The Price of Creative Freedom: 99-Seat Theatre Plan

I love getting paid for my work. I can’t deny that. Honestly, I don’t think that anyone can. Given the option of being compensated or not, I would venture to guess that 100% of people would rather earn money for their contributions to any particular business than give up their time and talents for free. Lately, this issue has become quite prevalent in the theatrical community based on a possible ruling out of Los Angeles that would drastically effect the operating procedures of small theatre companies.

Here’s a brief overview.

For decades, the Los Angeles arts scene has been full of small, 99 seat theaters. These theaters have a reputation for producing new, boundary breaking works that are sometimes considered too risky to mount in larger houses, but because of the small house sizes and production budgets, the companies that use these spaces can continue to innovate and grow despite their relative lack of financial gain. One key factor that helps this process is something called the “99-Seat-Theatre-Plan” which allows union actors to work in these houses for a small stipend as opposed to their usual union wages. These stipends often range from $7-$15 per performance with unpaid rehearsal hours and usually max out around $240 for the run of a show.

The new piece of legislation being brought forth by Actors’ Equity would require all theaters to enforce a $9 minimum wage during rehearsals and performances for their union members – effectively quadrupling the aforementioned budget allowance. This week, Los Angeles Equity members will have the opportunity to vote on this proposal, and as of now, both sides of the aisle are speaking quite fervently in order to convince the fence sitters of their position.

And honestly…I’m not sure where I stand.

Thus far, my theatrical education has cost over six figures. Many of my professional colleagues are in the same exact boat financially, and the idea of using that rather expensive skillset to work for nothing doesn’t necessarily make sense to me. I wouldn’t ask my accountant to do my taxes for free nor would I ask a graphic designer to make me a logo out of their generosity. All of these chosen professions have value, but artists as a whole seem to be more and more content to work for free or next to nothing – thus potentially devaluing the importance and respect that the craft deserves. If I’m running a company and one good actor will work for free while another good actor demands a check, the answer seems apparent. The books require me to save as much money as possible. The worry is this: if enough actors, painters, musicians, and designers give in to this mindset, there won’t be a reason to pay anyone anything, much less a living wage. Because of all that, I could absolutely understand voting YES on this proposal.

However…

Many of my friends in Chicago work at theaters where they are paid relatively low stipends, if at all, but whenever I have seen these productions on my visits to the city…the quality absolutely blows me away. The plays are bold and uncompromising, and it is clear that every single person involved in the process undoubtedly loves the product that they have created. In an industry where many bigger houses are asking actors to do Fiddler for the 42^nd time, these small companies are beacons of creative freedom, exploration, and innovation, and if they were all forced to quadruple the money needed to operate at the same level…many of them wouldn’t last the season. Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and numerous other cities could potentially be robbed of their most interesting companies, and we as a culture could miss out on the opportunity to witness new works that multi-million dollar theaters wouldn’t risk staging in a thousand years. And for all of those reasons, I could absolutely understand voting NO on this proposal.

And here we find the current impasse within the artistic community. Both sides have extremely valid points, and regardless of this vote’s result, its impact will be felt throughout the country. Do we want money or creative freedom? Clearly, we want both, and occasionally, that is a very possible goal – I have been lucky enough already to be involved in incredible shows that paid me well, but I’m not foolish enough to think this commonplace in the industry.

I love acting. I love creating characters, and I love collaborating with some of the most intelligent and passionate people in the world, but I know that the questions that this vote poses will follow me throughout the rest of my career. Some of the most incredible processes I have ever been a part of have barely covered my gas money while the occasional mind numbing commercial gig has paid my rent in less than three hours. At twenty-three, I am also very aware that I have so much more to learn about the industry into which I have inserted myself, and luckily, I have attempted to surround myself with people that can do just that.

Ultimately, the vote in Los Angeles this week will make a bold statement about the actors of California (and quite possibly, the nation), but regardless of the outcome, there’s no job I’d rather have.