99 Thoughts About Los Angeles Theatre.

Okay. It's not really going to be 99 thoughts, but it made for a good title.

When I moved to LA after doing regional theatre in San Diego, I looked closely at AEA, the stage actors union. Should I join? After asking around to fellow actors I was doing shows with in the 99 seat waiver theatres, I decided not to join. Why? In LA there were only about 3 full on big equity houses in the area I was willing to drive. Ahmanson, Pantages, and the Geffen. If you were not acting in them, there was no reason to join Equity. So I didn't.

The union had always hated the 99 seat plan. They thought it was nothing important and the work there was not valuable because the actors were not under an equity contract. (For the rest of this blog I will not capitalize "equity." To show the same disdain they have shown their members.)

I have worked at a number of small theatres that were under the 99 seat plan. At no time did I feel like I was doing lesser work than I had at larger theatres. In fact at the smaller theatres I had the opportunity to do large challenging parts. "Woe is me, I'm not getting paid." No, but I played Mercutio, Fluellen, Dogberry, Don Pedro, Moon in The Real Inspector Hound, Dick in Play It Again, Sam, Theseus, Schmendiman, to name a few. I also helped out and did some understudy roles.

I got to play some great classic roles. Some great contemporary roles. Was the experience diminished because I was not making $9 an hour? Not at all. I had a blast on stage. I love to act. To play those roles is a delight. I understood the financial situations at the theatres I was working at and would never insist to get paid $9 an hour if paying me or the rest the cast would put the theatre out of business.But every actor has to come up with their own benchmark. Get paid in the last production a theatre ever  does, or not get paid.

equity wanted to destroy the plan. So they came up with a plan to destroy small theatres in LA. They put it to a vote for the membership in LA; a non-binding vote. equity didn't have to do what the vote said. The votes cast for the election were 44% of the people they sent ballots to in LA. The votes were 2 to 1 against the plan. You might think 44% is not even 50% of equity actors in LA. But the national equity elections for the president and board members, councilors etc. get a turn out of 10%. 10%. Seriously, 4 times the number of actors voted in the referendum than vote for who runs the union. Tells you they hit a nerve.

This advisory vote was completely ignored by the union and they decided to nuke small theatres in LA. Thing is, if I was running a small theatre I would make it a non union house. No equity actors allowed. You think non union actors suck? Nonsense. In LA they just don't see much use for an impotent rather useless entity which works against the wishes of their members.

One of the small theatres in LA was run by someone who might be considered crazy. I don't know if it ever turned a profit. It might have broken even but it never made a profit on a month to month, year to year basis. It was kept alive by the sheer will and money from the producer. He was selling real estate to create art. I'm not saying he was a real estate agent, he was selling pieces of property he owned to keep the doors open. He is an extreme example. But other theatres are funded more out of pocket than from any box office the plays bring in.

There are no angels or billionaires that fund small theatres. If you look at the business of it, it seems a stupid idea. You are almost guaranteed  to lose money. If a patron funds a theatre, it's a 2000 seat house and their name goes on the building.

In the big equtiy houses in LA you get 2 out of 3 filled with touring shows. Musicals out of NYC. Lion King, Book Of Mormon, things like that which are cast out of NYC. In the smaller theatres you get challenging theatre. Plays with guts that make you think and ones that may offend. It's not safe. But because it's not safe there's no certain audience. There's no name recognition to pull in an audience.

Should actors get paid? Yes. But there's no money to pay them. The producers are going to extraordinary lengths just to keep the  doors open and lights on. Should theatre be able to support actors with a living wage? Yes. In LA is it likely to happen? Probably not. This isn't NYC. There is no tourism related to going to theatre. Tourists go to Disneyland and to the beach. The economics of running a venue are almost prohibitive. Rents are high, there's very little audience, ticket prices would not directly keep a theatre open. If it did, they would be the cost of a Broadway show.

equity seems to want to only have to deal with 12 theatres instead of hundreds of small ones. equity makes no money off small theatres. So they wish them dead. I don't really understand their hatred. Leave them alone. Actors want to act. And if they are okay with not getting paid for it, what's the problem? You want to get paid for theatre? Go to New York City. No one comes to LA to be a theatre actor. They do it for love of the craft and as a way to keep sharp for when they have auditions. Doing plays is more challenging than going to a class. It takes dedication and perseverance. And the results can sometimes be better than sex.

Writers just need a Starbucks, artists need whatever medium they work in.

Actors need theatres.