Re: RAT union panel discussion

[Lmlough@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/13/2001 10:09:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
virtualdrama@juno.com writes:

> I see a major part of this particular debate consisting of small
> companies that want to use equity actors without paying for them.  Why do
> they want to use equity actors when there are so many other actors
> around?  It's because there are so many unemployed equity actors out
> there that it makes sense to try to use "the best". 
>
> Equity actors in non-showcase-contract cities may want to work even if
> they aren't paid, but why belong to a union at all if you take this point
> of view -- 


Some actors join Equity strictly for the medical and pension benefits, 
understandably.  Others join because they believe it makes them "legit", even 
though they still love to work in the small theatre that can no longer 
support them.  In this city, where theatres tend to use the same Equity 
actors over and over, there are, as you say, many non-working Equity actors.

I'm certainly in agreement that there are numerous talented non-Equity actors 
around, and the Brick is happy to work with them, as we do.  We all know that 
being Equity in this country is not synonymous with the "best" in every 
instance.  However, I know we would love to use Equity actors from time to 
time because when you're developing and producing new works, it is often the 
more experienced actor (who is usually Equity) who is able to flesh out a new 
character and work with the writer in doing so.  Don't misinterpret this--we 
have worked with fantastic non-union actors in this area, and we value those 
creative artists greatly.  But experience is a highly valuable commodity in 
this situation, i.e., a new script and new character.  It's unfortunate that 
this pairing of experienced actor with new script is not able to happen more 
often.  Right now, it seems to be only when  a writer is a resident 
playwright at a theatre, or when a particular company gets special funding 
for a festival of some sort.   

I believe these processes benefit the actor, who usually enjoys the challenge 
and opportunity of working on a new character; benefit the director in 
developing a new play with experienced actors who can bring a lot to the 
table; and benefit the writer to work with a more experienced theatre artist 
in bringing their script to life.  The obvious resulting benefit then, of 
course, is theatre overall and the audience, who now have (probably in less 
time) a strong, well developed play.

Again, I'm not saying this can't happen with non-Equity actors.  It does, and 
it does at the Brick.  But I know so many cases where we were able to use 
Equity, such as our pieces done at InterAct, where it was quite evident what 
some of those Equity actors brought to those scripts.  What is the future of 
theatre when the tools for creating new work have limits placed on them?  The 
union is not concerned about theatre or its future; it is concerned about its 
workers like any other union.  Unfortunately, the business blinders prevent a 
lot of exciting things to happen in the world of theatre.  

When you say, "I see a major part of this particular debate consisting of 
small
companies that want to use equity actors without paying for them," that's 
exactly what the union sees.  I don't believe small theatres are looking to 
exploit the actors.  It's not like we're trying to get rich off the backs of 
others.  We all believe in theatre and in trying to make it happen.  But 
small theatres just don't have the budgets.  We don't have big beautiful 
theatre spaces where we can get larger audiences with bigger ticket prices.  
And funders have minimum budget requirements before they will give you their 
money; the more you have, the more you get.  So, it goes round and round.  
Yes, there are some opportunities with the co-producing aspect, but that is 
not always the accurate or appropriate method, nor is it fair to the actual 
producing company in some cases.  Small theatre is an important, vital and 
integral participant of this art.  I wish it were supported without our 
having to prove it to everyone over and over again.  Of course, I'm referring 
to a lot of things at this point, not just the Equity issue.

With limitations (including usually a largely unpaid staff), we all try to 
make theatre happen and keep it alive.  Why can't the union take part in 
that?  It will only happen if the actors rally around the concept and go to 
the union themselves.  As it was written in "American Theatre" magazine some 
years ago, and I'm paraphrasing, if theatre dies in this country, it's our 
own fault.  As theatre artists, we are responsible for its future.  As an 
Artistic Director of a company that develops new work, I strongly believe 
that new plays and performances are needed to keep theatre not only alive but 
exciting; but I feel like I'm pushing a large rock up a hill to do so.  It 
shouldn't be that way.

-Linda Lough
The Brick Playhouse
Phila., PA