There’s a lot of discussion going on right about the low/no pay issue and ‘the fringe’ in theatre.
So, to wade in with my two-pennyworth...
There's a great danger in this debate of treating 'the fringe' as a tight, homogeneous group, when in practice it ranges from actors putting on their own plays, and projects that are innovative but unfunded, to companies that have been 'fringe' for many years, whether by design or circumstance.
To give this some history and context, the 'fringe' of the 60s and 70s seems to have been where a lot of innovative work got done. There was also a lot more public money around. So it was 'fringe' in an artistic sense, rather than financially. And many of those involved had a more cohesive agenda, like many radical artistic movements. People could afford to work on the fringe, had something to say, and that’s what they did.
From what I hear within Equity, a lot of discussion still treats 'the fringe' as having that ideological position. From what I hear down the pub, talking with colleagues, ‘fringe' is what you do if you don’t have a proper job in prospect. It's basically the theatre that doesn't fit into any of the existing Equity agreement 'slots'. Those agreements are normally the result of negotiating with a particular group of employers (i.e. theatre companies). So ‘the fringe’ is essentially defined by what it’s not.
Nor is it static. I know few people involved in 'the fringe' today who regard it as an end in itself (but that depends whether your idea of ‘fringe’ includes children’s theatre, community projects and TIE). The actors and directors I know are after exposure leading to a paid job, the writers are hoping for a decent commission, the producers hope it'll get them some funding or backing. Which many of them get. And so it goes.
People who were on the fringe ten years ago are now working in the mainstream industry: Tom Morris (BAC to Bristol Old Vic), Erica Whyman (Southwark Playhouse to Northern Stage), Dominic Dromgoole (Bush to Globe). I realise there are no actors or ‘jobbing’ directors in this list: in the arts, administrators tend to have permanent jobs with clearer career paths, while ‘creatives’ work on a project-to-project basis, so many performers’ career paths comprise a mix of fringe and mainstream work. The balance may change, and for many the aim is that it tends towards the mainstream. But some fringe projects may still be worthy of involvement: my most notable example of this was seeing Equity stalwart Miriam Karlin in Many Roads to Paradise at the Finborough a couple of years ago.
The point is, it's a dynamic, subtle and rapidly-changing picture. That’s what creativity, innovation and small-scale activity does for an industry. We don’t need to ‘deal with the fringe’: there’s scarce clear agreement even on what it is. It’s not enough that Equity gets a closer grasp of the breadth and nuances involved in the sort of work its members do, why they do it and why the projects happen in the first place. We also need to keep close to the pulse. No sense picking up Time Out and doing deals with all the companies listed there: most of them will be gone in five years. We need to get sensitive and responsive to the ephemeral texture of today’s industry.
Posts
3 comments:
The fringe isn't a homogeneous group, its a convenient label for disparate employers. For that's what we are here to judge whether or not this is work and whether or not we should be paid for it. But in the final reckoning we don't have that judgement the law does, a National Minimum Wage law that's been around some 10 years. For all the talk of professionalism and high quality work from this fringe group, they haven't been able to organise themselves either individually or collectively into addressing the matter or issuing their own guidelines or promoting it. Despite the numerous spats in The Stage there are still the same fringe theatre companies that have been going for 20 years not paying actors and making a loss, with the same Artistic Directors at the helm, it is more than astonishing how these Artistic Directors (and Ltd company directors – for that's what they are) working with 'sell out shows' are able to run company at a loss not pay actors and stage management yet are able to sustain their own livelihoods and directorship for 20 years.
Alyn's blog is unable to state the hundred of theatre company's that go on, or are willing to pay our rates – because they are very few. Yes there are many AD's who've gone on to join funded larger companies, they're alright Jack, but were they able to set up a theatre company that paid its actors initially? Why are we tolerating those who apply the same principles for 20 years – and are still running at a loss? Why support a business model that works for the director but not the actor? – so much for mutuality, cooperation, respect.
If you want to Equity bring test cases then there is an inevitability that it will influence the Fringe – its an incompatible perspective to say “yes I agree Equity should bring test cases, but not if they harm anyone who might be too small or too worthy.” Asking for test cases does deal with it, one can't partially deal with this issue. There are consequences in working for nothing, it affects others and it depresses rates of pay as well as sending out a message that one doesn't need to pay actors.
Unlike this blog unions do not exist to pontificate on the artistic merits of unpaid work, they exist in a pragmatic world. Thats what our council needs more pragmatic thinking on this subject and a willingness to confront the issue and its strategy head on. Vote Cannings, Corden, Nott and Starling for council!
Thanks for your comments Claude.
I'm glad you agree that the fringe isn't a homegeneous group (which is why I avoid the capital 'F'). We're not looking at an ITC or TMA: we're looking at an area of work that hasn't really featured on Equity's radar until recently, so intelligent discussion and action are only starting to happen. On the other hand, it features large in many actors' working lives, so needs to be acknowledged if Equity wants to demonstrate its relevance to many of its members.
You're quite right, this blog is 'pontificating' (but I'm no pope, so prefer 'reflecting' or 'thinking'). Equity wading into this nebulous area with a dogmatic blunt instrument would be rather like the Americans going into Vietnam: futile and embarrassing, with a lot of unnecessary casualties. It needs a bit of thought and better understanding of the territory before we can identify what can usefully be done.
I realise that you may already have researched this and decided on a course of action. You also seem to have a clear (but unstated) 'hitlist' in mind. This might form a useful basis for some objective criteria that better defines the field, and areas where Equity's resources might most usefully be directed.
I don't have the resources to do all this legwork and research independently of Equity. But I do believe I'm in touch with the concerns of members across a wide range of areas, and willing to argue on their behalf within Equity. That's why I'm standing for Council.
Hi Alyn,
I think your posting is brilliant. Measured and thoughtful.
Here are the basics about minimum wage and actors from actorsminimumwage: http://wp.me/PUoDE-1c
Please share this link.
Post a Comment