J. Michael Miller
The Actors Center Journal Vol 2 Num 1
Special Feature:
A CALL TO ARMS: In the 1950′s, the need and the goals were established. An American theatre that stood apart from commercial entertainment was well within our reach. We had audiences who looked forward to special dramatic experiences provided by exceptionally gifted actors. We had world renowned playwrights who examined our native culture and our individual life experiences. We were awash with actors who were not only capable of embodying this work, but were pursuing levels of human expression on the stage that were artistically and culturally ground breaking. Why could we not have a theatre as important to our culture as our major symphonies and museums? Of course we could, and we set out to build them and we did. They were to eschew commercial producing practices. They were to be culturally enhancing institutions, under a not-for-profit tax status. AND, they were to be based on major acting companies, in the European tradition. A number of such companies were built: the Guthrie Theatre in Minneapolis, the American Conservatory Theatre in San Francisco, the Houston Alley, the Arena Stage in Washington D.C., and we must never forget that brave first foray of the Lincoln Center Theater company. Had that succeeded, we might not be in our current situation.
The missions of these wonderful theatres were largely abandoned over the ensuing decades, for a variety of reasons. The reason routinely cited is fiscal responsibility. The reason was lack of will, coupled with a prevailing view that the theatre is part of the entertainment industry, rather than part of our cultural heritage. And, since the American entertainment industry is the largest and most sophisticated in the world, it naturally holds great sway over our populace. Our culturally based theatre has grown more commercial and less useful to our society each decade since 1980. Film is a wonderful and powerful storyteller, but it cannot replace the audience experience of a great artist on stage. Few people understand that because so few people have actually seen it.
Last year the National Endowment for the Arts published an exhaustive study of our not-for-profit theatres. Their summary: the number of theatres has doubled; the management of those theatres has vastly improved; but, for some inexplicable reason, audiences continue to decline. One reason, apparent to many of us, is that our actors no longer want to work in these theaters because they cannot live on the salary being offered by those theatres. Another reason is that actors find the artistic challenge lacking, being asked to fulfill a director’s concept rather than being given the chance to explore a deeper understanding of their character – which was what the rehearsal process used to be all about. A life in the theatre further means that the actor must travel from theatre to theatre, jump into three weeks of rehearsal – or less – with fellow actors they have not met before, more often than not with a director to whom they have only recently been introduced, and then perform a crucial role under those circumstances. Actors are no longer part of the “creative team”. That inner circle is reserved for the artistic director, the playwright, the director, and the lead designer. Their planning starts well before the actors are cast, let alone assembled. The actors, for the most part, become privy to the whole scheme on the first day of rehearsal. Does that bode well for those who carry the burden? The actor is the artist on the stage. The actor is the one who engages with the audience. The actor is the one who tells/lives the story. Our theatre tends to treat actors as necessary hired hands, piece workers brought in to carry out someone else’s plan.
Audiences are not stupid. They know when there are compelling reasons to go to the theatre and when there is thin gruel on the stage. So do our major theatre artists. A fine young actor proudly confided that, after the final performance of Tony Kushner’s new play at the Guthrie Theatre, Tony whispered in his ear, “You are the reason I write for the theatre.” Contrast that anecdote with a comment from the head of one of our most hallowed actor training institutions: “The students no longer envision themselves in the theatre. They see no future there. It’s disturbing.” It is not only disturbing, it is a harbinger. Most actors of artistic ambition want to work in the theatre, but they do not have that theatre at hand. “The fault is not in our stars dear Brutus, but in ourselves”, if we do not act now to return our finest actors to the stage.
We believe the solution is to reinstate the actor at the center of our theatre by encouraging the reinstitution of major acting companies. The cost of maintaining a company should be no more than the current cost of a seasonal cast of players. It needs to be more, however, because these primary artists are now paid far too little. A Seattle-based actor left the theatre last year when he realized that an assistant marketing staffer was being offered considerably more than he had ever made in any of his thirty years working in the theatre. That may be an apple and pears situation to your mind, but, to ours, it is just another sample of the priority given to administrative staff over artists. As practical business people, we understand what it takes to attract and retain skilled executives. When it comes to actors, we are less sure of what the skill set is and how to evaluate it. After all, a hundred actors auditioned for that role. Surely we can find someone who is willing to do it for the price we are willing to pay.
The artist/actor comes first. What actually happens on stage comes first. When we lose that perspective, we have lost sight of our mission, and should lose our tax exempt status with it. When we reinstitute acting companies, they need to be major companies, actors of great experience and artistic merit. I often think that if I had had the opportunity to see Meryl Streep work on stage at least once every three years over the last thirty years, I would be a better person today; that I would have gained a deeper perspective of my fellow man as well as myself. She and so many others have done a great job for me in that way on the screen, but it would have been a so much more visceral and lasting experience in the theatre.
There is a variety of acting company structures to look to for guidance, but the reasons they did not survive lie at the root of our current problems. The director and the playwright are at the center of our theatre, both not-for-profit and commercial. There is little difference between the two in their producing practices, except that one produces a season of plays and the other produces a “show” it hopes will run forever. When there were acting companies, the season was built around the actors’ collective strengths. A necessity when one is producing classics. When one is producing a new play, particularly a production designed for a long run, casting is often based around a single “star” actor, rather than the strength of the ensemble. When, about twenty five years ago, the not-for-profit theatre started to move away from largely classic seasons and work sometimes hand in hand with commercial producers in developing new plays, the days of acting companies were numbered. Directors wanted more control, more choices in their casting pool, less limitation on their producing dreams. Understandable. But with that developing trend began a “baby with the bathwater” syndrome: the marginalization of the actor in our culturally based theatre. Not only have we lost sight of what great theatre can mean to a society, we have largely betrayed a generation of actor/artists who had prepared themselves to engage with classic works on a very deep level. They are still here, waiting to serve us whether it be through Shakespeare or Shaw, Moliere or Mamet, Williams, Miller, Kushner or Wilson, Suzan Lori-Parks, and so many others who have something to tell us about ourselves. We just have to create a space and proper conditions for them to reveal in person their perceptions.
PROPOSAL: We need to create places where we can expect to see the most accomplished actors in this country on stage, challenged by great plays, and supported by the most discerning directors. Our proposal is to establish several “National” acting companies based at existing not-for-profit theatres. The plan: a) establish a Board of Registry, empowered to select and designate National Theatres; b) this Board would be under the aegis of the National Endowment for the Arts. Major, essentially A-level theatres as currently defined by LORT contract, would be invited to apply for National Theatre status; c) conditions: establish an acting company of at least 8 to 10 highly accomplished actors on three to five year contracts; each actor is to be paid $100,000 per year, and required to perform in no less than three plays over a three year period plus ensemble training sessions; an endowment fund of at least $30,000,000 to support this company salary commitment must be in place; the theatre must commit to 60% of its program being devoted to plays of “classic” stature that involve members of the acting company. In return, the National Endowment will set aside a special fund for subsidy of theatres of this kind.
EXPECTATION: If we can create three to five theatres of that stature, we will set a standard for our not-for-profit theatre. We will return a sense of purpose and possibility to actors with artistic inclination and special gifts. We will provide a fresh sense of demarcation between the entertainment industry and our identification of the actor and the theatre as a vital part of our cultural heritage and cultural evolvement.
J. Michael Miller
January 2010
