Antic Disp. - Wilde Play @ Jermyn St.

I am quite frankly a little offended by your comments. I am neither stupid or selfish. Please keep your comments general and do not personal attacks. which ever way you look at it there are not enough jobs for actors and never will be. A lot of small theatre companies are not out to make profit because it is virtually impossible to.

• 17 years ago
• 21

I hate to tell you but the industry on a whole is selfish. In fact the modern entertainment industry is by it's very nature built on ideas of self-progression and selfishness. I actually love acting more than anything becuase it teaches me about myself and the world. Does this also add to the selfish label that you have placed on me. I fully see your point that if companies are truly abusing actors rights - well that's just not acceptable.

It is my right however to choose to act for free or for whatever fee I see fit. Do you look down on those well known actors who are paid ridiculous amounts? If you do then you're not opposed to my choosing to work for free or furthering my career your opposed to the caste system that exists on virtually every face of the planet. There are those earning next to nothing, those earning moderately and those earning vast sums of cash and that exists in all jobs throughout the world.

I can accept that I have selfish qualities but no more so than any other person in the world. Does that make it right? Of course not. But I'm not about to start apologising for my choices, ideas and personality to someone who has tried to insult me without even knowing me.

I wish that everyone could earn the same for this fantastic career, I also wish that would satisfy people. But while I'm at it, I may as well wish for Marxism to have worked and that everyone would just get along and not try to constantly outdo each other. Unfortunately at the moment it's not likely to happen over night. But I'll certainly do my share of hoping that it would.

• 17 years ago
• 22

well said sir

• 17 years ago
• 23

If they had advertised the roles as being unpaid but with a payment of £200 to cover expenses, then fine. But they didn't. £200 for that time scale isn't a fee. The wording of the ad was wrong and misleading.
I'm sure they're lovely people. My friend and I formed our own company a few years back and did some gigs around London. We didn't break even but we didn't make a huge loss but we did it for ourselves. Just being honest in an ad can boost the reputation of any company.

• 17 years ago
• 24

admittedly it seems concensus that the £200 is expenses rather than payment. It def sounds better but it's just a matter or 2/3 words I think we can all read between the lines.

• 17 years ago
• 25

Sorry but I can't agree - 2 or 3 words can mean the difference between war and peace. And in an ad, the wording should be clear - there is no room to read between the lines. It's common English usage which seems to becoming more and more uncommon.

• 17 years ago
• 26

Michael, I can see you feel passionately about the whole "working for nothing" subject but there is no call for personal attacks on a forum like this (or anywhere else for that matter). Your response is extraordinary and its tone does your "corner" no favours at all. This site has the facility for people to advertise for actors who may be interested in low or no-pay work in order to gain experience or exposure. It's not something I would choose to do but I can see its place ( not in the paid section, but I won't go there again!). If you want people to join you in your campaign for more paid work and to bring an end to working for nothing for professional actors, you might want to consider changing your debating style.

• 17 years ago
• 27

Michael, I notice that you will be performing at the Pleasance in Edinburgh. It's a great venue and I wish you well. Are you being employed on Equity rates for rehearsal and performance there? Good for you if you are, but how do you feel about the hundreds of companies who go to Edinburgh each year putting their own money into shows just in order to "be there"? Are they also selfish and "Me, me, me?".

• 17 years ago
• 28

Sorry, won't be distracted from the context with the don't get personal stuff. I'm interested in the principal and whether Actors have and employ any principles re pay and conditions. My opinion is that Actors that care not about their own pay and conditions and treatment, nor about their colleagues pay and conditions nor about the Industry in general, are not Actors that I have any respect for. I don't know you as people and you don't know me and so this is a professional debate, not a personal one as far as I'm concerned. Business, not Personal. Acting is not a game. It is an Art, and it also a Business (the latter unfortunately, but that is the real world we live in). Acting and building and sustaining an Acting career is something that Actors should care about passionately, but NOT to the exclusion of their self-worth as an Artist, as a Self-Employed/Freelance worker, not to the exclusion of damaging the very Industry they should want to spend the rest of their lives working in, and not to the exclusion of increasing the chances of their colleagues having to endure not only no or not even close to minimum wages levels of pay but actually paying for the privilege of performing. If you want to 'buy' the opportunity of performing and showcasing your talents I would recommend auditoning for if successful attending a good Drama School. If you've already sacrificed much to do that then remind yourself of your worth, your value as an Artist and as a human being and demand that others treat you in a way that reflects this fact. If more Actors did this and spent less time being prepared to do whatever for whatever, and whatever the consequences for their colleagues and the Industry in general, then we might not be having this debate period because pay and conditions right across the board including Fringe would never be proferred at anywhere near the level Antic Disp have and people like them do. How difficult is this to take on board.
And for the record, the Play I'll be doing at the Edinburgh Festival is well paid, with excellent accommodation paid for & all travel paid for - and though I have been offered other Festival Plays/Parts at Edinburgh in previous years (and I hardly warrant a medal for this) I have waited until I was offered the right Play/Part AND the right pay and conditions before going up. The waiting has been hard but I think (hope) worth it.
In summary & as I'm done with this debate (and thanks to those that have responded publicly and personally and who have understood the point I am making) only Actors COMMUNALLY can make the conditions and pay and thus their careers and lives better by the personal and collective decisions they make, decisions that should not be made via desperation, lack of self-worth and a complete disregard for the Industry now and going forward and all our Colleagues, past and present. How many times can one say it, paying to work or working for appalling pay is crap for the Actor as individual, Actors in general and for the Industry in general. There is no up-side, that's the bottom line.

• 17 years ago
• 29

Your level of judgement and condemnation is spectacular. The only bottom line is that you've managed to completely undermine your opinions by the way you've tried to enforce them on other people.

• 17 years ago
• 30

Oliver,

My comments were not personal, but more as a defence for others. I certainly do not have a mortgage at present, nor would I want one.

While I do accept that it is a personal choice, and personally, working for little moeny is apretty standard even in the West End!, my comment was more toward the apparaent insesitivity to your remarks.

I do agree that one needs to work, and have no issue iwth this, but you cant expect actors not to get angry at this when they are constantly abused and deprived of fair money.

Sorry about the comments which came across as attacking, but you still get the jist of what i am trying to say.

• 17 years ago
• 31

I fully understand your point, in fact, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Just sometimes I think people are a little quick to see the negative side - No worries.

• 17 years ago
• 32

My 2 cents.

If you really care about this and want to make a difference, then go after the companies who CAN afford to pay but won't give out the money we deserve! Not the new companies who are just getting somewhere and trying to get noticed so that they can eventually make more money to pay their actors - and everyone else involved for that matter!

Heh, here's an idea, why don't you actually try to DO something about it (the name Clive comes to mind here!)instead of spending all day typing and posting hurtful comebacks at other actors who you may one day have to work with!

• 17 years ago
• 33

Michael,

As someone who applied to audition, I did so because of the harsh realities of this business. In principle I agree with you, but I do not have the luxury of picking and choosing whilst trying to make this career work for me.

I went to a humble (though very good) drama school in Brighton and found it difficult to get an agent and to even get a look in for even the smallest jobs. What would you suggest I do? I am not in aposition to be picky, I simply want people to see my work.

• 17 years ago
• 34

So am nw to this greenroom thing and this is my first posting, a little nervous I can tell you ...

Honestly I am shocked and a liittle saddened by what has been said on this production.

Yes £200 is a little money, sure it would be great if they could pay more but we must trust they can't for good reason. But what i don't get is why is there the need to pan this company without any real information on them. Have you called to talk to them about the situation? Do you know of any good funding places they can try? Have you the opportunity to help a new company trying to put on quality shows in good venues and finding it hard to get cash? Sadly I think I know the answer. It is all very well calling to arms the acting world to Just Say No but how about we all start saying Yes for once and try and help people in simiplar situations. Lets face it if we are onCCP it means we are busting are proverbial behinds to get on.

And yes I am part of a small theatre company and yes we pay as much as we can to outsiders who join us but we work for free as the company. To build a reputation and to try and get a good portfolio together to start apply for th larger funding.

Anyway - Feel my first rant has been rather liberting on my side.

So, thanks for listening and lets try and stop the bitching of people trying to get on and support as much as we can. If we were to pool our knowledege think what we could achieve.

As a great man once said weekly - Look after yourself, and each other

• 17 years ago
• 35

Hi all,

Frankly, I've got to disagree with everyone who's of the "under no circumstance apply for it" opinion, although I absolutely conceed that the money is poor for a months work. But my reason is purely this: faced with the prospect of doing a fringe play in some godforsaken pub venue in zone 3 for which you have to email a detailed map and post a compass to every agent, casting director or even friend you wish to invite in order to stand a chance that they might actually attend can be a hugely horrible experience.

How many chances do you have of performing in the West End of London, thereby standing a much better chance of enticing people to see your production? Now that the Swiss Centre is closed, Sound has been lost which pretty much leaves the Jermyn St as the only viable "fringe" venue in central london. If you want to attract agents, casting directors etc, we all know that getting them off their backsides and into your venue can be decidedly tricky because many won't travel too far away from home or office unless you're the next rhumoured big thing of course - in which case they'll flock like sheep just to pick the fluff out of your navel.

But The Jermyn St theatre is a great place to perform as it's in the heart of London, and most big agencies are based fairly centrally. Even if people are coming from a few miles away, travelling to Piccadilly Circus instantly sounds more attractive than say, Clapham North for the Landor if you don't live or work South of the river. Having performed there, nice theatre that it is, I know that it's tricky getting people in from afar, especially people who could further your career.

IF you are happy with your current agent, your level of work, your earnings and everythig else then, absolutely - your perogative to say no to this and not apply because yes; the pay is a pittance, it may be beneath you. BUT, if you are struggling to get somewhere, are dissatisfied with your agent, don't have one and you need experience, then in my opinion, you can't be too choosy with the limited amount of opportunity out there, so accept that this play won't pay well, but may lead to something else and, if offered - do it! West End! Albeit, fringe West End.

It's the same argument as with low budget film I suppose. I have a friend who won't do them out of principle: fair enough, his choice. But what better practice for working with a camera is there than being on a film set? Doing the odd class just isn't the same. And serious empolyers take experience seriously, not just training. Again, with theatre, I am of the opinion that to remain a well oiled acting machine one must keep working as much as possible. In such a competitive industry as this surely you need all the experience you can get, as long as you work to your own ethical standards and aren't getting exploited. Budgets for theatre are so, so much less than film, and therefore it is sadly almost a guarantee that you will lose money by putting on a production unless you get a good venue that is easily accessible. But you'll have to charge an exhorbitant amount for tickets just to cover the venue costs, not to mention meet your production budget. Remember, theatre in this county is woefully underfunded and this fact must be considered in this debate.

As a final point though, I agree with the people who are of the opinion that this ad should have been listed as low pay. £200 does indeed sound like expenses only.

Best wishes to all,

Simon

• 17 years ago
• 36

Wow, what a debate this has sparked.

I totally agree that the state of the Industry has taken a severed slide downhill. I think it's awful that actors are expected to work for free to gain experience. More should be being done to bring back Rep companies where actors used to build up working (and paid) experience.
However, as a young actor after two professional years and a smattering of small jobs, I totally inderstand what it's like to be disheartened. I did apply to this posting as it's not often that lead roles in such a good show are offered. Yes, I would still have to work my day job but at least I would be doing something. Sometimes I forget what being on a stage is like. I'm sure I'm not alone here. And, as has been mentioned previously, it is a great show, great venue, great opportunity to invite agents etc.
More should be being done about the state of things. The lack of decent opportunities has prompted myself and my peers to start generating our own work by forming our own company. We are doing it for the love, and just to be doing something. I can understand Antic Disp doing the same.

• 17 years ago
• 37

You know,

After thinking about it, and hearing all the other points of view, my thoughts have changed:

1) I think we all agree that its not easy to get good jobs and to work regularly. And its virtually impossible to get an agent to see yu in a pub upstairs out in Farnham Green!!!! From this pont of view, I think that its an individual choice and one that is each actors unique call to make.

2) I totally overeracted about my response to it being prostitition etc... I apologise. Its not fair on the actors who at least are trying to be proactve and if they can afford it and do it- its better than getting drunk and complaining all the time.

3) But what we all agree on is that in the industry something has to change so this is NOT THE NORM. I think that what made everyone so angry was not so much the fact that its paid what it paid, but the way the company seemed to push themsleves as paying a wage. I dont think any actor will resent a theatre company starting out, as long as they are upfront and honest and say that this is all there is right now, but they will get industry contacts in or something on top of the expenses, most actors would be okay with that.

4) I dont see its damaging the industry too much becasue at least its a play getting seen and the company MAY get such acclaim they get subsidised etc.. its far better to it that way. Its a maybe.

My agent is not happy about fringe etc, and they have their contractual agreements with me about fringe--- I can do it, but under cetain conditions.

But I think I got on my high horse and can end up condemning other actors who want to work and the last thing i should be doing is making another actor feel bad for the honourable choice of trying to work.

So I fully apologise. Sorry.

B

• 17 years ago
• 38

Wow - mixed bag of replies to this posting. I think that if this had been posted as a no pay job actors would still have wanted to do it just for the venue alone. I daresay in the early stages of our career many of us have done "profit-share" stuff where you rehearse for weeks maybe twice a week if you're lucky, and then find hardly anyone comes to the production because the advertising sucked and no-one knew about it except family and friends. When you are starting out it is really important to have something current on your cv - both film and theatre and to start the year off this is a great venue and a great play - for those who have applied - Good luck and may something great come out of it.

• 17 years ago
• 39

Aaaw Blake, you sweetie. Well done you, I think you said it all.

Susannah.

• 17 years ago
• 40