British Theatre Guide Blog

A report in The Stage tells us that ATG has cancelled a musical - Houdini the Musical - that had been booked into the Regent Theatre, Stoke, because the actors were not being paid but employed on the basis that, if the show had a life beyond the Stoke run, they would receive a full wage for that.  The TMA agreed that the arrangement was unacceptable and Equity pointed out that the whole affair could fall foul of employment legislation.

It seemed absolutely right and I found myself nodding in agreement.  However I decided to do a bit more checking and discovered that the company behind the production is, in fact, run by very young actors, not long out of drama school, and, they say, this is the only way they could do this new musical on which they are so keen.

Then I began to think.  On Friday evening I went to see a new play written by a friend of mine in a new venue.  It had a cast of six (playing 19 parts between them) and it ran for one night.  How did they get funding? I asked.  They didn’t: they did it because it was something they wanted to do and they knew that this would be the only way they would get to do it. Hopefully it will have a life beyond the one night and they will have some profit to share, but that’s unknown.

 I chatted to the writer, who was also one of the actors, and she told me they were sick of waiting around for auditions but there’s not very much original theatre being produced in the region and applying for Arts Council grants means having to jump through so many hoops to fit into the “priorities”, the forms are complex and time-consuming to complete and there is certainly no guarantee at the end of the day that any money will be forthcoming.  So they decided to go it alone on a profit-share basis.

They are not alone.  That’s how we did A Cold Coming last year and very recently a group of NE actors have got together to form a group to put on their own work on the same basis.

These people I’m talking about are all professional actors, directors and writers, some with decades of experience, but they feel that their only chance of working, given that the number of plays produced in one year in the region is in single figures, is to do it themselves. 

It’s a dreadful situation.  There is TIE work around and corporate work, but real theatre? the sort of work we came into the business to do?  Forget it! 

Or do it yourself.

As Equity is still in dispute with the Society of London Theatre over the minimum wage for West End performers, we hear that the producers of the Take That musical Never Forget are proposing what have been described at “substantial” cuts in the cast’s wages when the show transfers from the Savoy to the Lyric (which has 250 fewer seats).  The producers, we hear, wish to change the company’s contracts, even though they last until April 2009.  Indeed, word is that some have already had their contracts terminated.

Equity has confirmed that negitiations are going on and that the union is supporting the performers but no one else, other than an unnamed “source close to the show” who has been talking to The Stage,  will comment.

Now, contrary to what many of the general public believe, actors and stage performers generally are not well paid.  According to the government’s 2007 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), the average weekly wage in the UK was £457: from April 2008 the agreement between Equity and the Independent Theatre Council set an actor’s minimum wage (which is what the majority get) at £364.  There are also what are called per diem payments for tours and relocation costs (a maximum of £98.50 a week for London) for those actors who have to work away from home.

West End performers are not much better off: their minimum is £400 for once-nightly performances (from 1st January, 2008).  In other words, they are still considerably below the national average for 2007.

And who gets the minimum? you may ask.  The majority.  There are stars who can command large sums, but they are few.  Is it any wonder that actors are keen to get TV commercial work?  I have a friend who, a couple of years ago, got paid more for a national TV ad than he could earn on stage in thirty weeks!  Not, of course, that he was used to having thirty continuous weeks of work!

The problem is compounded by the old supply and demand equation: there are far more actors than there are jobs, which is why many will work for profit-share (which usually means peanuts) or even for free, in the hope of being seen by casting directors or others who have jobs in their gift.

But that does not excuse attempts to vary contracts which have been signed by both parties.  Unfortunately, however, I suspect they’ll get away with it, unless Equity is willing to mount a legal challenge.  I shall be watching with great interest!