---------------------------------------------------------------------------
•
Isaac ButlerMore Equity Code Nerdantry
Not to flog a dead horse, but I really think the pegging actor pay in showcases to budget size is a clever solution, particularly if there were a way to pair it with a small contribution to pension/health. That way smaller shows aren't penalized for having lower budgets and, symbolically, there's something very all-in-this-together to using a percentage formula to figure it out. Equity even calls it the "Fair Share." It's also an adaptation of an existing code (the seasonal showcase) so it's not like the idea comes totally out of left field.
A seasonal showcase code's lowest budget tier mandates that you set aside 15% of the budget for actor pay, so if what we are doing is creating a new tier beneath that, it makes some sense to me that you would have actor's paid 10-12% of the total budget, with some mechanism for throwing something to pension and health (in part so that the union has more of an incentive to monitor and enforce compliance). So in a $25K production, the actors are splitting $2500-$3K in wages. That's still low, obviously, but it's way better than the status quo and far cheaper than even a week's rent in many (most?) OOBR performance venues.
This could then be paired with considerations on ticket prices and filming for archival use. (I think the length of performance run issue is a red herring since real estate costs and practices make it nearly impossible to extend a show anyway, but perhaps within the 4 week limit there could be more performances allowed).
What are the problems with this beyond not wanting to pay actors more?
•
Chris Thorn If there were a way to get some health benefits that didn't involve going out of town I think that would be pretty game changing for some actors. I'd much rather pick up a few weeks toward health working on something I believe in here than doing Christmas Carol in Rochester (I've never actually done that, and no disrespect to anyone who has).
•
Ian W. Hill I'm fine with this, though of course none of the 90 shows I've directed has had a budget over $5,000, so the shares would get kind of pitiful maybe, especially if split between 23 actors, but I'd do it. My intent is always to split any profit on my shows with the whole company, but only three of my shows have ever made any profit, and that in the vicinity of $100. It would be nice to have more money and do more with it and pay more people, or ANY people apart from a costume designer sometimes (and not lose anything I have on every show I do), but that isn't happening. And that will continue to be the reality for me and many other OOB creators.
•
Dominic D'Andrea I like this in theory, but I don't see how this can fly in practice. Furthermore, there seems to be an assumption here that producers have some kind of pocket of money that's not being spent on the actors. Like Ian said, most of the work I've done as a director working with limited resource'd producers and as a producer with limited resources myself.
We all find creative ways just to get in the space and make it work--and that's not limited to producers, it's a team sport for all involved. Actors and directors who do these projects are there because they want to do them.
I bet 90% of showcase codes have a less than 20 grand budget. Is say most less than 10k. Lucky ones have 20.
Most of that goes to space. Then to advertisement, and misc production costs. Then to techs/designers (many techs as you know are required by contract.)
That leaves very little money for actors. Either a stipend a profit split is normal. Stipend is guaranteed, but stupid small. Profit split rolls the dice. If it doesn't go well: then everyone is screwed.
I don't see the alternative here, other than saying only those with more money should produce showcase codes. That means less work produced, and less ops for artists to do work. I agree that all artists should get paid more: excellent. But how?
•
Dominic D'Andrea I'd also add that as a director working for small companies, I've either been asked to or willingly given by stipend to the actors, and done it for free. I'm afraid this is also common for directors as well, sadly.
Other than: do a better job fundraising, I'd love to see how these kind of proposals can reasonably expected to be met.
Always curious to learn.
•
Isaac Butler Well as I said on my blog yesterday, what I'd do is then create some other thing for very low budget shows that went to use union folks that would a much lower budget cap and stricter rules (shorter rehearsal periods, fewer performances etc.). I'd be very very interested in finding out some numbers about showcase code show's budgets, by which I mean their real budgets, since there's a lot of lying within the system (not accusing anyone where, obviously). But it doesn't track that showcase code budgets are mostly under $10K yet there's all these multi-week showcase productions in venues that charge 3-5K a week to rent.
•
Isaac Butler (Also under the proposal above, a show with an $8K budget is looking at spending $800 on performers, which isn't very much in the grand scheme of things. In Ian's example, a show with a $5K budget and 23 actors, it's $21/person! that's why i think something in this direction is a more workable solution for paying people more than straight up raising the fees. The overriding issue is that it is too expensive to rent a theater that isn't run by Erez Ziv or The Brick in this town.)
•
Dominic D'Andrea You are right. I doesn't add up. But: Here's how it tracks (in much of my experience being a director for producers in this situation): a lot of 10k shows find ways to weasel space costs down to less than 3k/around 3 a week. Or some kind of shorty discount with all kinds of stupid space confessions. Or take shitty times, off nights, etc. they they pay it outright, or charge it to their cc. If a show does well, it covers the cost-or they hope to get close. If it doesn't, they are on the wrong side and try to make it up in post season fundraising. Is this a good idea? No. It's shameful to admit, but it happens. A lot. These producers like to put on a good face that they got things covered, but they do not. And they do this for years, until they can't.
For the record: I have never been this producer. It's part of why I don't work in traditional models of theatre making anymore. But I see this. It's sloppy. But it happens
•
Isaac Butler I've definitely seen that too. This (like with the gender parity stuff) is another place where i think accurate data would be really helpful.
•
Dominic D'AndreaIf anyone who works this way would actually want to expose themselves: that would be amazing.
• comment redacted as per the poster's request
•
Dominic D'Andrea Mark as someone who is not much a part of the nyit community or that work, or any sense of those topics, can you say more? I'd love to know.
• comment redacted as per the poster's request
•
Jonathan Spector Apolgies, this is tl;dr. But here goes:
For a view on How The Other Half Lives:
In the Bay Area, we have no Equity Showcase. There was once something like it, but it's been more or less phased out for ongoing use. What are the effects of this, compared to the situation in NYC? (and let us preface with all the usual disclaimers about them being vastly different markets, size of communities etc, so not all of these are directly attributable, but...)
On the plus side, having no Showcase does seem actually create more work for actors that pays a weekly salary of at least minimun wage. Small companies like mine, and those of my peers are forced to find a way to make the leap. It's crippling, and means doing fewer shows, with smaller casts, but some people manage to do it.
It also creates a situation where frequently working actors (though primarily men, for reasons explicated elsewhere), are able to make a significant portion of the their income from acting (though still rarely enough to live on). I think it also has the ripple effect of causing everyone (designers, directors etc) to value their work and expect to be paid at all but the very smallest companies.
The downside is that very few small companies are able to survive the leap onto the Equity contract, since it's such a gigantic jump from paying a small stipend to paying out nearly $300 per week per union actor (this is the rolled up cost to the company, not what the actor takes home).
I believe it also has the ripple effect of inhibiting the experimental, rigorous new work scene. Here's why: In NYC, you can be a tiny, weird, theater making unusual work, and if the work is compelling, you can get some of the most talented performers in town to work on it, to essentially donate their time for work they believe in. That means if you're trying something new, you have the chance to try it in the best possible way. Without a showcase (seasonal or otherwise) code, more established artists can't work on that play at Clubbed Thumb or New Georges, even if they wanted to.
I also think that in the Bay Area this results in there being far fewer edgy, new young companies than there should be in a town of this size. And this in turn leads to fewer companies at the mid-level, since for the most part mid-level companies start out as smaller companies... From my dealings with the union though, it's pretty clear that they don't feel that tending to the theatrical ecosystem a whole is their responsibility. Shortsighted, from my perspective, but there you are.
The lack of showcase code in the Bay also has the frequently seen and sad effect of a much sought after non-union actor, who works non-stop while they're non-union, then becomes union and then can't get hired at all (this happens more frequently to women, for reason explicated elsewhere).
It's probably worth defining our terms here. "Working" for those of us in the field is often synonymous with "working on a show". For the union, understandably, "working" means doing something that is going to pay you at least minimum wage.
Which brings me to my +100 to Isaac Butler for making it more difficult to join the union. If one of the union's primary aims is for the to be paying work for it's members, this seems a logical solution. I presume this is never going to happen because of the pressure to keep more dues flowing in (and also possibly for other reasons I'm not aware of), but on some fundamental level it does seem irresponsible for a union to bring people in knowing there's not nearly enough work to go around, and at the same time bar them from taking non-union work.
Also, we should probably all acknowledge that as producers and artists, we have conflicting needs. In my perfect world as a producer, there would always be a surplus of artists, so that any time I needed to cast a role or hire a designer I had a plethora of great choices. But if there are a plethora of choices, that means at any given time there are many many people NOT chosen (i.e. not working). (fwiw, we out here generally imagine this to be the situation in NYC
As an artist, I want there to be a scarcity of choices. I want to know there theaters competing to hire me, because there aren't fifteen other people they could go to if I turn them down. (this is how we as producers tend to often experience the community out here - that there is only one actor in town who can fill a certain role, etc).
It strikes me that these things are kind of inevitably in conflict, and as someone who spends a lot of time thinking about how to make their theater community better, I'm not quite sure what to do with this idea.
But to bring it back on track, the seasonal showcase model seems the most sensible one if your goal is to make sure your members are being treated fairly. That assumes that fairness is your main value. Which I think for good faith indy theater producers it often is. For the union (at least in the BA) the thing that has value in Indy Theater is the thing that has value everywhere else: money.
•
Seth Düerr I completely agree. Basic showcase has no such percentiles. I think the 15% of seasonal and contracts is the bare minimum that should be offered.
•
Seth Düerr Back when my company was destitute, and actors were working gratis or close to it, I never took a fucking penny. Now, we're usually in the black before opening, so everyone gets bloody paid.
•
Kim Davies Agree so much with Jonathan Spector. The most effective unions in film/theater/etc are the ones that are really tough to get into. And it does seem somewhat disingenuous for Equity to continue to accept new members to compete over a diminishing pool ...See More
•
Seth Düerr What do you mean? 49k in AEA and 160k in SAG...surely there are that many roles...
•
Sean Williams Many people in LA call SAG "the extras union". SAG has a ton of jobs, you can work every single day all year round if you want and make a good living.
•
Sean Williams To be clear, the NYIT has never been anti-union. This week's blogs were curated by me, without any of their input. Also, nobody is anti-union, there's no hotbed and, in my humble opinion, publishing a blog is hardly activism... but all that aside, if you see anti-union, hotbeds or activism, they're all mine, not the NYIT Foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment