The Actors Center Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, July 2010
Ongoing Concerns
In my Call to Arms, March, 2010, I proposed a return of acting companies to a chosen few of our larger not-for-profit theatres and then designating each as a National Theatre. That proposal as presented was a quick sketch of something that might be do-able and lasting, rather than a well thought out plan for a national monument in the guise of that Holy Grail known as the National Theatre. Since then, I have been encouraged by some to give more substantive shape to the proposal, others have offered their own fanciful notions, and others have taken me sharply to task on a wide variety of issues. In this issue of the Journal, I want to add some flesh to the bones of the original proposal, while addressing some of the concerns raised and acknowledging a very supportive contribution or two.
Let’s first deal with the larger concerns, which involve a wide range of passionate personal and/or philosophical points of view. Start with National Theatre. Be prepared to be embraced one minute, and to duck flying tomatoes the next. I learned that about six years ago when I held a series of symposia on the need for a National Theatre and got nowhere. I had long been passionately for the idea and was first dismayed and then disheartened by heated disagreements about where such an edifice would be located, who would be the Laurence Olivier to lead it, who would dare choose the actors for the company, who would choose the plays that would define our national profile, and on and on and on.
Those thorny discussions among colleagues, which often led to heated quarrels, went well beyond debate and silenced any ambition I may have harbored for politics. Everybody saw themselves in that National mirror and were furious at the self envisioned prospect that in the end they might not be reflected there. I understand why this democracy substitutes National for Royal, and why National does not and should not stand for elite. What I do not understand are the standards to which we hold ourselves, and the heights we would aspire to reach. Adding National to a title does not commit us to nationalistic practices, as in fascist, but it can denote a collective sense of endorsement for standards of achievement. If the culturally oriented theatre is to endure, in my view, another level of artistic expectation and achievement has to be both sought and supported. That is what this proposal aims for, and the use of the words is simply meant to signify that this particular theatre is more than a social entertainment center to revitalize downtown. This theatre is dedicated to providing the full cultural power of live, life changing performance to the extent that it possibly can. Most not-for-profit theatres try, or at least promise themselves, to do that. But they do not have the resources or the corporate will to do so. This proposal hopes to encourage those precious few who could.
The next most troublesome issue for our many respondents is our focus on actors. What about playwrights, directors, designers? Those questions do not come from playwrights or directors, necessarily, but from actors who see their work inextricably connected to their fellow collaborators. Anyone who works in the theatre understands that. But what many actors do not like to admit is that those of us who work in the theatre accept being underpaid because we love what we are doing so much that we accept sub-standard compensation. Those, that can, work almost entirely in film and television. That does not mean that they are our best actors, but it does mean that there is a talent drain. Whatever your profession or your place in this profession, you need to make a living and provide for your future financial security. Most of our most talented professional actors no longer work in the theatre on any regular basis, because we do not compensate them adequately for doing so. Directors, designers, playwrights face the same issues. But there is only one of them per production, whereas the number of actors could be…? Yet who stands out there each night and tells the story? Through their own viscera and deepest understanding of their character’s life experience? In today’s theatre construct, the actor tends to be the least regarded for the degree of his or her expertise. Actors are often hired for their name appeal earned in another idiom, rather than for the personal depth and artistic rendering of the character’s life challenges. When that changes, the whole sense and possibility of true collaboration will change for the better. That is why this proposal focuses on the actor.
The third issue on so many respondents minds is money. Where is the money going to come from to support this fantasy? While this may seem a “fantasy” to many, and obscene to others at a time when so many highly functional people in this great country are without jobs, I continue to maintain that what we do is essential to any culture, and most certainly to our own. Our work as actors has sustained our endless probing of our humanity for centuries. Why should we abandon it now to 3D screen and animation, when as a society we need to connect, human being to human being, with the issues of survival and growth. That doesn’t happen much except in the theatre with live actors, or perhaps a place of worship led by an intuitive and provocative spiritual leader. Those two venues have been linked since mankind began to relate actual experiences with inexplicable occurrences, and to a search for answers. Where are the answers to our daily struggles? Is that not worth an endowment for salaries of one hundred thousand dollars for those actors who have the gift to enlighten our lives? Rich first time politicians now spend upwards of one hundred million dollars on an election campaign, without batting an eye. More than one donor has made a THIRTY MILLION DOLLAR contribution to a museum in the months since I proposed a thirty million dollar endowment for actors’ salaries for an acting company. That proposal specified that Company actors be paid $100,000 per year, One highly experienced and respected actor thought that suggestion ludicrous, meaning “never going to happen.” On the same day, I read in the NY Times about public employees reaping non-taxible retirement benefits of well over $100,000 per year. Why then would anyone, particularly an accomplished actor think it ludicrous to pay another highly respected actor a decent salary? The time has come to reward our best stage actors with a wage that might allow them to live decently, send their kids to college, etc. Are we so inured to being treated as second class citizens that we have come to accept our lot? This proposal is aimed at setting an example for actors salaries commensurate with their contribution to our society. Who is to say that cannot and should not happen?
The Proposal Revisited
- We envision three or four of our larger not-for- profit theatres committed to devoting four months of their regular season to works of lasting perception of human foibles and frailties, performed by stellar acting companies. Ideally, those theatres would schedule their four month, classic seasons in sequence with each other, so that there would always be a major production of a major play somewhere in America.
- The National Endowment for the Arts should initiate and monitor this endeavor. A Board of Registry should be established to award the title of National Theatre to those well established theatres who apply and who meet the required criteria. This Board shall also be responsible for seeing that those criteria are maintained over time, and that the highest standards of performance continue to be pursued. This appointed Board must come with distinguished theatre credentials and must be shielded from any political pressures. Their role is to assist and maintain the purposes of this National Theatre initiative, and to advise the Chairman of the Endowment in regard to achievements of this initiative and the financial support needed to sustain them. The Endowment, in turn, would pledge particular concern and support for those theatres that met Board of Registry criteria.
- The criteria should be:
- a) commitment to an acting company made up of ten to twelve of the best actors in America
- b) these actors are to be paid $100,000 for a four month commitment
- c) there must be a $30 million endowment in place to assure the long term commitment of the theatre to this four month acting company structure
- d) the theatre must have commitments from their proposed company members of three years for some and five years for others, allowing space for continuing renewal in company makeup e) the theatre must have the space and infrastructure to produce large cast plays
- f) the theatre must have a standing record of artistic integrity and cultural service.
- The Company makeup as well as the producing/directing/ designing team are key. Collaboration is the name of the game. The actors have to work together seamlessly, know each other thoroughly. And the artistic director and the directors have to know and relate to each actor. Choosing a Company of twelve people, half of whom are going to be working with you for five years, is akin to untying the Gordian knot. It means that you have essentially to envision what those four month seasons are going to look like for the next five years. You can either choose the plays and plug the actors in, or choose the actors and then choose the plays that best challenge and use these superb artists. Obviously, I would encourage an artistic director to do the latter, but which ever way you go, you are always going to have an extraordinary talent base to draw upon. Your challenge is not just to choose the best actors, but to build an ensemble, and then find ways to meld in the other actors you will need to fill out large casts. As Olympia Dukakis reminds me again and again, our work is based in collaboration.
SUMMARY: This is about standards, about finding a way to do our best work, and about separating ourselves and our theatre from the entertainment industry. It is about preserving a part of the theatre that could be hugely important to future generations. And, it is about seeing the actor as an artist that helps us see, hear, and feel for each other in a time of internet disconnection. So many of you have been supportive with challenging comments and suggestions, I want to thank you and refer specifically to two. The late Israel Hicks, he died on Saturday morning, July 3rd, recently spoke to Phil Carlson and I about how many actors he would like to have in his ideal company. He was the one who came up with the number twelve, because it would allow him to rehearse two plays at the same time, while covering most if not all of the major roles. Israel was a wonderful director and a close, close friend for over forty years. He always had the most practical answers to the most slippery questions, and all those who ever worked with him will mourn his passing and miss him being there in the rehearsal hall for them. The second person, who will not be named, is a major supporter of one of the theatres all of you might think of as a potential player/leader in this scheme of mine. After listening to my outline over breakfast, he suggested the possibility of one theatre choosing the fall, another the spring, another the summer, and then said with great enthusiasm, “If that were to happen, I would plan my life around being able to see them all!” And that is my dream, to SEE THEM ALL!
Keep the faith, Michael