Columns
There’s an ongoing debate around free (or poorly paid) labour models in the theatre, whether it be armies of unpaid interns working behind-the-scenes, amongst actors working for so-called profit-share on the fringe which basically invariably means working for nothing at all, or indeed amongst theatre journalists, filing reviews and other copy to myriad theatre websites, for ‘experience’ or just the bonus of getting free tickets for shows while holding down regular day jobs as accountants and the like.
Of course it may well be that all this activity would be simply unsustainable if the theatres and publishers were paying real, living wages (I was going to say market rates, but the market now frequently seems to be not to pay at all, so it’s a redundant concept). But if it’s not sustainable without it, should it be given sustenance at all?
The question has been posed to me twice in recent days, first after I welcomed Charley’s Aunt at the Menier Chocolate Factory by writing:
If Brazil, according to the most famous running gag in theatrical comedy history in Charley’s Aunt, is where the nuts come from, Southwark’s Menier Chocolate Factory is where the hits come from.
An actor sent me a series of direct messages on Twitter, saying, “Sadly not where the actors get paid a living wage. These two things don’t sit easily together for me.” And he continued, “I won’t audition for them and informally lobby other actors in my circle not too as well. For me their success is being subsidised by actors, but don’t theatre managers and/or Equity have a responsibility here as well? Also, whilst this is well known in the business, it doesn’t seem to be public knowledge at all.”
Actors fall over themselves to appear at the Menier, of course, because of the future prospects that it may bring them: Daniel Evans, Douglas Hodge and Alex Hanson all went on to the West End and then Broadway respectively in Sunday in the Park with George, La Cage Aux Folles and A Little Night Music, after first starting out in Southwark. And given the high standards to which work is produced there, it’s worth lending your talent to. But tickets for the next production Merrily We Roll Along are hitting £37.50 – so it’s not coming cheap for audiences. At those prices, you would expect actors to be remunerated fairly.
Again, earlier this week I wrote about two terrific productions I’d recently seen at the Finborough, a venue that (partly of necessity) pays its actors even less than the Menier does (it has far fewer seats). One commentator replied:
Please can we stop this sycophancy towards fringe just because they happen to stage a nice play (their raison d’etre) and start berating them for their business models sustained only by unpaid labour (both young and old), their discrimination on the basis of class and age and their inability to change – or is the price of West End seats somehow a more ethical debate?
So I’m having it now. And reluctant though I would be to see the fringe vanish – the Finborough is easily one of the most consistently interesting theatres in London, from a programming point of view – the question does need to be raised about how it is paid for.
It’s not, of course, a problem confined to the entirely unsubsidised fringe. Even the National – which gets the most state subsidy of any theatre company in the land and attracts the largest audience for plays of any in London – has to fight to maintain its position. In Nick Hytner’s introduction to this year’s Annual Report, he states,
There will be no let-up in the National Theatre’s efforts to secure funding from the public purse, from private individuals and from the commercial exploitation of its successes.
He also addresses the wider theatrical community:
It would be foolish to pretend, however, that there is no threat to our creative confidence from reduced public funding and a nervous financial sector. This threat seems to me to be even more serious outside of London. The National does what it can, whether offering fundraising advice and marketing support or, this year, underwriting the London run of Bristol Old Vic’s Swallows and Amazons; but it can never be enough. There is a pressing need to recognise that special support must be given to cultural institutions in the regions. They face a double threat – from cuts to their Arts Council funding and to local government funding. If theatres are required to play safe, they quickly lose an audience with a taste for adventure, to the point where they play safer still and eventually risk losing any audience whatsoever.
One of the biggest attractions of the fringe is that, with no money to make or to spend, it can provide that taste for adventure unsullied by commercial considerations. But it comes at a price, literally, for actors, directors, designers and stagehands who are doing it entirely for the love of it instead.
Of course, it’s not entirely altruistic – it’s also a career opportunity, in the sense of getting noticed (national critics invariably turn out in force for shows at the Finborough), and who wouldn’t rather be doing the craft they’ve trained to do than sit at home twiddling their thumbs and waiting for the phone to ring or the e-mail to ping?
But another actor friend has also suggested to me that, as long as there are theatres that don’t pay actors a living wage, she won’t be going to see shows at them. She’s going to withdraw her support as an audience member. And maybe that will force those theatres to examine their business models again.
They are sustained by actors who surrender their rights to be paid at the first audition, and audiences who subsidise the theatres by still buying tickets for them. It will only change if both the actors and the audiences behave differently.
Jobs & Auditions
Comments 54 comments
At no point in this discussion is it considered that the producers themselves are often working for free or even at a loss in many fringe productions. It is foolhardy to think on these smaller shows that such grumblings will magically mean actors will be paid more money- I just produced a show on the London fringe- the tickets were under 15 and the venue only seated around 100 people. When you consider that the hire of a fringe theat can cost up to 500 a night (the unscrupulous venue I used actually charged us 400 just so we could get into the theatre to have a dress run 3 hours before we opened) the sad fact of the matter is that only a rare few shows that go onto the fringe will take enough money to cover production costs never mind raise enough to then pay everyone involved a good wage and leave the producers with enough to break even.
The fringe exists as an opportunity for those who want to to take it to produce, to perform or to be involved. For many it is the perfect way to build credits and experience- no one is forced to do it, and as we all have free will- no one is being exploited. I have performed on the fringe, I have produced on the fringe and at every point I have sat down and considered if the experience and satisfaction of the product will be worth the financial failing. I make that choice as a performer and as a producer with the clear knowledge of what I am doing. I would expect critics and audience members to respect my choice if I want to appear for free (sorry: profit-share). For those who don’t want to perform on the fringe or in low-paid productions- that is their choice. If the likes of Equity with their One-boot-kicks-all approach get involved it will NOT mean more money for those involved- it will just mean those producers who were willing to pay 15k out of their own pocket with no hope of return just so some willing actors would have the opportunity to perform will no longer be able to do so.
It does not lie with the producers or the audience to change the low-pay fringe- all venues would first have to drastically look at their hire charges (an 80 seat venue charging 400 a night leaves next to no hope of recuperation) for there to ever be a hope of this trend shifting. But until that unlikely event ever happens, i would just like to remind all those who refuse to work for free that the country is in financial decline, and if you would prefer for all low-paid work to be cancelled(as the money simply does not exist to bring it up to your standard) then so be it. In 5 years how will your CV look compared to those thousands of hungry amateur performers who pay for the opportunity to do what we are lucky enough to be paid for?
We all want to be paid a fair wage for our skills- but in a time when people are fixing their own pipes rather than hiring a plumber and are getting friends to fix their cars rather than pay a mechanic- surely we should be trying to create as much quality professional and affordable theatre to remind people there is a need for it- if the fringe becomes out-priced due to diva demands for high wages then there is a real risk that it will collapse and all that will be left will be the extortionate prices in the main houses- people cannot afford that- theatre will decline even further and the likes of ghastly shows like big brother will become even more popular at our expense. Feel free to sit in your armchair and demand the wages you feel you deserve, but after 15 years in the business, I feel I have the right to work for free if I want to. I chose to be an actor because I love it- not because I want to famous and rich.Report comment
When the London Fringe started, at theatres like the Bush, in the 60s and early 70s, it was exciting and pioneering. Breaking into the established theatres was very hard, and with a couple of honourable exceptions their work was far from challenging or ground-breaking. The Fringe, in London and Edinburgh and elsewhere, has changed the landscape forever and for the better.
Now that many parts of the London Fringe, like the Menier and the Finborough, have become part of that theatre establishment (the Finborough is linked to the National Theatre Studio and the Menier umbilically linked, so it seems, to the West End) I would agree that there needs to be some reassessment. Some theatres do give every impression of exploiting unpaid or low paid actors to the glory of the management.
That’s different from doing work on a shoestring because the project is exciting but the money and the resources aren’t available to pay Equity minimum. It’s perfectly right to say that producers on such shows also get nothing. The other side of the profit share coin is that when there’s a loss, it’s usually the producer who bears it on their own. There is an increasingly unrealistic aspect to this debate, in which all actors are seen as angels and all producers are seen as demons. Of course, that’s not a realistic picture.
If an actor surrenders their right to be paid when they enter the audition, that is a choice freely made; like Mark’s Twitter correspondent, they are free to choose not to go. Theatre is not just about money. It’s also about art and about being excited by the work. The alternative is the US model where Equity actors are forbidden from working in non-Equity shows on pain of expulsion from the union. It’s no accident that New York writer Katori Hall’s Olivier Award-winning play Mountaintop premiered in London. For all the brilliant new writing development organisations in New York, no US producer would take the financial risk of producing an unknown writer. The US Equity model is sterile and oppressive; to art, to innovation, to risk-taking and to its members. It’s definitive proof that this is not the way to go.
There’s certainly a debate about whether the London Fringe should continue in its present form. In the end, actors will make that decision by voting with their feet. The fringe can only sustain itself with actors. While actors see other benefits in doing fringe that compensate for the lack of pay, it will continue. Because Mark is right. For all the debate on this subject and the Equity working party and report, it remains the case that money doesn’t appear out of thin air. There is no money to be made in Fringe theatre. If it becomes obligatory to pay Equity minimum rates, the Fringe will close down. Or it will become the playground of the rich (those rich enough to pay) even more than it already is.
I believe the Fringe has lost its way. Too much of it now belongs to that very establishment it started life trying to get away from. I say that we should all fight to keep an unsubsidised risk-taking, art-driven theatre that buzzes and irritates the established theatres. I would suggest that much of what now passes for Fringe, but is in reality the theatre establishment trying out its musicals and its star-driven projects on a Fringe budget, could quite easily be dispensed with. That’s not what the Fringe is for.Report comment
Actually, there’s a big difference between Can’t Pay and Won’t Pay; between fighting to realise your idea on a shoe-string and making money and reputations on the backs of unpaid performers.
Perhaps critics could take a lead on this? Can’t Pay? OK! Won’t Pay? Won’t Review!Report comment
The Arts Council could also play a big role here. In the past, they would only give grants to organisations that paid minimum union rates. They no longer require that. The Arts Council is now subsidising low pay no pay theatres. I’d suggest they should stop doing that.Report comment
I too at one point had this perspective about the fringe and while the fact is that there IS extremely low quality in some fringe plays, actors are simply not getting the opportunities any longer to work in the so called “glorious, star making West End”. The West End refuses to hire highly competent actors , in favour of celebrities from talent shows or pop stars. As a result, actors are moving to the regions and the Off West End and fringe to work as it seems this is the only way to convince casting directors and prospective employers. While the money side IS an issue, its also no longer viable to sit at home, bitching about an industry that is fast evaporating when those of us who work make a CHOICE to work for low pay/ no pay and believe that the experience we gain pays off.
Interestingly, other professions are utilising the low pay/ work experience model and it seems that this is the only way at present to gain opportunities.
I would far rather struggle financially for a short time, do a good production with great reviews, be seen by industry colleagues and then be called in for better paid jobs as they have seen my work and have confidence in me, than sit at home and complain. But thats me.Report comment
A very interesting piece indeed, expertly written by Mark Shenton and highlighting a situation that, in my mind, has affected the scales of pay in all media. When i was younger, people used to appear on stage for nothing while working during the day – it was called amateur dramatics and was done as a hobby. These days people spend years and thousands of pounds training to do virtually the same. I’m often asked when the business will get back to how it was, and the answer to that is sadly never, as long as performers (and wannabe performers) keep saying yes to low or no money when offered jobs and selling their talent below its worth.Report comment
It’s up to “Professionals” to support fellow rookies, or for Equity to step in.”blactor” makes good and justified points -although a lot of the West End -epecially run-longing productions DONT hire star names along with huge wages and yet the public are paying the same or more if inflation is taken into account.
SORRY:OFF TOPIC –
The online STAGE is terrible,can’t get used to it yet-and the “look” is horribly anaemic.Report comment
Equity can only do so much when the industry has become so de-regulated. Anyone is a producer, anyone is an actor. Rehearsal time used to be largely unpaid many years ago, and despite protestations that paying the actors for rehearsal time would “kill” theatre, theatre didn’t die as far as we can see. I see no difference here. It’s an unwillingness to think differently and to blindly accept that this is the way it has to be.
The problem often lies in the planning. Extortionate hire rates and small venues do not add up. You cannot make money. So, be pioneering in the true spirit of the fringe and find somewhere that isn’t demanding a fortune. You might find that you can spend money on what matters- the people that make it happen. Need 200 “volunteer” actors on expenses for your ACE funded production? How about employing 25 paid ones instead?
Asking for a wage isn’t degrading the art. It’s enriching it with people that are the best people for the job, not just the ones who can afford to do it at the time.
None of us want to see a narrow cross section of society on the stage, but we can see if happening already. Julie Walters wrote a great article on it recently. Although Equity can’t (and shouldn’t) stop anyone from working for free, it is now campaigning for better pay at the lower end of the scale with the No Pay/Low Pay Working Party. It will back up anyone who feels that they have been exploited and is the best place to ask for advice when there is so much misinformation out there about when actors are entitled to a wage.
I love my craft as much as the next actor but I have made a decision not to work for free on anything where someone else is getting a wage. It’s a choice that we all should make freely, but right now that choice is being forced on graduates where available work that once was paid (ACE funded for instance) isn’t any more.
That doesn’t mean I sit on my backside and wait for the phone to ring. No, I get out there, find ways of funding my film production company and make my own paid work. And pay other people at the same time. I’ve done my fair share of unpaid work and it was nowhere near as fulfilling as this.Report comment
Lets look a this Fringe model that so many seem so keen to preserve. Not all of the work is any good, in fact some of it doesn’t deserve to be paid for. Bad theatre has no more right to exist than a bad smell but still there are those who would retain all Fringe theatre because its necessary. Its not, the only reason that so many Fringe theatres have popped up in the last 5-10 years is because their business model is sustained because they fail to pay actors, not because of the quality of their work. Yes, the Cock Tavern had good work apparently if you listen to the critics, but we all know about the actors boycott there concerning payment and the safety concerns.
Why is it that this oh so worthy Fringe that’s been around since the 60’s is unable to form a trade association, unable to champion improving standards and by and large unable to grow its businesses from small back street pubs into larger venues? Because by and large it doesn’t want to, its had plenty of opportunity, there are theatre directors and venue owners who’ve been in situ for 20 years or more, with the same model of non payment for 20 years – yet time and time the critics come in acclaim their “sell out” work (without paying for a ticket) and then fail to acknowledge why these tiny award winning venues haven’t grown or moved premises? All to easy to sit and do nothing when as an AD or venue owner you’ve a comfortable salary coming in a willing actors leaping like lemmings at opportunities supported by critics and award ceremonies perpetrated themselves by unpaid judges and free seats all overlooking the ethics of validating what may be illegal work. Imagine giving awards for unpaid labour to some developing country, or awards for “Best unpaid fruit picker in East Anglia.” – sponsored by some larger company that hasn’t even bothered to investigate what they are sponsoring or the fact that their own corporate social responsibility policy might actually represent something tangible when it comes to unpaid labour.
But it is possible, the Arcola has made the transition and grown its business in 12 years, we’ve got to ask why haven’t the others? Why don’t we have a Fringe trade association? Why do we constantly forget that in this same debate not only are there the heavyweights (heavyweights ha!!!) there are the smaller Fringe theatres like the Blue Elephant and the Brockley Jack, the latter currently staging a show by a company on its 15th profit share production. Is this really the way to nurture theatre in the 21st century?
Instead of nasal gazing and defiantly declaring “we want to work for nothing” (when the National Minimum Wage states categorically that you can’t opt out of it), can’t we ask more searching questions, like why hasn’t the Fringe delivered more to those who create it? Why should Fringe Directors take a salary for 20 years yet only offer others profit share?How is it that some Ltd Company venues act as venue and producer but only offers actors profit-share? Shouldn’t critics pay for Fringe tickets instead of compounding the problem? Should Fringe venues state on the posters/website and programme that actors are unpaid? Is this a morally acceptable for of age or class discrimination?
Harold Wilson had it right when he said the only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. ~ Businesswise, the Fringe has been dead for years, it doesn’t deserve the public’s support.Report comment
BTW. I don’t go see theatre where actors are unpaid.Report comment
Maggot, I really don’t think you meant “NASAL gazing”, but the your post is so all over the shop that perhaps you did…
But seriously in answer to one of your points, the Arcola “made the transition” because it receives huge amounts of public subsidy – and yet still also does some No Pay/Low Pay shows as hires. I don’t agree with many of your points, but I would agree that if a venue or a company receives public money, that shouldn’t happen.Report comment
Yes, that’s my point. The Arcola grew its business to a point where it was able to apply for funding. The ACE didn’t just throw it as them and they mushroomed! You need to ask why weren’t other Fringe theatres doing the same thing and even if they were why didn’t they succeed?
Yes, agree that Fringe venues hiring out spaces to theatre companies is a problem related and relevant to this discussion.
What if a venue received money/donations because its a charity – does it have more obligation to pay its actors?Report comment
Well, actually as far as I recall (not that I have anything against the Arcola), the Arts Council DID as good as throw it at them, primarily because of their location in an area which had very little other theatre provision.Report comment
Hmm…did you have a gander at the funding application as there’s usually a little more to it than that?
Let me ponder theatre provision in Earls Court, Camberwell, Brockley, Camden…..Report comment
I haven’t but as I recall from The Stage, they were “invited” by the Arts Council to reply. Don’t know about South/West London, but Camden for sure has loads of theatres.Report comment
Quite simply I wouldn’t have a career without the unpaid fringe.
In the early 90′s it allowed my friends and I to establish our reputations as young actors, directors, playwrights and designers at a time when funded theatres wouldn’t touch us. These friends are now winning Tony awards, getting MBEs, foreign festivals on in their honour etc etc AND CREATING THOUSANDS OF JOBS FOR OUR PROFESSION!
Even today, when I’m between paid work I’ll still happily work for free showcasing actors who want the exposure and introducing audiences to plays I’m passionate about. I get to practice my craft, have a good time and its better then sitting at home sulking because no one wants to pay me that month.
If you want to join me great. If you don’t f*ck off, no one’s forcing you.
And what are you going to do? Call the police if a group of unemployed artists want to get together and put on a play while they wait for work. Don’t be ridiculous. How dare anyone threaten to take away our freedom of speech and right to express ourselves however and when ever we want.
If you sent around some kind of Equity Gestapo to close down fringe theatre’s would it result in more paid work for us all. Of course not.
Why don’t you spend you energy trying to get people excited about going to the theatre or the government into subsidising artists more? That’ll get more money in our pockets.
Not whining that the world owes you a living.
(phew glad I got that off my chest!)Report comment
Low pay for actors reflects the business model that operates globally. Actors are a commodity to be supplied at lowest possible cost, similar to the price of milk to supermarkets. ACE increasingly push repertory theatres to become receivers of productions, rather than producers; theatre provision for less cost. It looks good on the spreadsheet, but it is possible only through the very low pay of many small touring companies. And repertory wages are so skinny that many actors effectively subsidise working away from their home base. It used to be the attitude that actors would do theatre for Art’s sake, knowing that TV and commercials would be where they earned the proper money. That is no longer the case. Actors real wages are getting lower. Many leave the profession because they cannot provide for children or buy a house.
Some will say, what’s the problem? Plenty more where they came from. But we gradually lose a skills base that should be promoted as one of the few industries where British excellence is unsurpassed. The imagination and vision of the Olympics Opening Ceremony came out of an irreplaceable craft tradition. Maria Miller take note.Report comment
You can see people’s priorities by how things happen. If the powers that be (producers, public funders, private funders) felt that it was truly important to pay artists (or anyone) a decent living, then they would.
Clearly at the moment, paying artists a decent wage falls under ‘that would be nice, but it’s not essential to accomplish our goals, artistic or business’.
Somehow the money is always found to pay for the rent of the venue, because that is crucial. Other things not so much.
But it’s all about what the powers that be really think is important and what they don’t. See the comment above about the Arts Council – at one time, they thought paying decent wages to actors was important. Now they say that isn’t important, because their priorities are different now.Report comment
Working for free sets an industry precedence which becomes a vicious circle where people no longer expect to pay or be paid for work. This filters up, so low-no pay jobs are the norm regardless of the size and prestige of company one works for.
With freedom comes responsibility. Those who choose to play for free so they can play at all affect the whole industry, and then being an artist is only for those who can afford it. Art becomes based on money and not talent. A playground for the elite.
Honour your talents and act with your feet. If we all agreed to not work for no or dismall wages, then companies would have to think differently about the pieces the perform based on their budget and paying people fairly.
I also resent paying my ticket price knowing only a selected few performers, or creatives, or producers are getting paid. Companies like Bum Bum Train end up basing their company philosophy on a model where they get much of their talent for free. It’s ridiculous and part of a much bigger problem.Report comment
Dee – You say “Art becomes based on money and not talent”, but at venues like the two that Mark has written about – the Menier and the Finborough – the casts all seem to be successful regularly working actors – basing their careers on their talent, not money – and deciding to do a low paid job between paid jobs for their own interest, career or artistic development etc. Forgive me, but it does seem to be that the people who complain the most vehemently about this issue are the ones who aren’t working at all and rarely have.
The alternative – the London fringe closed down, the Edinburgh fringe closed down – would leave us largely with vanity productions for the already wealthy and the few jobs left going to those actors who are already working successfully anyway. Which leaves us more or less where we started…
I agree with you though – as said above – that publicly funded companies shouldn’t be paying profit share.Report comment
If the actors are not paid then it is an amateur production and should be treated as such (by the press and actors as it is already by any decent agent or casting director). Calling it fringe will not change that. Producers who cannot balance their books by EMPLOYING professional staff or worse those that many of us are aware of who make a good living off shows where the cast are unpaid (and I include those that pay less than a living wage) should have the decency not to pretend they are professional until all those involved in their productions are covered by the single defining difference between an amateur and professional – being paid.Report comment
“As it is already by any decent agent or casting director”. Absolute nonsense! Both top agents and casting directors regularly attend the better fringe theatres. But, as said above, those venues cast regularly working actors, not people who can’t get cast at all in anything unless they work for free.
I think though this does highlight a major problem with this debate in that the opponents of the sector lump all of these theatres and companies together, and the better honest companies/venues end up unfairly traduced, while the dishonest and the incompetent – and, yes, the venues where no casting director or agent would ever go – are given a free pass to continue their abuses.
Or even better, as Phil Willmott so excellently says above, let us all join together and press for increased funding for everyone, rather than concentrating on the negative and bitter.Report comment
I think there are two separate things being discussed here. There is a world of difference between a fringe venue like the Brockley Jack and somewhere like the Menier. In the case of the former I would argue that the ‘true fringe’ has a valuable role in the artistic development of young actors/writers and directors.However, I do have an issue with somewhere like the Menier, who reportedly spend tens of thousands on their sets and costumes (Mark himself refers to the ‘sumptious’ sets of Charley’s Aunt on his twitter feed), but still pay their actors a pittance – how can this possibly be justified? I suppose the point I’m trying to make is when a company actually does have money available (presumably via several successful West End and Broadway transfers) then the issue of actors pay should be reviewed and revised accordingly. To continue to pay the actors what they were paid when the Menier first began is indefensible in my opinion.Report comment
Shenton is right to raise the debate – should audiences stay away? Audiences should certainly be better informed as to whether or not actors are being paid and if the venues wont fess up perhaps the critics should either stay away or do it for them. Critics need to think long and hard about what they are reviewing/promoting and why, very few Fringe shows transfer so despite a good review gaining perhaps a few extra bums on seats its likely that it’ll make little or more likely no difference to the actors pay packet or lack thereof.
As to the bigger issues, I do worry about a sector that despite delivering quality work (or so we are told) rarely manages to transfer this to larger venues. With or without casting directors and agents attending, the producers certainly aren’t buying and that (not agents or casting people) is what generates extra revenue and increased audiences. Foxfinder at the Finborough anyone?
The Fringe doesn’t need public subsidy, it needs better management, more inertia and bigger ideas and some basic standards and arguably a new model. Its certainly not closing down…Henley Fringe? Brighton Fringe? Camden Fringe? ..such a dearth of unpaid vanity. Overdue for a shake up I’d say.Report comment
Getafix has hit the nail on the head. Thanks, you’ve saved me the trouble of formulating a reply!
I will say this though, to the poster above – being paid for work is not a “diva-like demand”. No-one is denying your right to perform for free, but to attempt to characterise those who seek a day’s wage for a day’s work as moaning divas, who think the world owes them a living, is deeply unfair if not outright insulting. And there is a world of difference between earning a living and fame and fortune. And my infant daughter is not going to be kept alive by my love of performing – of course I love it too, I just don’t think being paid for work is too much to ask.Report comment