I wade into the compensation debate with some reluctance. The discourse has become startlingly heated. People care about the issues, which is a good thing. But unfortunate, incendiary, even insulting things have been said on both sides to those who have expressed perspectives and opinions that not everyone agrees with. I think that’s really sad because, when it comes down to it, and the most strident and entrenched voices notwithstanding, most people broadly share the goals and the values that inform perspectives on both sides of this debate.
With Chris’ essay, we button up our current coverage of the proposed Helen Hayes awards wage requirements
Most people who are concerned about the potential unintended consequences of the minimum compensation requirements that theatreWashington has proposed share the goal of finding the ways and the means to increase compensation for artists who work at the poorest theaters in town. They share the hope that the talents and efforts of these dedicated and committed artists can receive remuneration that better reflects the value we place on them and their work.
Most people who argue for the need to increase remuneration for professional theatre artists on all levels are aware of the important part that our smaller companies play in the ecosystem — and in the food chain — that is the DC theatre scene. Most value the dynamism and diversity that these companies provide both the artists who work for them and the audiences who experience that work. Few would feel that the scene would be as vibrant, or our city as much a magnet for talent from across the country, if those companies and that sort of work was substantially discouraged.
A lot of what has been said during this discussion is conjecture, prediction, speculation, or educated guessing. I will engage in some of those same activities in this piece. But there are some things that are established and irrefutable facts. Let me begin with a few of them.
History did not begin yesterday, part one
When I came back to Washington after college in 1979, there were two companies who paid people anything close to the minimum requirements currently contemplated by tW. They were Arena and Folger. (That Folger company eventually morphed into Shakespeare Theatre Company, after which Folger began producing again on its own.) Both of those companies chiefly cast and staffed out of New York City. The likelihood of indigenous DC theatre artists finding anything but the lowest level work at those companies was tiny.
The reason that there is now a burgeoning, vibrant, varied theatre scene in DC, a scene that attracts artists from different parts of the country, is that, throughout the late 70s, 80s, and into the 90s, a lot of very dedicated and talented people worked for stipends or, in some cases, for nothing at all. Perhaps the scene would have developed identically or similarly without artists working for so little for so long. Perhaps the companies that began by paying people little or nothing, which have now developed to the point where they can pay their artists much more, could have developed identically or similarly had they paid people better from the beginning.
Perhaps there are people who believe that the artists who worked for so little for so long should not have done so. The fact is that they did. It should be remembered that we are now having this conversation in a theatre scene envied for its vitality by other cities in the context of they (or I guess I should say “our”) having done so.
History did not begin yesterday, part two
Here’s another indisputable fact, demonstrated plainly by the history of the Helen Hayes awards: on a level artistic playing field, theaters that pay stipends hold their own with theaters that pay better. I can’t say for sure what Studio and Woolly paid in the 80s, when they began to get nominations and to win awards; or Signature in the early 90s, when Eric Schaeffer was still working at WETA during the day; or Synetic, when it began getting Helen love. It would surprise me greatly if any of those theaters were meeting the currently contemplated compensation requirements at the time they began getting nominations and awards from Helen Hayes. Yet the work done by these theaters and others was judged, by the Helen Hayes standard of excellence and within its adjudication system, over and over again, to be as good as, or, in frequent cases, better than the work being done by the people who were getting paid more.
I know that I got a small stipend when, in the late 90s, I was twice deemed to have been among the 6 or 7 most accomplished supporting actors of the year, in the eyes of Helen Hayes nominators and judges, from a pool that included actors from scores of productions put on by 40 or 50 theaters.
It is a fact that compensation levels are not a factor regarding excellent achievement, as determined by the Helen Hayes awards adjudication process.
History did not begin yesterday, part three
So what does this change mean for those of us actors, directors, and designers who were paid stipends and who were nonetheless nominated during the 30 years when any compensation established a professional credential? Is tW going to go back over the list and asterisk our nominations and wins, as if we had somehow cheated the system, like baseball players who used steroids?
tW is perfectly within its rights to impose this or any other shift in eligibility requirements. But let’s remember that the awards were established to acknowledge excellence in artistic achievement, not to reward successful business models or successful fund-raising. One of the great things about the advent of the awards is that it helped make the city aware not only of the artistic achievement of the “living wage” theaters that hired New Yorkers, or of the touring productions that breezed through town, but of the indigenous talent that was, then, working for stipends. Theaters that today are on the level Studio and Woolly were three decades ago could now be excluded from award consideration and, consequently, not have their artistic merit recognized the way the merit of those theaters was recognized then. How important was that recognition to the development of those theaters into institutions that can now pay decently? I think it was important, just as it was important to the careers of local actors, directors, and designers to achieve that notice. I’d hate it if we, as a community, as institutions, or as individual artists, adopted an attitude of, “Now that I’m this far up the ladder, I’m not sure that we really need to acknowledge those on the lower rungs anymore.”
One other fact that is uncomfortable for some to hear
Some people in town, among our most accomplished and respected artists, find, for whatever reasons, the work at smaller theaters to be more challenging and to be of greater interest to them than the work offered them by larger, richer theaters.
I’ve done numerous interviews during which artists made a point of extolling the attractive vitality of small theaters. I can name actors who delayed, resisted, or even turned down Equity membership (and the consequent “living wage”) because they didn’t want to foreclose the option of working for a stipend at small companies whose missions engaged them. Hell, I am one of those actors.
For every non-Equity actor (during my time as Artistic Director of Washington Shakespeare Company) who balked at a stipend and tried to negotiate it up, there were more Equity actors who were asking me to figure out a way that they could work for the stipend — calling them producers, finding an educational justification, offering to kick back a salary under the table. I can name several actors who left Equity, either because they weren’t getting satisfying, or any, work, or because they were more attracted by the opportunities offered at smaller theaters. (Many of them are women of a certain age, interestingly.) Among this cohort, I can name many Helen Hayes nominees and three award winners, two of them multiple winners.
People can think these people (or I guess I should say “us people”) are misguided or foolish or detrimental to the health of the professional scene. But they can’t think that we don’t exist. I think we deserve to be part of the equation and part of the conversation.
What confuses me about the proposed tW changes
I’m confused by the seeming elasticity of the term “professional” as employed by tW. If tW exists to support professional theatre, as opposed to amateur dramatics, it doesn’t make sense to me that smaller companies are being told that they conceivably won’t be eligible for awards but will still be eligible, as small professional companies, to all of the other support that tW offers what they deem “professional” theatre companies. It seems logical to me that, if a company is “professional” enough to receive the rest of tW’s support, there is no reason that their “professional” work should be excluded from awards consideration. I’m not sure I’ve heard a distinction that explains these two different applications of the word “professional.”
Size matters
I think an argument can be reasonably made that the difference between theater size should be acknowledged. After all, there are single salaries at the high-end theaters that equal the entire budget of the theater I led. The thing is, tW made that distinction when it tiered the awards, creating separate Helen and Hayes categories. But before that horse has even left the barn, tW came back with this new requirement which could (the law of unintended consequences) de-populate the new Helen category significantly, if companies who are eligible for consideration this year are unable to meet the new criteria next year. I’m confused about why the tiering of the awards system wasn’t statement enough about the perceived gradations on the spectrum of professionalism. Some have said, in response to the proposed eligibility change, that an alternative, “Obie”-style awards should be created to acknowledge outstanding work at smaller theaters, those that it doesn’t make sense to pit against larger, well-funded institutions. Didn’t tW just do that?
The new requirements could eliminate established salary differentials
The requirements for director and designer are at, or within spitting distance, of what small companies have been paying, at least the companies I’ve been involved with. However, there has always been a differential between salaries at most companies: the director gets the most money, designers are at the next level, and actors are below both. This is done to reflect, in the case of the director, the fact that (s)he is responsible for every aspect of the production and has been working extensively during the pre-rehearsal period, and, in the case of the designers, that they, also, are involved much earlier and on a conceptual level, before actors even begin their work, and that they have special technical skills.
Keeping director and designer salaries on a fixed stipend, as the tW plan contemplates, while moving actors onto a per diem scale will, in all likelihood, eradicate that differential, as the per diem numbers could easily add up to a higher amount than the fixed salaries. It’s odd to keep one set of artists on a stipend and move another to a per diem system. Also, there is typically one, maybe two, director(s) and usually one designer for each category. The important budget variable for productions is cast size, which brings us to:
The law of unintended consequences, continued
As I said, small companies are paying directors and designers close to the new tW requirements. It’s the cast compensation that looks to be the budget-buster for small companies. By making cast compensation (and, therefore, cast size) the potential variable between current budget levels and possibly unsustainable increases, my fear is that this 1) works against companies like WSC, Keegan, American Century, and others who have traditionally included large-cast pieces in their seasons, and 2) increases the downward pressure, so apparent over the last decades, where economic realities create an imperative to write and produce plays with fewer and fewer characters. (Here’s a tip to the playwright who wants to become the next “most-produced” stage writer in the country — write a play for negative-one actor!)
The law of unintended consequences, still more
Let’s not allow this conversation to occur apart from the context of ticket prices. The increased costs for a theatre which wants to remain eligible for awards consideration cannot be met solely by unearned income or cost cuts, in all likelihood. The requirement will put pressure on theaters who have retained affordable ticket prices to increase them. Subway ad campaigns notwithstanding, theatre (and now, potentially, theatre that is deemed award-worthy) can be quite expensive. I’d hate to see the theaters who have prices south of $50 join the non-profits in town who have prices north or that number (and, in some shocking cases, north of $125). It doesn’t bode well for the future vitality of the art if it exists chiefly as a perk for the wealthy, and not as an activity that all strata of society can enjoy.
The law of unintended consequences, there’s still more
Award recognition, while not the be-all and end-all goal of any serious artist, could, if revoked, have unintended consequences for worthy companies. It could be used by the press, for instance, as a reason to drop coverage of companies that aren’t highly financed. It could be used as an excuse for foundation and individual donors to close the door on requests for support. Companies not awards eligible will no longer be included, even if their productions would otherwise qualify, among the “Helen Hayes Recommended” productions. All of these results would impact a stated goal of tW: butts in seats — presumably, in the seats of all the “professional” companies entitled to any of the tW support programs.
Other options to the proposed minimum compensation rates
One of the odd aspects of the proposal by tW is that some companies, including ones who have been around for a long time, could have some productions (with small casts) eligible and other productions (with larger casts) not eligible. That leads me to think about some other potential yardsticks for eligibility that might avoid the bizarre on-again, off-again, “If it’s Tuesday, your company is professional” scenarios for eligibility.
One option might be some version of the “Warren Buffett Rule.” If companies demonstrate that managers are paid inside an acceptable ratio compared to artists, or if artist compensation meets a certain percentage of overall budget, they will be eligible. Another might be that companies demonstrate a good-faith and consistent effort to increase compensation. If compensation increases each year at a determined percent, the company would remain eligible.
I’m not sure that it makes complete sense to employ an inflexible, “one size fits all” model, in which the business model of companies that have ticket prices over $100 and ticket inventory per show in the mid-three figures, staffs in the scores, boards in the dozens, is applied to companies with fewer than 100 seats and prices south of $50, staffs fewer than five, and boards fewer than ten. Since the director/designer numbers are easily within reach of many small companies, but the actor numbers could be a problem for certain small companies, couldn’t there be other ways of working toward the goal that would actually be easier to document than “per diem” requirements? Among other considerations, this system strikes me as an accounting mess and an oversight nightmare.
Since the tW minimum requirements are a step toward, but do not achieve, “living wage” status for whomever works at that scale, I’m not clear as to what is gained by drawing a red line that will impact certain theaters with certain missions (say, producing the classics, which tend to larger casts) more than others.
The carrot versus the stick
The next shoe to drop (and, knowing the tW staff, I imagine it’s something they’ve been considering) is how to help smaller and emerging companies successfully navigate the growth and budget implications of fulfilling their missions while maintaining award eligibility. I hope and expect that tW, the support organization for the entire community, does not presume that several companies, all at once and without assistance, are going to be able to increase budgets sustainably and significantly without help.
Here’s an unsolicited idea for how to help: Hook up smaller companies with folks who want to join the boards of bigger theaters, but who might not be ready yet, or attractive yet, to a big company, a company who is not going begging for board members, as small companies are, but who have its choice among interested candidates: the young guns at law firms who are angling for partner, who would love to be on the board of a theatre at which they might rub elbows with a Supreme. Ask them to do due diligence at a smaller company for a couple years. I know that big theaters are often looking for ways to help smaller companies. Here’s a way — ask board prospects to apprentice on the board of a smaller group as a way to get on the fast track to brie and chablis with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
There is a lot of money in the room at the annual awards ceremony. Many of those people are not engaged with, or are unaware of, smaller groups. It seems to me that it might be a quicker and more effective way to achieve the goal of increased compensation at poorer theaters if an effort were made to hook up that money with companies that might engage those donors, but which aren’t on the radar of those donors. tW knows those people. Can it help the rest of us meet them?
My bottom line
My bottom line is that smaller companies are not trying to rip off their workers or get fat off of their labor. Does anyone who wants to exploit people really go into non-profit arts? These companies are struggling to create opportunity, to create beauty, and to offer diversity, and against fierce odds. Of course, a goal should be better compensation for artists who work for those companies. Another goal should be to help these organizations become more stable, better able to reward artists as well as audiences, and not to add cards to a deck that can already feel stacked against their efforts.
The tW initiative may or may well not achieve its goal of better compensation for artists at smaller theaters. As I‘ve said, it isn’t setting the bar much, if any, higher than it exists now for directors and designers. It’s the actor compensation requirements that could affect budgets and choices at smaller theaters.
It might produce a number of unfortunate unintended consequences: the omission of excellent artistic accomplishment from acknowledgement that it would otherwise achieve; the ability of companies (and individual artists) to gain the credibility that award recognition can afford them and that companies (and individual artists) in the past have used to establish themselves when they were not paying well (or being paid well); the loss of press coverage for companies that don’t meet these requirements and become non-eligible; higher ticket prices; fewer productions and fewer opportunities for artists as companies attempt to meet the new requirements with shorter seasons or smaller cast shows; a less varied and diverse scene as companies make safer choices in order to become stronger commercially; or fewer choices for artists and audiences if companies fail after attempting unsustainable budget increases to meet new requirements for the eligibility they had last year. All of these outcomes would undermine this stated tW goal: Do no harm.
The saddest thing to me, though, is the divisiveness that this debate has provoked. The DC theatre scene has, it seems to me, always been a tale of two cities. There’s the wonderful sense of community that is often in evidence and that is encouraged by tW and The Helen Hayes Awards, throwing that wonderfully inclusive event every year, at which the accomplishments of all are celebrated by the ritual of acknowledging the accomplishments of a few.
The flip side of that coin is the sense of disenfranchisement and exclusion felt by those in our community who feel overlooked or marginalized. I’d, of course, love it if the effort, as admirable as it is, to raise the level of our boats doesn’t end up submerging some. I’d love it even more if the effort encouraged cooperation and a stronger sense of community, and not divisiveness and acrimony.
——————
[Christopher Henley is Artistic Director Emeritus of WSC Avant Bard. These views, however, are entirely his own.]
Tim–
You add some valid points to the discussion but just for the sake of clarity, I wanted to respond to two of your points:
Your listed “second” and “third” points about “the fact that most of the houses which pay at that scale primarily use New York artists” and “few members of our enormous cadre of newly-minted MFAs can find their first jobs with theaters which pay their actors at the theatreWashington scale.”
A fairly standard for most small to medium sized theatres is a 4 week rehearsal period and a 4 week performance run of 5 shows per week. That comes to a minimum stipend of $675. That number goes down for 3 week runs and/or 4 performance weeks (as some theatres do).
That is a pay rate that, based on various conversations floating around, 30-45 theatres are already meeting (or plan to by 2016).
So, outside of the value or harm of this rule change, it’s important to put some numbers to this and see that a significant number of DC companies are already at this level (or very close).
Also, I’d argue that the number of companies who now “primarily use New York artists” could be counted on one hand. The scene has changed a great deal in the last 10 years and it’s been great for local talent!
It seems to me that passions have run so high on this subject because the stakes are so high. I think that everyone agrees that theater artists are abysmally underpaid, here and most other places. The question is whether the recent actions undertaken by theatreWashington will remedy this situation locally, or whether it will drag theater down via the law of unintended consequences.
The discussion is confused, however, by loose use of two terms: “professional” and “living wage”. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “professional” as one who is “engaged in a specific activity as one’s main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.” By those terms, almost no one in Washington measures up; even our best equity actors teach or do something else as a main source of income. At the same time, no who acts professionally is engaging in a “pastime.” Stamp collecting is a pastime; beer-league softball is a pastime; even community theater, with its (generally) relaxed and forgiving procedures, can be considered a pastime. Professional theater, which requires truthfulness at all times from its artists, is stringent. It is a passion, not a pastime.
So let’s banish “professional” from this discussion and say this: all theater artists who are paid for their work are professionals, and theatreWashington’s wage-related restrictions on award eligibility doesn’t change that. (To be fair, I don’t think that theatreWashington ever intended that it would.)
The second loose term is “living wage”. $18.75 a day – the amount a theater must pay its artists per performance day to be considered for a Helen Hayes Award under theatreWashington’s new regulations – is not a living wage and hasn’t been since the Kennedy Administration. Andrew Griffin calls the new wage floor “a good start”, which I suppose is the only optimistic way of looking at it. But the question is whether there can be any steps after the first one. The absolute minimum figure which could be considered a “living wage” would be $20,000 a year (roughly equal to the City of Washington’s minimum wage prorated over a 2080 hour work year) and if we limited ourselves to theaters which could pay that rate I doubt any theater other than Arena and the Kennedy Center would qualify.
The frustrating thing about income for theater artists is that it doesn’t respond to the normal supply and demand rules. We have a great abundance of artistic talent in DC, and you might think that this is a factor in driving down income to artists. But I’ve learned from my colleagues in the American Theatre Critics Association that in communities where there are few actors, remuneration isn’t significantly higher. Instead, audiences go to community theater, or to the movies.
So the only long-term solution, it seems to me, is to educate potential audiences as to what a powerful, life-changing experience live professional theater is, and how it is different than, and superior to, movies and television and amateur theatricals. This is hard, slow business, and the chances of success are, to put it mildly, uncertain. But making audiences aware of what they owe to theater artists is the only way that we can make sure theater artists get what they deserve.
The new theatreWashington regulations, on the other hand, seem fraught with danger. First, the wage scale they use as a qualifier is not a living wage. Second, it does not take into account the fact that most of the houses which pay at that scale primarily use New York artists, and that we may soon find ourselves with a Helen Hayes Awards ceremony where few of the winners are there to accept their trophies because they are living and working elsewhere.
Third, it doesn’t take into account the fact that very few members of our enormous cadre of newly-minted MFAs can find their first jobs with theaters which pay their actors at the theatreWashington scale. I just saw Michael Glenn at Arena’s *Baskerville* – where he was superb, incidentally – but before I could see him there I saw him at Longacre Lea and WSC Avant Bard and other small theaters, where he established his reputation and burnished his skills.
Now, Melodious Dissent and others have suggested that the Helen Hayes Awards are not that consequential anyway, and the fact that small, underfunded theaters can’t pay the wage scale and thus are not considered for awards will not hamper their growth. That may be true, but it seems that the Awards are particularly consequential for new actors. At least, given the number of on-line resumes which mention Helen Hayes nominations seems to show that they think so. And cutting them off from Helen Hayes consideration in their salad days may assure that they never end up at a place where they can have earnings satisfactory to theatreWashington.
But I think theatreWashington’s heart is in the right place, and that it’s worthwhile to encourage theaters to invest in their artists to the extent of their capacity. So in addition to productions which meet the theatreWashington wage scale, the Helen Hayes should consider productions in which a set percentage of the production’s revenues (including grants and donations) are paid to the artists (including designers, director and playwright but not including pro rata share of the Artistic Director’s salary, rent or publicity). I don’t know what that percentage is, but theater producers and other professionals could probably suggest a figure. Certainly 70% — which Donna Migliaccio says Signature used in its first production – should be sufficient. This would assure that underfunded theaters which are nonetheless committed to excellence would be considered along with the bigs.
Dear Andrew, I admit that I had a lot to say (and more ended up on the cutting room floor) so I accept your jibe “verbose.” I feel, though, that in fairness to me, I did offer ideas about other means to achieve the goals. (See the paragraph about board members.) You may not feel them sufficient, but they were presented. And, my argument isn’t against the ends (better compensation), but rather the efficacy of the means (will the proposed eligibility change actually result in better compensation, or will it make it more difficult for struggling companies to gain traction, stability, viability, and ability to provide compensation). I apologize if that wasn’t clear. I tried mightily to avoid engaging anyone personally so I am puzzled by the comment about making you or anyone the enemy. I tied to be respectful of perspectives and conclusions that are different from mine. I found your comment upsetting, and I’ll tell you why: it doesn’t make me feel as if that respect for a different opinion is reciprocated. I wish there was a space for respectful disagreement. Because you are a former colleague that I enjoyed working with, it’s, frankly, hurtful to read your comment. Yours, Christopher
Actually, yes, I do, as I’ve seen the website traffic reports. I can’t do anything about what you believe: all I can speak to is what I’ve seen.
A-effing-men, Chris. Your wisdom is based on your having lived the reality. I have attended DC theater for 20 years and seen the scene grow (and you as part of it) to become the preeminent city in American for small-scale, affordable, adventurous quality theater, many companies of which have grown into the ‘big time’, to be supplemented by even more newer theaters (including suburban troupes raising their game). This would not have been possible were these companies not free to adapt to the economic realities. You cannot command these sorts of things in a ‘top down’ sense no matter how good it may feel for those without skin in the game, or who will not suffer the lost opportunities caused by their do-gooderism. I am particularly sensitive to your point about cast sizes and plays written for fewer actors in order to keep the budgets down. This inhibits greatly the artistic options available and is one thing I cannot stand about much “serious” Broadway theater. My most memorable experiences over this time has been in scrappy theaters like Longacre Lea, WSC (aka Avant Bard), Stanislavsky (now Synetic), etc. Artistry like theirs deserves the broadest recognition, and any rule that would inhibit this is deeply misguided.
Hi, Carolyn –
The reason I have given Christopher the last word for now is that theatreWashington is having conversations with member companies and will take that feedback, and hopefully the discussions we’ve had here, into consideration as they make final plans for 2016. Let’s give them the time and space in which to do that. Theatre companies internationally are wrestling with these same issues. Here is the latest from The Guardian. I can assure you many are following this conversation with the same interest as I do. New ideas, new implementations by DC area theatre companies, shared in spaces such as ours, could work to the benefit of many. Sincere thanks to all who wrote essays and to those who continue to contribute comments. Lorraine Treanor, Publisher, DC Theatre Scene,
Tourists??? Do you honestly think that tourists who come to DC are paying money to see shows? I’ve been working in arts administration in DC for 10 years and it’s quite simply a rarity. MAYBE the Kennedy Center; MAYBE a musical or a summer show. MAYBE the Fringe festival. But even still, where are you getting the idea that they’re going to theatreWashington’s website to find that information? From theatreWashington? I’m sorry, but unless you can back that up with actual site analytics showing unique visitors from outside (or even inside) the DMV, I refuse to believe there are “HUGE” numbers in their favor.
A few things…
1) As mentioned above, tourists are far and away the biggest users of the tW website, especially for ticket sales.
2) The Awards Ceremony itself sees a TON of business happen; networking, sharing, fundraising. It’s the only time of the year that we’re all in the same room.
3) I don’t have any idea why you think the “big” companies need to be attacked. The problem lies with tW’s definition of “professional,” as Christopher indicated in the article. If Arena wants to mount The Music Man for the 477th time, that’s their call. And, in fact, those larger companies doing more mainstream shows are doing a service to the smaller companies, who can be “edgier” and take more risks with the products they put on stage.
4) Again, it’s about what the awards do for companies. Whether or not you see it, the exposure is there. Whether or not you see value, companies do (awards are a benefit when submitting for grants, for example). I don’t think you’re ending on the right point, which is the crux of the discussion happening amongst indie theatres right now: can tW ethically claim to represent all “professional” theatre in DC? If an indie theatre can’t reach the arbitrary pay line, does that make them “not professional?” And for those companies that don’t reach that arbitrary line, what is tW doing for them?
The sheer number of tourists that use the tW website gives a HUGE bounce to recommended shows, to award winning shows and to “featured” (on the website) shows.
How does it give a company publicity? You may get one mention in the meager coverage of award nominees or winners, but then you’re assuming that people actually read that coverage. It’s not making a dent in the grand scheme of things. It’s not a Tony.
I don’t know what it’s about. I certainly don’t see the benefits of the awards. The companies I’ve worked for in DC could care less about them. I’ve never seen them successfully used to “sell” a show, so why do small companies care so much about them?
the point of bringing up the Post (and though not by name, other media outlets) is to say that COVERAGE is what sells tickets and promotes your company, so fight the lack of coverage, not the lack of awards.
If you win the fight about the awards, the most you get is a useless award. If you win the fight about coverage, the most you get is recognition and access to untapped audiences. Which do you think is worth more?
Oh – and large companies only have something to do with the lack of coverage for smaller companies in as much as most mainstream outlets only want to cover them. But whose fault is that?
I have to say I agree with Andrew on this closing the debate. While I am trying to give DCTS the benefit of the doubt that they just want to end the slew of Op-Eds about this topic, by letting this be the definitive last word – it sounds like they are standing behind it as their feelings on the topic.
I think a lot of what Donna says below are good points as well. Gas was also $.50 25 years ago, you cannot compare the two. That’s not economics. Also when those companies started, as you stated in the article, they were the only ones. There was Arena and Folger, and there was community theatre. These early mid-level adopters of Signature and Keegan and the like, started the new wave of in-between theatre. It was also the creation of the national regional theatre revival. You just can’t use that to compare to our modern scene. I would love if the author made more points that showed his ideas for how this could be viable NOW, not 25 years ago.
In this very verbose article, it seems you keep looping back to the thesis “It’s worked all these years so why change it?” I posit, change is good. Things don’t improve without new goals. You even say that you don’t disagree that artists should be paid more, but then offer no alternative means by which we get to that point. All you offer is antiquated means of the system and not a forward thinking idea.
I have to say, while I am happy that DCTS gave me a place to write my own opinion, if this is to be the final thought on the matter, if this is the point to wrap all points up, you thoroughly disregarded Carolyn and I, and made us out to be the enemy in this. You couldn’t even be a devils advocate to yourself. And that’s unfortunate.
Heh – Do The Math, you’re absolutely right. This is why I got out of the Managing Director biz. The per-hour pay doesn’t change my point, though. Signature paid as much as it could possibly pay at the time.
140 hours at $2.80/hour = $392
140 hours for $50 = $0.35/hour
Sorry, One thought I forgot to add. And this is important…. Theaters MUST pay their actors better. I didnt mean to infer that actors need to have second jobs. I was just pointing out that it seems that even the highest paying theaters are really not paying a “living wage”. But I would be gladly pay a higher ticket price IF it mean the actors are getting paid more.
Sorry if I sounded like theaters shouldn’t pay actors. Not my intention.
Although this debate is making me increasingly sad and tired, I want to address one question Chris raised: specifically the amount paid by Signature Theatre in its earliest years.
As the company’s Managing Director at the time, I can tell you that for our first production, Sally Nemeth’s MILL FIRE, we paid each member of our non-union cast of nine a $50 flat rehearsal fee. If memory serves, that fee covered a four-week period in which rehearsal days ranged from 3-4 hours during the week and 6-8 hours during the weekend – so, approximately a 30-35 hour week for four weeks. For argument’s sake, let’s go to the high end and say it was a 35-hour week. Four 35-hour weeks breaks down to 140 hours. That means the flat rehearsal fee of $50 breaks down to $2.80 an hour – a dollar less than the minimum wage in 1990.
For performances, we paid a percentage of the gross ticket sales after rights/royalties. In other words, we deducted whatever we had to pay the rights holder from our gross sales (including season subs and individual ticket purchases). I can’t remember what the exact percentage was – I want to say the theatre kept 70% and the nine actors received the remaining 30%, in equal portions – but I do remember that the final payout calculated for the actors at the end of MILL FIRE’s three-week run was a couple bucks shy of $50. Eric and I felt badly that the actors were getting so little, so we rounded their checks up to an even $50. (I don’t remember how much we paid our director and designers, but I think it was approximately $100 each)
So – for a seven-week commitment, the actors received $100. Bear in mind this was our very first production; bear also in mind that this was in 1990. This was the LEAST we ever paid a cast. We kept this payment formula in place for the next two years and as our audiences grew, so did the paychecks. The final paychecks for SWEENEY TODD a year later were so large – I wish I could remember the exact figure – that cast members asked me if I’d miscalculated.
We were able to pay our actors, directors and designers – not a lot, but fairly generously for a brand-new company in 1990 – because we kept other costs to a minimum. As Artistic Director and Managing Director, Eric Schaeffer and I each received a $1,000/year stipend – which, for the first three years, we did not take, even though both of us were putting in 40+ hours a week at the theatre while we worked full-time jobs. We borrowed set pieces and costumes when we could, begged for discounts when we couldn’t. All administrative costs – ticket sales, bookkeeping, taxes, etc. – were handled in-house. No outside entity was paid to provide those services. We beat the bushes for personal donations. We applied for every grant dollar available to us.
Our big advantage? For our first three years, we rehearsed and performed in an Arlington County space, which meant that we didn’t pay rent or utilities. The disadvantage was that we had function within the limitations of the space. The County dictated our schedule: where we could rehearse and for how long, when our shows opened and when we had to close. Chris no doubt knows this, since the fledgling WSC Avant Bard was right there with Signature, in the same facility, in the same time frame, receiving the same County support.
From the get-go, we wanted Signature to be Helen Hayes eligible because we knew the prestige associated with the Awards could make the theatre more attractive to ticket-buyers, donors and grant-makers. More ticket purchases, donations and grants meant more money so the theatre could grow. And growth was what we wanted. We wanted our own facility so we could dictate our own schedules and programming. We wanted to be able to afford better sets, better costumes. We wanted to expand the pool of artists available to us by being able to offer them more money.
Yes, we could have paid our artists a lot less during our formative years. After all, the HHA rules stated only that a production’s artists had to be paid in order for the production to be eligible – they didn’t say how much. We could have circumvented that rule by handing our artists a sawbuck and a smile at the end of the run. We never even considered that. We knew that was not the intent of the HHA rule. More importantly, we formed Signature to be a professional company – one that would not only produce polished, cutting-edge works, but be able to pay its artists – the ones who made that polished work happen – as much as we possibly could. We took pride in that, and ultimately that goal helped Signature grow more than any award ever did.
I am a theater patron and donor, not an actor, but here are my “sideline” views after reading all of these articles (and comments) that seem to divide the community.
I can pay $100 to see a show at the big theaters… and see great and mediocre performances. I can pay $20 at any number of small fish and see great and mediocre performances. Actors who are talented will rise up the ranks. But without recognition, it becomes the negative effects of “trickle down” – the big get bigger and the small stay the same.
Theaters / actors / designers say the Helen Hayes Awards doesnt help or hurt them and I tend to agree. I don’t choose a show because the lead has 5 HH nominations. But it must help in subliminal ways. Getting a nomination or award is free publicity. Theater X gets a boost of publicity because they get nominated for an award. It may not help but it sure doesnt hurt.
So, what is the impetus to do this? “Living wage”? I find that phrase absurd. My friends who are professional actors (some Equity, some not) ALL have other jobs – usually teaching, coaching, directing, etc. So “living wage” is either a cover for some other issue, or it is a seriously flawed decision.
I do see a correlation between ticket price (and I assume budget size) to production values. But production values dont matter to me. I don’t care if a show has a crashing chandelier, or a bare stage. (And I apologize to all of those extremely talented designers out there) I care about the performances, and that being said, I’ve seen some really great acting from small theaters and some not so great from the big theaters.
For what it’s worth – I haven’t read a review or theater article in the WashPo in years. Between out of town (and out of touch) reviewers and their constant promoting of the same companies, I read the websites like DCTS, DCMTA, BWW, for more accurate and dependable reviews. I do admit that these sites don’t really give negative reviews, and I have definitely seen some clunkers that are given 5 stars, but all in all, these sites are doing better promoting of theaters then the WashPo does.
The last time I went to the HHA, was when they were still at the Kennedy Center, so I have no idea how the ceremony itself is handled today, but I think all theaters need to do a better job of paying artists more, but Theatre Washington needs to support all professional theater, large and small.
Melodiousdissent,
I’m not entirely following you. If the big companies don’t care about the awards, and the awards don’t help the little companies, what do you think this is about?
Or are you just saying the smaller groups need to focus their fight on the washington post and the Helen Hayes is a smoke screen? Also, do you think the lager companies have something to do with that lack of coverage?
Thanks.
While I understand and agree with the argument completely and even with the principle you’re standing on, I still argue that the Helen Hayes Awards are absolutely irrelevant in the grand scheme of theatre in D.C.
When you boil it all down, I don’t witness much evidence of theareWashington’s actual support for the theatre community on the whole, other than their comprehensive website (and I’d love to see some stats on who is actually going to and using that site to spur ticket purchases since they don’t promote themselves) and them throwing “theatre prom” each year. Oh, and there was that one time they ran some advertisements. Can any smaller orgs speak as to their actual level of support? I’m genuinely curious because I know the large companies I’ve worked for pay a hefty sum to help spread out the support (which they don’t actually need from theatreWashington, but they pay-to-play nonetheless) so I’m curious as to what those dollars go for.
Next, I would argue that it would behoove small arts organizations to drop the fight against the Helen Hayes Awards and go after the big fish. If you’re going to rally, perhaps you ought to consider writing a lengthy treatise about publicity that actually counts (because few, if any, of the big companies give a hoot about the HHAs, I can promise you that) and why your work is mostly overlooked by outlets like the Washington Post, that stand on your backs whenever it needs to make an argument about big, bad, evil theatre giants in this town being bloated and doing too many musicals and not producing relevant work like all you little fish anymore, but then don’t actually promote your work at all throughout the season and continue releasing 4-6 preview articles about Vanessa Hudgens in Gigi at the Kennedy Center.
At the end of the day, think about what this fight is really about and why so many people are so desperately clinging to the idea that those awards mean something for them. Because, if it’s about the actual recognition, there’s better recognition to be had that will actually do your theatre some good. If it’s about the principle of the payment of actors in order to qualify for awards, then there are better principles to stand on than the arbitrary rulings of an organization that only you seem to be taking seriously. I certainly don’t hear the public clamoring for more Helen Hayes coverage. And I certainly don’t hear the public crying out on your behalf. I hear a lot of familiar theatre community voices. Don’t get me wrong, the solidarity is great, but the energy seems wasted.
Thank you for this thoughtful article, Christopher. Well reasoned, sober, and spot on.
Once again Christopher Henley you exhibit an intelligence, objectivity, and candor that serves us all well. The bane of the artist has always been the price tag. I dream of a world where good work is equally recognized be it created by an “award winner”, or a striving artist. This applies to all the artistic disciplines. Thank you for your continued breaths of fresh air.
Thank you Chris Henley! As a director I have usually worked for the proposed stipend or above. But I have also worked below that line, for the right project and in the belief that I can contribute to success for the company, the actors, and the art form. Am I only “professional” when I get paid ‘enough’?
tW’s definition of professional makes it all about the money and not about the art. The intended AND unintended consequences of this new policy do not support the emerging companies – and artists – for which the DC area is rightly renowned.