
No one in any industry should be forced to work for less than a living wage. $7/hr? "How many of us can we crowd into this apartment?" How does anyone survive on $7/hr? I don't work in the entertainment industry, but I do think that the 99 seat theater does damage control for a production that will not survive on a larger stage, and that is a different issue.
2
These actors are acting in their self-interest. The cost of keeping these theaters alive is the cost they are willing to forgo in potential wages. Also, even those actors who would prefer the wage increase know that it could never be sustained. They are looking out for their long-run self-interest. Very fascinating case study.
9
"And, the union says, even in Los Angeles some of the small theaters pay musicians, publicists, box office workers — just not actors."
First, let me say, I was an actor and am now retired. That said, I wish to say that actors - not stars or even supporting actors who work for well above minimum - have been so demeaned for so long - "I never said all actors are cattle, what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle." ~ Alfred Hitchcock - they accept the only way for them to exercise their craft is to do it without pay or a pittance. We may be getting the experience, but so are the other essential providers in the production of the play. The director, the costumer, the lighting designer, the producer, etc. are also doing this for experience and yet they get paid well enough to make it practical to do it. No one gets rich doing the 99 seat theater thing, but the actor certainly deserves to be equally treated. And any actor who doesn't support this is in error. The actor is, after all, as vital to a play's production as any other person involved. After all, costumes and scenery are but accoutrement to a production and many have been done without. Time for actors to get some spine and be respectful of their worth.
First, let me say, I was an actor and am now retired. That said, I wish to say that actors - not stars or even supporting actors who work for well above minimum - have been so demeaned for so long - "I never said all actors are cattle, what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle." ~ Alfred Hitchcock - they accept the only way for them to exercise their craft is to do it without pay or a pittance. We may be getting the experience, but so are the other essential providers in the production of the play. The director, the costumer, the lighting designer, the producer, etc. are also doing this for experience and yet they get paid well enough to make it practical to do it. No one gets rich doing the 99 seat theater thing, but the actor certainly deserves to be equally treated. And any actor who doesn't support this is in error. The actor is, after all, as vital to a play's production as any other person involved. After all, costumes and scenery are but accoutrement to a production and many have been done without. Time for actors to get some spine and be respectful of their worth.
9
If the quote atop your comment were true at more than "some" theaters, I would agree with every word you just said. But it isn't. At the great majority of 99 seat theaters working under this plan, actors are the ONLY people getting paid. Or the others are getting stipends roughly equal to what the actors are getting. Everyone IS equally treated. Designers, artistic directors, running crew-everyone's a volunteer, choosing to work for nothing or for a pittance for love of theater.
AEA's Gail Gabler recently said on the radio that many 99 seat shows have budgets of $500,000. This is untrue. The majority are artistic co-ops, non-profit and non-commercial, and the "producers" are not traditional commercial investors; that would be madness, given the money-losing prospect that intimate theater is. They are actors and playwrights and other theatermakers, putting up shows out of their own very limited pockets, and usually taking a loss. In fact, at many membership companies (including Sacred Fools, where I am a member), the "producer" of record is not a traditional "producer" at ALL; the nonprofit puts up the money-the "producer" is an unpaid volunteer who does the dogwork of organizing and gets NO cut of the revenue.
If there are theaters were everyone but the actors are getting paid real money (though no examples have been proffered), that could be eliminated by the simple expedient of putting a budget cap on the use of the 99 seat plan, which the plan currently does not have.
AEA's Gail Gabler recently said on the radio that many 99 seat shows have budgets of $500,000. This is untrue. The majority are artistic co-ops, non-profit and non-commercial, and the "producers" are not traditional commercial investors; that would be madness, given the money-losing prospect that intimate theater is. They are actors and playwrights and other theatermakers, putting up shows out of their own very limited pockets, and usually taking a loss. In fact, at many membership companies (including Sacred Fools, where I am a member), the "producer" of record is not a traditional "producer" at ALL; the nonprofit puts up the money-the "producer" is an unpaid volunteer who does the dogwork of organizing and gets NO cut of the revenue.
If there are theaters were everyone but the actors are getting paid real money (though no examples have been proffered), that could be eliminated by the simple expedient of putting a budget cap on the use of the 99 seat plan, which the plan currently does not have.
2
As someone who's worked in the intimate theatre community in L.A. for 20 years, I want to try and clear up some misconceptions. Most of these theaters are run by the actor/members. These are collectives. The actors run the theaters and they determine the pay the other actors (and themselves) are to be afforded. They choose what to pay (if anything) designers, directors and playwrights. No one is being taken advantage of, and they have supreme respect for themselves and their art.
The theaters operate at a loss and survive thanks to grants and donations from generous benefactors. Being forced to double or triple production costs against their will would force these actors to close their own theaters. It doesn't make any sense. It's bad for theatre, and destructive to actors' careers.
The theaters operate at a loss and survive thanks to grants and donations from generous benefactors. Being forced to double or triple production costs against their will would force these actors to close their own theaters. It doesn't make any sense. It's bad for theatre, and destructive to actors' careers.
3
Somewhere along the line, Equity hasn't passed along the idea that you should be paid for your work regardless of anything. As long as Equity members in LA think of stage acting as just training, or simply a way to be seen, they will have negated almost 100 years of Equity efforts. LA is different only because actors have allowed it to be different.
10
LA is different because as a world film and TV capitol the density of actors in the population is probably several thousand times more than it would be in any conventional city. How many are flocking to Tulsa seeking fame and fortune?
3
There is nothing glamorous about the hard work and personal sacrifice that go into making your own art. I can't afford to work for free, but I do because it's better than not working at all. I am a union member and just produced my own showcase in NY. It cost $12,000. I made about $1,200 in ticket sales and about $4,000 (before my fiscal agent's fee) in an Indiegogo campaign. Tickets were $18 tops with some at 1/2 price on TDF in a 50-seat house; and I donated many tickets to veterans and GMHC. I paid all of my actors (except myself) $100 regardless of union affiliation. I took a loss of about $7,000 and I figure I'll be paying that loan back to my 401k for the next 5 years. Goodbye early retirement. But I'd rather hone my craft in a low paying or negative profit showcase than expensive classes because at least you have the chance to be seen while you practice your craft. Yet, even though we had a press agent ($2,000) we only got about 4 (very favorable) reviews in little-seen on-line publications. In a 14-performance show, many nights the audience was the same size as the cast. The biggest expense for small theatrical productions is the space. Ours cost $7,500 for the run. Los Angeles rents probably aren't much better. If other areas of the country pay their Equity actors more for a 99-seat plan show then it's because they're not paying astronomical rents. Would I do it again? Yes. But it will be a while.
7
As a frequent theater-goer and an occasional producer here in Los Angeles, I'm saddened at the amount of bitter anger this proposal has spawned. I've been a bystander at some pretty terrible arguments over Equity's proposal: things that can't be unsaid have been said and friendships have ended.
To be sure, the balance between compensation and professional development is a critical issue in the unique theater environment that is Los Angeles. I think Equity has blown it. This discussion didn't need to come to this topsy-turvy moment: it should have been approached with a little more nuance.
I sincerely hope that production continues unabated: one of the great pleasures of living within a dozen miles of half the working actors in America is being able to see them pursue the sorts of fantastic work they bring to stages all over L.A.
To be sure, the balance between compensation and professional development is a critical issue in the unique theater environment that is Los Angeles. I think Equity has blown it. This discussion didn't need to come to this topsy-turvy moment: it should have been approached with a little more nuance.
I sincerely hope that production continues unabated: one of the great pleasures of living within a dozen miles of half the working actors in America is being able to see them pursue the sorts of fantastic work they bring to stages all over L.A.
9
Sounds like many are OK that acting, like other glamorous jobs, is mostly for people who can afford to work for free.
4
It's seems more like they fear that there will be no acting position s available for them if their wages increase.
1
Many, many of my friends who work alongside me in 99-seat theater are struggling financially and find time to do 99-seat shows because it's what they love. The 99-seat plan was deliberately set up to NOT be able to generate much revenue, specifically so it could not be abused by commercial producers. It is not employment and was never meant to be.
Also, working in 99-seat theater as an actor is not a full-time job. You can have your day job and come to rehearsals at night, and, as rehearsals are unpaid, the director - also unpaid - must work around the actors' schedules. That's the trade-off, along with the actor being allowed to leave the production at any time for more remunerative work.
Also, working in 99-seat theater as an actor is not a full-time job. You can have your day job and come to rehearsals at night, and, as rehearsals are unpaid, the director - also unpaid - must work around the actors' schedules. That's the trade-off, along with the actor being allowed to leave the production at any time for more remunerative work.
3
Other glamorous jobs: like taking night classes to learn new skills, working to start a new business on evenings and weekends, writing a book while working 40 hours a week, volunteering at a charity or a church. People work very hard all the time for little or no money, but find reward in other ways. Why should actors not have the same opportunity?
2