There's a little unhappiness down at the old tomato sauce factory on Belvoir Street where a few noses are out of joint.
Ruben Guthrie, another play which has made good in the Downstairs theatre, received a promotion and will be enjoying a mainstage season in the upstairs theatre in a couple of months.
But a few actors from the original cast won't be going with it.
The play, written by Brendan Cowell and directed by Wayne Blair, follows the ups and downs of a 29-year-old advertising creative and his battle with the bottle.
I wasn't the biggest fan of the play and found it a bit la di da - but when I discovered a couple of the actors won't be going with it I was very surprised.
Sure, the play has problems - primarily dramaturgical - but the least of its problems were the actors. In fact, you could almost say the acting ensemble was its strongest element.
The cast in the original production included Megan Drury, Tracy Mann, Lex Marinos, Torquil Neilson, Sam Reed, Toby Schmitz and Christopher Stollery. But a few names will magically disappear when it ascends in May.
But there's a bigger problem here as well. All the above-mentioned actors worked on the show last year for free. Well, they may have received a cut of the co-op cake but essentially, this was an unpaid gig which wouldn't have got anywhere near MEAA award rates.
This included four or five weeks of rehearsals, a four week season and the invaluable creative input put into the development and fine-tuning of the show.
So you can only imagine the ... well ... 'something' going down after a few ejections. I certainly wouldn't be very happy.
But what are the ethics around co-op theatre making good? Do producers and directors have any responsibility to actors who have not only sacrificed their time and creativity but also performed to critical acclaim? Or is it all fair in love and war?
In a world where shows from the independent sector are increasingly noticed by mainstream producers and programmers is there any responsibility at all to the creatives? I suspect there probably isn't but we live in a very small world here in Sydney Theatre Land.
This is the second show in as many years which has gone directly from the downstairs Belvoir space up to the Company B space - the last being Kate Mulvaney's The Seed which managed to keep all three actors during the transfer.
I suppose the moral of the story is that this is just the way show business works and nothing should be taken for granted - especially if you're an actor in an independent theatre production. Unless of course you can find away to put in an additional clause in your contract.
Posts
7 comments:
SAJ strikes again!
I've been stewing about this since I first heard the rumour.
I'm very disappointed that Company B would do this. It seems to me to be a betrayal of the ensemble ideals that it espouses.
I agree with you that the greatest strength of the show was in it's acting. The lead performance was astonishing and the support cast turned the rather shallow waters of the script into something deeper.
To be frank there was one performance that I thought didn't reach professional standard [something that one occassionaly sees upstairs...anyone remember The Seagull?] but the others were very strong.
While I'm on my high horse SAJ why don't you have a look at the article they had printed in the SMH recently about 'parity pay'.
Sure [almost] everyone earns the same 'hourly wage' but some are paid for working more hours than others - whether or not those are the horus they work. It's a classic Animal Farm example.
That said. I love Co B, what they do and [mostly] how they do it. But you always get most disappointed by the ones you love.
Interesting piece SAJ ... and where to begin?!
Firstly, in my experience of not-for-payment independent theatre-making, the rule has always been very simple. Once there has been a production mounted I have listed everyone who has been involved in readings (from my loungeroom to the theatres), workshops and, in a couple of instances, previous performances. I have always felt that this is the most diplomatic, courteous and appropriate way to acknowledge 'those' who have contributed in some way to the process of script to stage.
In the one instance where a play of mine 'transferred' and cast changes were made, they were made by the Director/Producer (not me) ... and they were made for reasons that most casting decisions are made: suitability, reputation, previous experience ... and so on.
The critical point here, I think, is that in spite of everyone's best intentions, nobody gets paid when a show doesn't make enough – and by that, I mean the writer, director, producer ... the creative team. Theatre rental usually gets paid (perhaps not in this instance), so too does printing of posters and flyers ... but the creatives starve and often rush from full-time jobs into the rehearsal room.
I think if no-one got paid the first time, then if changes are necessary, they should be acknowledged in the program and honoured for their contribution that way.
Thanks Jason Tack for your comment. I had been thinking about that article - so for anyone who missed is CLICK HERE.
And thanks for your thoughts Geoffrey.
It's always unfortunate when creatives are unpaid - God knows the amount of times I've never been paid.
I suppose it's a good time to mention that Belvoir have a solid history, more so than many other venues, of having creatives moving up from independent to professional.
But this issue is perhaps a little different and a little bit new, dealing with the ever diminishing creative gap that exists between the independent and mainstream. It's something which has only emerged in the last 18 months.
When a show (or a group as they are now more commonly known) gets picked up, transferred or directly bought it would potentially be a matter of course that the creatives would go with it, such as what happened when The Seed was transferred.
It creates a lot of potential problems between artists in a small town.
But I really think actors should start informing themselves a bit more about contracts, rights and responsibilities.
This profession is no longer about just walking, auditioning and saying a few lines and as we all enter a new age, we all need to have a multiplicity of skills.
I was at a forum last year (at Belvoir Street funnily enough) and the naivety of actors about contracts, funding and opportunities was quite unbelievable.
But even this will then have potential problems for producers and directors if actors smarten up. If it's legal to put clauses into co-op contracts to guarantee certain rights in the event a show is picked up, a new rift may emerge between the mainstream and the independent sectors.
And this latest affair may be the catalyst. Goodness knows everyone here in Sydney is talking about it.
I think it's a very fine and blurry line, this difference between the terms "independent" and "professional" ... and I think we need to look beyond such terms of recognition and study the elephant in the room which is this simple fact: it's practically impossible to make money in co-ops.
What is interesting is that 'co-ops' are driven by passion and usually a desperate need to act ... write ... create – not financial imperatives. The Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney "Let's put on a show!" drive ... where fiscal imperatives such as wages, superannuation, insurance, publicity, theatre hire are generally trampled in the stampede to Kinkos to start photocopying however many scripts are needed! This is what often makes them singularly and influential important pieces of creative synergy.
In my experience of some, oh god I can't count them! pieces of independent theatre making, I have been paid a "share" twice. On every other occasion, I went poor. My point is, as a creative being, that a piece of theatre doesn't mean more to me personally just because I happened to get paid a share.
As with many 'independents' ... the act of theatre-making is the reward. The rent just has to come from somewhere else.
I think it’s poor form that the transfer included the loss of some members of the creative team that made the original production. Unless the Belvoir’s position is that it was basically only the script that deserved the promotion and not the show itself.
Ethics aside, it’s just a little bizarre that the Belvoir is saying ‘B Sharp is the best of the independent scene, in fact some shows are so good they transfer upstairs’ and yet ‘not that good that we don’t have to change it around an awful lot’. The problem is that the only way this message makes any sense is if what they believe is the best of the independent scene is not as good as the worst of the professional scene (at least within Belvoir). As Jason noted, we all know this isn’t true. It sounds like people are upset because the fundamental message heard is that some people just don’t belong upstairs.
But you can’t legislate against poor form. I don’t see how a co-op contract could successfully include a clause about being included in a transfer unless the show was group devised. Otherwise what you have is the playwright signing something promising not to do anything else with the script without asking if it’s okay with the original cast/team. For anyone who has dealt with a standard playwright’s contract, you’ll note that there is nothing like this in their agreement, the writer has quite a bit of power and freedom to move.
And I can see the reverse argument – isn’t it better that some of the creative team stayed intact rather than replacing them all?
Good points Gaz. The other one is that we don't know who wanted to go on with the show and who didn't. Is there the possibility that those who have departed wanted it that way? Maybe they had other jobs? Things to do?
What do the Belvoir management have to say on the matter?
In any case, as much as I would like to believe it could be different: everyone knows co-ops are actually a polite way of asking everyone to work for nothing and frankly, we should be careful how much we mess with that silent understanding. It would be foolish to think they could be anything else. The commitment, as I have already said, is to the 'work' not the money. That is as fundamentally rich and rewarding as I can imagine.
If actors of the callibre of Tracy Mann and Christopher Stollery are being replaced against their will, that is truly a disgrace if not immoral, as no doubt there was an implicit understanding (as I believe there to be in all independent productions) that if the show goes on to a bigger life in main stage venue, the cast that got it there will at least have first right of refusal on the roles they created. As anyone who has been in a rehearsal room with a brand new work would know, the collaborative contributions of actors, director, the writer, designer, etc all play a vital part in what is eventually put on the page as well as the stage. If directors are not going to behave honourably, then perhaps the time has come for some sort of independent theatre contract, in which the guarantee of first right of refusal is what is offered in lieu of weekly salary.
Post a Comment