The theatre, long the training ground of British acting and the bedrock, in turn, of many an actor’s career, has hit a peculiar moment of crisis: a couple of weeks ago, I wrote a blog that highlighted the challenges facing actors trying (and failing) to make a living in the theatre, and as one told me, “are quietly quitting… We’re losing a huge amount of talent because people are treated so poorly.”
My blog hit a nerve: one actor friend wrote to me to say my blog had reduced him to tears of recognition. “I quit my agent in February, much to their frustration, due to much of what you have written about. It is so hard and you are right on the money.” Or rather, not; we met for lunch last week, and he told me that — at the age of 35 — he was having to take a tough look at a life of just getting by, and having to constantly juggle other jobs to actually earn a living.
And in the midst of this, I also read an interview last week with Deborah Warner about her current production of The School for Scandal at the Barbican Theatre, in which Benedict Nightingale wrote, “Warner herself is busier than ever, but more as an opera than a drama director. It is, she sighs, so time-consuming getting together a good theatre cast at a time when all but star actors are ill-paid, being pressed by their agents to opt for film and television, and often unwilling even to audition.”
No one ever said acting was going to be an easy choice, but it looks like we’re hurtling towards a crisis where theatre could be left behind, in every sense. On the one hand, we have underpaid actors; on the other, audiences who are being asked to pay ever higher prices. (Tickets for Warner’s production of The School for Scandal — bizarrely being billed on the Barbican website as a “world premiere” — cost up to £50, which are effectively West End prices).
So this is probably a good moment to celebrate, once again, Nick Hytner’s single biggest intervention, initiated the year he took over the National, to make great theatre affordable with the annual Travelex sponsored season, that kicked off its latest annual season at the Olivier Theatre last night with Howard Davies’s new production of The Cherry Orchard. And while tickets are cheap (or at least cheaper than at other times of the year), there’s no stinting on production or casting values here.
I’d be interested to know what the experiences of the National’s casting department are (and there’s obviously an undeniable cache to working there still that must make it easier to find actors), but there’s also, I reckon, something else that makes it happen, too, that so many fine actors are routinely to be found on its stages. The National still pursues an old-fashioned policy of nurturing actors; it makes them feel wanted.
So although Zoe Wanamaker, for instance, can easily go off, as she did last year, to do a West End run in All My Sons, here she is back again as Ranyevskaya. Conleth Hill, who plays Lopakhin, has virtually become a ‘house’ actor here, and regularly shows himself to be one of our very finest, most chameleon-like stage actors. But the strength in casting here goes right through the ranks, from senior veterans like another NT stalwart Kenneth Cranham (who plays Firs) to Tim McMullan and Sarah Woodward who regularly work here and have brief but scene-stealing roles in this production. But there are also emerging stars, too, like Mark Bonnar, Claudie Blakely and Gerald Kyd, all of whom I reckon are destined for great things.
The National, in short, provides actors with a theatrical home where they are guaranteed good quality work and in an environment where they are both respected and valued. And you can’t put a price on that.
It's a sad state of affairs when talented theatrical actors feel like they are being pushed toward TV and film work. Even sadder is the fact that West End productions feel the need to pull in well known film actors as headline names in order to generate larger audiences. Are these people really the best ones for the jobs? I'm not sure they are... It would be such a great shame to see theatre left behind - it is one of the true wonders of life!
Theatre actors being pushed into film and television? I admit I'm not as on the pulse as you Mark, but the few actors I do know would chew your arm off to be doing film and TV work rather than schlepping out eight times a week for very little remuneration in the theatre. I've certainly had it expressed to me that an actor would crawl over broken glass for even a walk-on part in Dr Who!
Good but brief article. Now add to those actors 'who audition' those of us who are producers or in effect run our own small scale/mid scale companies, currently getting about 70% of the fees we were able to command in 1992, against rising cost of living, And a recession, And an agesist Arts Council. There- I said it! At a time when we know our craft and methodolgy, we're 'too expensive'. Off to do a course in hedge-laying. Joke! Just.
I've been lucky enough not to have needed to find other work other than acting since leaving RADA ten years ago but the only way in which I was able to buy a modest property with my brother (which mortgage companies wouldn't provide for now) or indeed save anything for the future or family, was to turn down theatre work and go for television work, which itself isn't thatnwell paid these days. Throughout my twenties I was able to make the choice to turn down television work to do plays to further my training, and am grateful I did, as my love and craft has been best served on stage, even if y bank balance hasn't been. But there comes a point when one needs to stop living and earning for oneself and be paid accordingly.
The most scintillating jobs I've had in theatre, which have taught me the most, have often paid less than £400 per week before tax, commission etc. This is only manageable if you've done some telly recently or have private income elsewhere. As a young actor it's sometimes hard to convince a fine director like Howard Davies or Michael Grandage (or their producers) you're up to the job unless you've paid your dues on stage or are a recognisable face or name. Since the former is hard to afford and the latter achieved most directly by being on the box, these young actors opt for television work too early in their careers and miss out on vital grounding to their theatrical craft. If they then achieve fame and return to theatre with money in the bank, it's not always true they know what they're doing.
Of course, we do 'do it for the love', but we'd also *love*to be paid well enough in theatres other than the NT. The NT does lead the way here but has huge help from the government and private funding and manages ticket prices brilliantly as a result but it is unique. It shouldn't be necessary, and perhaps isn't even healthy, to become a 'house actor' at the NT longterm, just to earn a living on stage. Whilst the range of work is terrific there, it has only three auditoria and reaches only a certain audience despite brilliant marketing and discounts. Shouldn't all actors and audiences feel well catered for, wherever they live or whichever theatre they patronise?
When I was on the West End stage recently I often used ny admittedly pretty decent wage to subsidise my fellow actor friends' tickets to see the show, as tickets were >£50, which is now regrettably typical of the West End. Even for a working actor this often isn't viable. And so we miss out on watching colleagues perform great plays as part of our development and return instead to the television once more, this time as audience members. The cycle feeds itself, and sooner or later our training actors will only be able to afford to watch the television as a basis to their training and working actors will have to stay off stage just to raise rent every month. I've known actors decline theatre work over their temp job for fear of being broke having completed the stage work. Whilst British stars win plaudits and riches internationally, from Broadway to Bollywood, shoudn't the working minions that keep this creative cathedral aloft be treated better than stoically accepting cheap labour? The choice should be better than West End, telly or bust.
When I was on the West End stage recently I often used ny admittedly pretty decent wage to subsidise my fellow actor friends' tickets to see the show, as tickets were >£50, which is now regrettably typical of the West End. Even for a working actor this often isn't viable.
The Old Vic are currently offering 'ageist' tickets to under 25's for £12 http://www.oldvictheatre.com/under25.php. This is due to a charitable donation. Don't get me wrong, there is value in attracting youngsters to the theatre, but on the basis of age and age alone? That's discriminatory. I mean its not as if these are student tickets or for those of limited income. I can understand Senior Citizen discounts as older people may well be retired, and deserve our gratitude for their contributions to society. Neither do I accept the argument that its a charitable donation so The Old Vic must do as the donor wishes. 1. They could refuse it. 2 They could offer it to students or those of limited means - under 25 3. The could educate their donor about ageism or best of all they could act like responsible charities and enact their Equal Opps policy.
As an Equity member (over 25) I asked for a discount - there was none. You can't make this stuff up. Thanks Mr. Spacey, now that's what I call a 'Cause Celebre'.
This resonates somewhat! Very interested in reading Elliot Cowan's response to this too - a crazy state of affairs. Currently I am fighting financial circumstance, my concerned family and my own sense of self worth for reasons to stay in the industry that at it's best is the scintillating craft Mr Cowan has described and at it's worst..... well, I seem to spend a lot of time finding "something to give us the impression we exist"
For what it's worth, my feeling is that there seems to be an increasingly dismissive attitude towards theatre within the industry itself that runs incredibly deeply now. As an actor, I would love nothing more then to make the theatre my home. And while I never got into this industry to get rich, I also understand the concept of working on TV or film to supplement it. But in order to get those jobs we are dependent on others to be in consideration. At a recent run of a play I was working on at a central London venue, I spent hours, as many actors do, during the rehearsal process, sending out invitations. While it always feels a little flaky to spend such an important time as the rehearsal process, looking around, meerkat like, for the next opportunity, the fact is it needs to be done.
What I wasn't expecting is for no-one to turn up. While the public almost sold out every single performance every single one of the 200-odd invites was ignored. Again, there was no expectation of many but I was baffled by the lack of interest. So I put in a call to the one person I felt confident would not put the phone down on an actor ("we only deal with agents"), who I also knew was casting for a production..... I asked if there was any chance of being seen. "Not without seeing you in something" was the response. Yeah, was just in something. "We weren't able to make it". So, is there any chance I could take 5 minutes of your time. "Not until we've seen you in something........"
Well what do I do? The response was, get a showreel! Now I've done the usual round of student and independent shorts, more as an experience for myself and a chance to hone my film skills (in much the same way that I would like to hone my theatre skills) by applying for roles that interest me and working on them in a medium that can leave an inexperienced actor mightily exposed if unprepared. It's part of my professional development. But the concept that was put to me, of just getting together a number of scenes and putting them onto Spotlight/ YouTube/ Vimeo for consideration is anathema. Especially when, and with the greatest of respect to the people that I have worked with, the picture/ sound/ editing quality of the work that you do is entirely out of your hands.
But it's not the first time I've heard this. At a recent open mike type event with casting directors all of them said, the best thing to do is get a showreel. Even if you've just got one random scene, even if the quality isn't great, get it up on Spotlight, we want to see what you "look like". That will get seen. That will make things better. Really? And why? It's like theatre isn't even a consideration any more.
I would like to feel that I exist, and I don't think I am alone with that sentiment within the acting community. So is it any wonder that so many actors are leaving the theatre when it just doesn't get seem to be taken seriously. When you've done your 3 year training, watched, listened, observed, analyzed, done your time in fringe, done the workshops, gritted your teeth and attended the networking events that apparently can really help, done your time on building sites, temp offices, restaurants, call centres etc you would like to feel that your skills counts for something.
While chatting to my musician father about this recently, I asked his opinion on this. Did he ever struggle in the same way. Yes of course he did, at points. But he was never asked to play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star when they could have heard Elgar's Cello Concerto.
This makes very depressing reading - interestingly, the Barbican's forthcoming production of South Pacific has a top price of £65 with extensive premium pricing at £85. When we started looking at the cast of this so-called transfer from the Lincoln Center we found hardly any of the original cast left, and one of the main parts going to a 'star' who is best known for being on TV.