Happy Friday from Miami, where I’m wrapping up my time at the TCG Conference. My Tuesday Chicago magazine column reflecting on the non-Equity scene has netted a lot of feedback and a fair amount of pushback, so I thought I’d test out Substack’s new discussion threads feature by inviting further conversation about it here. GO.
I'll start by saying I completely understand that Equity doesn't make sense for every company and every theater-making model, for a number of reasons that couldn't fit into 700 words. I hoped my piece might start some discussion about a question many of us seem to take as settled. To quote Wesley Morris at yesterday morning's TCG plenary (a line I can see I'll be stealing all the time): "I don't have an interest in being the most right."
It's a question I've been wrestling with for a while now, as a member of 35+ year old non-Equity company, but also as an actor trying to make progress in my own career and making a push toward Equity membership. I can say from my own experience that the decision to remain non-Equity is a choice made FOR the company, not BY the company. I think Steep is actually an interesting example of the challenges involved. They're wrapping up their 18th season. They've been producing critically acclaimed work for almost two decades. They consistently sell out their runs, and frequently extend runs due to popular demand. They have been doing everything right... and it STILL took them 18 years and an extra $150,000 grant in order to finally make that leap into Equity.
I think the Equity vs non-Equity debate is too small of a lens through which to view this issue. Non-Equity theatres don't generally choose to stay non-union-- they have to do so because they don't have the money. Many of them have a bare-bones staff that barely gets paid (assuming they aren't all-volunteer). Admonishing non-Equity theatres for not paying their actors a living wage is not useful if we don't also interrogate the failings of the non-profit theatre system as a whole, as well as the lack of resources (monetary and otherwise) to help lift theatres from one tier to the next.
Here’s a question: Would the Times’s co-chief critic review a non-Equity production in New York? I’m sure it’s happened, but often? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/arts/chicago-theater-notebook.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
I'll start by saying I completely understand that Equity doesn't make sense for every company and every theater-making model, for a number of reasons that couldn't fit into 700 words. I hoped my piece might start some discussion about a question many of us seem to take as settled. To quote Wesley Morris at yesterday morning's TCG plenary (a line I can see I'll be stealing all the time): "I don't have an interest in being the most right."
It's a question I've been wrestling with for a while now, as a member of 35+ year old non-Equity company, but also as an actor trying to make progress in my own career and making a push toward Equity membership. I can say from my own experience that the decision to remain non-Equity is a choice made FOR the company, not BY the company. I think Steep is actually an interesting example of the challenges involved. They're wrapping up their 18th season. They've been producing critically acclaimed work for almost two decades. They consistently sell out their runs, and frequently extend runs due to popular demand. They have been doing everything right... and it STILL took them 18 years and an extra $150,000 grant in order to finally make that leap into Equity.
I think the Equity vs non-Equity debate is too small of a lens through which to view this issue. Non-Equity theatres don't generally choose to stay non-union-- they have to do so because they don't have the money. Many of them have a bare-bones staff that barely gets paid (assuming they aren't all-volunteer). Admonishing non-Equity theatres for not paying their actors a living wage is not useful if we don't also interrogate the failings of the non-profit theatre system as a whole, as well as the lack of resources (monetary and otherwise) to help lift theatres from one tier to the next.