Heated Showcase Conversation part 1

Last week, in honor of Indie Theatre Week, Sean Williams curated our blog and asked several OOB artists this question: "What is happening right now in the Indie Theater Community, and how do you think it will change in the coming years?"

Their posts were exciting and thoughtful. While contemplating how they would like to see OOB change, several artists choose to addressed the AEA's Showcase Code, which is a hot-button topic in our community.

You can read the posts here:

• The New Indie Theatre by Sean Williams
• A Future Without Theatres by James D. Carter
• Second Base On Your Wedding Night by Shaun Bennet Fauntleroy
• Theatre isn't just in the Theater by Gyda Arber 
• Tear Down This Wall by Patrice Miller
• Times They Are A Changin' by Nat Cassidy

Shaun's post inspired Isaac Butler to post an opposing opinion on his blog; If I Ran The Zoo.

Comments and reactions were zipping around on several different social media platforms: Twitter, Facebook and the blog. It is such an important and worthy discussion that Sean wanted to bring it all together and consolidate it into one spot. To those ends, here are the first of the community comments that were posted on Facebook.

-----------------------------------

•      Sean Williams
Here's what's weird. I found myself in a heated conversation yesterday withIsaac Butler and Patrice Miller and others, and I found myself - a lifetime advocate of unions, passionate supporter of Equity specifically and a grateful producer using the Showcase Code to great effect - arguing against the code and the union. *THIS* is the problem with social media. I wasn't wrong, but I was totally Catholic about something that I'm actually pretty agnostic about. So weird...•      Jennifer Gordon Thomas 
Perception is a slippery thing

•      Susan Atwood 
Both my parents were in union jobs and would be the first to tell you how much they can suck. That being said... they are also retired before 65 with pensions and benefits. So...

•     Mac Rogers
It does make sense to me. You wouldn't argue for the perfection of something you didn't already think was good. You're not out there saying "Man if Westboro Baptist could just be flexible on a *few things*..."

•     Jennifer Gordon Thomas
And in one succinct sentence, Mac Rogers perfectly illustrates grey area. I like the cut of your jib, mister.

•     Kari Bentley-Quinn
I'm in the same boat. It's okay to support unions and realize they're flawed and haven't been updated properly in twenty years.

•     Jesse Edward Rosbrow
I don't know what the big problem is here--I'm very pro-union and relatively pro-AEA, have produced a bunch of stuff under the showcase code (and if I come back to NYC after getting my PhD, I expect I'll do so again), and I think the showcase code is total bullshit.

•    Patrice Miller
But Jesse Edward Rosbrow, you know you have plenty of other options, it's not like you have to use that code. The point I was trying to illustrate, and failed utterly at truth be told, was that many of us have internalized that OOB=Showcase Code, and that may stem from the opening of the Equity Showcase Code agreement. It's a bit of a cycle, I guess.

•     Jesse Edward Rosbrow
True! I think the problem is that some of my favorite actors are AEA members, so if I want to use them in shows at this level then I either have to use the code or ask them to lie and jeopardize their membership (and I'm not willing to do the latter).

But that's a good point--even the non-showcase shows I've produced mainly followed the showcase format. If I had to do it all over again, that's something I'd probably change.

•     Patrice Miller
Even with AEA actors, there are other options. Read my piece! You can scroll down to the end where I tell folks what to do

•    Patrice Miller
(I'm a director! It's okay!)

•    Paul Weissman
I am pro-union, not in any actor's union, and have many, many issues with the union I'm not in

•    Isaac Butler
I think the reason why we tend to use the showcase rules even in non-showcase oobr productions is not the writing at the beginning of the code (which many people have never read) but rather that the showcase code has established the basics of "good behavior" from producers. This is much the same way that unions gave us the weekend, and even non-union workplaces have a weekend. Again, this is why I'm skeptical of efforts to weaken protections for actors in the code, because I think it will have a serious ripple effect that will affect non-union actors as well.

Anyway, Sean Williams I appreciate what you're saying here. And Mac Rogers, I feel you as well. I also think it's easy to think we're all on the same side so long as our positions are as vague as possible.I want the showcase code reformed too! But I want it reformed in ways that demand more pay for actors.

•     Mac Rogers
I don't think I said we're all on the same side. That would be a very peculiar thing for me to say after a nearly 200-comment-long argument. Though at least in one particular I'm on the same side as you. I'd love an option to videotape shows and use the footage promotionally and for grants in exchange for a second payment to the actors. It seems like a second service, so it should require a second payment.

•    Jesse Edward Rosbrow
...How didn't I read your piece yesterday until just now, Patrice...?! (I blame it being a super-busy day that I was out and about for most of, which is totally true, but I'm still annoyed at myself, because I care about what you were writing about, and what you wrote about it is *great*.)

•    Patrice Miller
Fair point, Isaac. I'm kind of into subliminal messaging, so I'm gonna stick to that opening language bit 

And I'm glad you're all on board with changing the code. I'm tired of the showcase code. As a director, I want a pension and healthcare, I want to play in the arena that will take care of me (through SSDC, of course). The showcase code doesn't gel with SDC interests. Or 802. It's not meant to. But I work too much for this nonsense. <-- agenda="" br="" finally="" her="" is="" revealed.="">
•    Patrice Miller
Aw, thanks Jesse. I'm actually in the middle of other-economics research, so this thing feels real half-baked. Really, trying to dissect why we use the showcase code as often as we do, how language affects identity and ideas of struggle in art, are big, big undertakings. Which I kind of failed to undertake at all.

•     Jesse Edward Rosbrow
I should probably read that big ol' comment thread before I write anything more here, right?

...Can I at least ask if anybody's pointed out that most uses of the Showcase Code are frauds, and that everybody knows that they're frauds? The Code is pretty explicitly for showcasing talent (for agents &c. who almost never come, as you pointed out, Patrice). It's also explicitly *not* for productions. But everybody--including the people at AEA--knows that's what most of the Showcase productions are. There's some serious doublespeak going on here.

Somehow, that's the thing that galls me the most. And I think it's the source of some of the big problems we're having when we're trying to make productions under the shadow of the Code, since the code really isn't built for the uses we're making of it, except in a few places that it's been jerry-rigged over the years.

...But somebody probably already made that point over in that other thread, right?

•     Jesse Edward Rosbrow
Just because there are more problems to tackle here doesn't mean you didn't tackle some of 'em in that piece, Patrice.

•    Patrice Miller
That's what I was trying to say, Jesse! Yes, it's a sham. I thinkJustin says something similar as well. The Showcase code wasn't made for us.

I do think the last round of negotiations is problematic because AEA and folks from the OOB community went in and tried to make the code OOB, but that's just not what it's there for. Really, the seasonal and mini, as well as special contracts, are there for us if want to run full productions with Equity actors.

We gots to step outta the arena! Be the change you wish to see in OOB!

•    Patrice Miller 
PS Thanks for better articulating that idea.

•     Jesse Edward Rosbrow
You totally said most of what I just said, if not all of it, didn't you? I just wanted to make sure that we all know that AEA *also* knows what's really going on. Because they're the ones who're explicitly supposed to be looking out for their members' interests, and even they are perpetuating this fraud.

You're welcome, I guess--but no worries! You were focusing more on *us* and why it's ridiculous that we keep making work in the shadow of the Code, and what we can do about it (and you're *really* strong on all of that).

•     Sean Williams
Yeah, at one point a smart alec said, "These aren't productions, they're showcases". And what I didn't say was, "tell that to The Mad Ones and Flux and Vampire Cowboys and Retro and Boomerang and the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the tens of thousands of people who produce, review and watch these shows." Words mean things, and the showcase code now means "Productions in Theaters with less than a hundred seats."

I would *love* it if Equity said, "M'kay. Showcase code is now five shows, one week and actors get $100. OOB code is five weeks, 30 shows, $25 tickets and each actor is paid 10% of whatever you're paying in rent *per week*." Then I would jump over the moon with glee. We could do the community building stuff we love under one contract (see Kill Shakespeare and Blueprint Project) and our bigger shows under the new OOB contract (see The Honeycomb).

Honestly, I have no doubt that this will come about. Equity is no dummy, they know what's going on.

•     Jesse Edward Rosbrow
See, but I think we need more options! What if we want to build an audience for a show that doesn't have one built in--performing it once a week for however long we want to? If we want to do that with an AEA member involved, then we, well, can't, at least without that member lying. We need more flexibility, not just better rules for already-Showcase-like productions.

The most important clause, I think, is the one that says that AEA members are allowed to quit whenever they want. That's one of the things there that *does* make sense in the context of a showcase ('I got a paid gig! Bye, guys!')--that's what showcases are *for*.

...I'm not sure how my last two points work with each other, but my instincts are telling me that there's a decent idea here, even if it's not quite fully formed yet....

•     Jesse Edward Rosbrow
(I want to live in this comment thread forever! But I have to go do some stuff now.... I'll be back later, I promise! But if you're wondering why I'm not here for a while, it's not because I don't love you all, okay?)

•      Mozzle Stead
Oh you guys it's Saturday! (can we pick this back up on monday when I'm trying to get work done) not when I'm trying to get my DnD character ready for 3 oclock. I just, I can't... i just can't. (actually, I really do love this conversation. I am learning a lot, and I haven't done a play since 2010, and this strangely makes me want to do a play. with people as passionate as all of you.)

•    Seth Düerr 
Ugh. Why on earth should actors be paid?

•    Stephen Heskett
Finding this discussion really interesting and want to read what prompted it, can someone point me to the original 200-comment thread?

•    Jason Holtham
Sean, I've avoided weighing in on this because I'm fairly agnostic on it all, but something in your earlier post hit my ear funny: "Equity is no dummy and they know what's going on." I think they do. The OOB contract you desribed is largely the mini contract. Except with the option to pay the actors less if the producer wants. Most of what the OOB community is clamoring for is in the mini contract. Except rigid rules about pay. Yep, Equity is no dummy. I know this particular segment of the OOB community are good and righteous, but there are a lot of other producers out there who aren't. And Equity recognizes that. The point of a union isn't to reward the good guys. It's to defend against the bad.

•    Sean Williams
I thought it would hit your ear funny because of the bad grammar. I really debated long and hard with myself about going back and changing the wording.

The problem with the mini contract or even the seasonal code is going back. We should be able to do something for four-five performances that functions as an experiment... a showcase! I think Blueprint was actually that.

•    Jason Holtham
Is the mini-contract seasonal/forever? If that's flexibility you're asking for, ask for it. Right now, the vocal segment of the OOB community is arguing to be on a mini-contract without having to pay the actors for it.

•    Sean Williams
Honestly, if everyone was actually asking to pay actors less, then I would agree with everyone saying that producers are unfair.. What everyone is asking for is longer runs, higher tickets, videotaping... and we're all willing and anxious to pay actors *more*. I talked to Heather last night, and she's one of those amazing producers who sucks at raising money, and she never *once* mentioned actor salaries.

•     Sean Williams
It *feels* like a straw-man argument and if you look at all the blogs, nobody mentions paying actors less, or that it's too expensive to pay actors at the next level. I know that some commenters here and at Isaac's have said that, but if there was some kind of huge subsidy for running a performances space, or more federal funding for the arts, or better rules for producers to re-coup some of their *enormous losses on every show*, then we'd be in a better place.

•    Jason Holtham
No one is saying it outright, no. But fundamentally it's what your argument boils down to. The community wants benefits that are available to producers at the next level of Equity pay. It's available in the same houses for the same shows. The community seems to be saying, "It's expensive to produce and no other remedies are coming, so can we pay the actors a little less?" But instead of arguing that the mini-contract should come down, you want the showcase code (which isn't designed for the level of production you're doing -the mini-contract is) to go up. Except in the level of guaranteed pay. The concept only works if actors take less pay. I'm not saying you guys are greedy predatory producers. I know you're not. But the underlying philosophy is that people shouldn't get paid to do this stuff. That's why we *all* don't get paid. It's just that Equity actors have a union that prevents that. I've read all the threads on this, stewed on it for days and this, as I see it, is what it seems to boil down to. Make of it what you will.

•    Heather Cunningham
Yeah - I'd love to pay everyone both equally and more than I do - but I simply don't have the cash which is in part due to A) rising rents B) rising production costs such as postage and printing (note that I'm not saying I have to pay more for scenery or costumes - that I can do for the same amount today as I did 5 years ago) and C) rising cost of transportation (there are others, but it would take too long to list them all here). All of these are line items that have taken my show budgets from $11,500 in 2009 to $15,500 in 2014. That on top of declining fundraising due to a poor economy. So asking AEA to keep up with the times seems logical to me - a $4,000 increase in budget in 5 years but the ticket price has never increased? No other business would allow that to happen. Prices rise - that's capitalism.

Meanwhile as I mentioned to Sean last night - give actors some credit. They know in advance what they're getting in to. If they don't want to work for no pay (or just a stipend) they don't have to. Don't audition - or if you audition and are cast and find out afterwards what the stipend is and you're not interested - don't accept the part. We can't control what work we are offered but we CAN control what work we take.

Also - it's tricky when you have a union that is "protecting" actors from producers - I'm both - so I have a union protecting me from me? I'm the only one in my shows who does not end up with a stipend in my pocket at the end of a production. Why? Because there simply isn't any money with which to pay myself. Yes, my AEA actors get paid first. Then my non-company member staff and actors. Then my non-AEA company members. It sucks that my company members are occasionally asked to participate in "family hold backs" but them's the breaks. If we want to have a company and continue to produce shows it means this is the way the cookie crumbles. And I have yet to collect a stipend on a show I was in that I produced. So be it if I want to continue to produce.

•    Heather Cunningham
OH and - regarding more performances - I'm all for it but I probably won't be in a position to take advantage of them - as it is I can barely afford to do 12. And videotaping - YES PLEASE - more and more grants and other processes are requiring video tape - I'd be happy to pay extra for this if it were reasonable - and I'd be happy to do things like video tape just a portion or some other. There's a lot of use in that for building a future audience as well as funding.

•    Isaac Butler
I also think a major problem remains that the code applies to all producers who want to use it, not just mensches like Gideon and Flux who genuinely would like to do better by their actors. So the companies that behave well feel like they're punished for the actions of those who don't. And to some extent they're right. This is a problem I really don't know how to solve. I don't think there can be a separate code for people with integrity.

Also the system is based on a set of assumptions about professionalization that the indie theatre scene to some extent does not buy into.

•    Jason Holtham
I feel like this conversation is very much about how the OOB/indie theatre community sees producing. Sean, to re-iterate, no one is saying, explicitly, I'd like to pay the actors less. But that list of things you want to do are allowed by a mini-contract and (largely) the only functional difference between a mini-contract and the OOB code you're looking for is paying the actors a required amount. You're advocating on "flexibility" for actor pay on the mini-contract.

There isn't the same level of heat, focus or passion about the other issues Heather mentioned. As a bit of an outsider, it strikes me that this community is pushing for professional theatre made with volunteer labor. Whether that's good or not, I'm not passing judgment. I've stayed out of producing because I knew I couldn't raise money to do the work I wanted to, pay people the way I feel they should be paid and not go totally broke myself. You're all making a different call.

•     Jennifer Gordon Thomas 
Everyone is making really smart points. Some people want some things and other people want other things. And I can promise none of this will be resolved on a FB post, but y'all have GOT to stop interpreting each others subtext if you every want to get anywhere.

•    Heather Cunningham
You're right Jennifer - but what a FB post CAN do is get the points hashed out so that they can be clearly stated later when it matters.

•    Jason Holtham
I agree. Also: interpreting subtext is entirely part of having a discussion. If something is mis-interpreted, it can be explained. Also: sometimes people do say more than they mean and sometimes it's good to have a subtext put out there. If it's not what someone is saying, they can speak up.

•    Heather Cunningham
I feel extraordinarily lucky not to have lost more than $740 so far - and it's only that much and not more because I expect to make back the $966 Retro still owes me (and one other anonymous person) on our last show via fundraising that is still to come. But I'm TIRED of having to continue to fundraise AFTER A SHOW CLOSES to keep paying for that show.

•    Heather Cunningham
And I might add - those numbers would be a lot higher if I included my personal stipends in them.

•    DeLisa White
I just wanted to mention something Shay articulated so brilliantly to me the other night. We have lost an entire generation of great theatre to the ether because the showcase code wont let us videotape. Scripts can be read and produced again by various directors of great talent. But that there are performances by actors that I have seen that have cracked my heart, revved my brain and/ or doubled me over with laughter and they are lost forever hurts theatre as a whole, audiences - even local ones who cant make it to limited runs- and most importantly - those ACTORS whose great work was minimally "showcased" for teeny crowds when they COULD have been added to a reel and shopped around to agents and casting directors, captured in a protected/encrypted archive (like lincoln center does), used for Pulitzer (who does more original work/new plays than OOB) & grant applications - ALL of which would benefit....well, everyone - and actors in particular. Im totally willing to forego the promotional angle - but archiving? The loss of those performances to a great audience and theatre history is unconscionable.

•     Jennifer Gordon Thomas
All I meant by the interpreting subtext comment is that it doesn't seem to work so well via the internet, without nonverbal cues. It seems to get people offended and angry. As is evidenced by these threads. And I'm in no way saying these threads are not valid or worth something.

•    Jesse Edward Rosbrow
This pay thing is important. I think most of us are missing something important about it, though--or at least aren't writing it explicitly in this comment thread here.

You know that thing we were talking about earlier, about how this production usage...See More

•    Sean Williams
Jesse, this is one of the points Isaac has made, and is the focus of his entire blood pressure spike. AEA is actually making it *ridiculously* easy for us to use union actors for our shows. Yes, they make it difficult to market the shows and difficult to recoup our investment on the showcase level, but they really do turn a blind eye because it's in their (and their members) best interest to do so.

Jason is right when he says that no matter what we're saying, what we're actually saying is that we don't want to pay actors more. Because much of what we want is available at the next level, and the next level will change our finances *most* at the actor salary level.

BUT, what the blog writers are asking for is for seasonal showcase code pricing and run length without having to come up with $25k, and the ability to film a show so we can apply for grants and have some record of the plays. Three of the four bloggers asking for this are themselves actors.

•    Jesse Edward Rosbrow
Ah, got it! Thanks for catching me up so clearly and quickly, Sean! (And thanks for bearing with me, everybody...!)

I should've probably made it clear—my problem's with AEA. I think (I'm not sure, but I suspect this is the root of the problem) that they admit way too many members to let them *not* take these OOB-type roles if they want to (and, obviously, many of them (many of you!) do).

I think all these changes you're arguing for would be great. I'm in favor of them all.

I just think that AEA should also reevaluate what their mission is if they're going to continue letting this happen. I don't know what that would mean, so this isn't the most useful comment, I'll admit—but I think that all of this shows us that they need to rethink their mission in a serious way.