AEA fighting with the League over choice to give "The Lost Colony" a Tony Honor

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/theater/not_lost_on_equity_ZICtYBalqdlHUR0M0l3e2L

I have several friends who have worked at The Lost Colony. None of them have good things to say about it. None of them.

One of my mates, an actor, literally had to do what Riedel mentions in his article: paint himself orange & red and pretend to be an indian. He fell off a horse during a show and had to be released from his contract, much to his relief.

---

So, just because all of your friends don't have good things to say about a theatre company that employed them means it shouldn't receive an award? Is that how these things work?

True. It was written by a Pulitzer Prize winning playwright. And I think it's a fascinating story.

"We can't all just be Broadway stars right out of college."

According to Glee you can move to NYC from Middle America, immediately get a fabulous apartment with lots of floor space and in your first semester of college, without having to be a waitress or a temp, be getting call backs for the lead in a Funny Girl revival.

---

There's a fascinating argument to be made hear that I've heard from some people very high up at AEA about the differentiation that should be made between union and non-union talent. The Tonys recognize exclusively union talent for the most part (minus that cruise ship debacle) and the union provides a lot of safety and protects actors from a lot of unscrupulous and unethical conduct that goes on at non-union theaters and on non-union productions. AEA has done a lot for the Tonys, for Broadway, and for every actor who is awarded on the broadcast. It's not unreasonable to expect that union theaters be supported over non-union theaters. There are plenty of Equity regional theaters doing marvelous work that could be recognized.

I don't necessarily buy the argument 100% and I'm not sure whose side I come down on, but it's a fascinating debate and not a simple one to resolve.

---

If you award The Lost Colony, then Unto These Hills will get their knickers in a knot.

And if Unto These Hills gets recognized, then the Oberammergau Passion Play will want in on the prize.

---

^^
That (meaning Gothampc's post) and...

>> "AEA has done a lot for the Tonys, for Broadway, and for every actor who is awarded on the broadcast. It's not unreasonable to expect that union theaters be supported over non-union theaters"

Implies a bit of "strong-arming" by the Union. Not sure that's what they mean to imply. Neither do I think it would be good for the Tonys to acknowledge.

Updated On: 5/3/13 at 04:26 PM

I think it comes down to a technicality of the rules and it’s Actor’s Equity’s job to uphold those rules. I don’t think it’s meant to be a slap in the face to Non-Eq theatres or actors, it is just the union’s job to make sure standards are upheld for their members.

I also think that the word “professional” was used just as another term for Union, as opposed to meaning that Non-Union theatres are not worth anything.

>> "I also think that the word “professional” was used just as another term for Union"

Should that connection be made, or even implied?

The point of the honors is to acknowledge "substantial contributions to the American theater." There's no additional clause limiting to "Equity members only".

I don't object to the notion that The Lost Colony might not deserve its citation. I question the AEA's implied argument that "honorary" acknowledgment should be limited to union members only.

Updated On: 5/3/13 at 05:02 PM

There's definitely backlash from more than a few people. Whether anything will actually come of it remains to be seen. Probably not.

I do question, on merit, the rewarding of a theatre as pedestrian and side-show esque as this one, especially considering what seems like shameless use of "red face".

---

Updated On: 5/3/13 at 05:17 PM

Valid.

---

>> "Voicing concerns on the theatre in re: artistic merit is valid. But AEA just seems annoyed that they have the gall to honor a non-union theatre, which is absurd."

I'm pretty much in that camp, too.

AEA is notoriously difficult and unreasonable. There. I said it. As has been mentioned, yes, they serve a purpose-- they protect performers from the bad producers out there. However, they constantly undermine their own purpose. The true spirit behind a union is to support "their" workers-- however, in this particular creative field, the spirit of AEA is to support actors and stage managers in a general sense. AEA should be proud to recognize that union and non-union talent work together, because those non-union performers are still performers. To make a fuss over this is childish, and makes them look weak and insecure. They should respect the wildly varying markets that produce theatre, and understand the constraints contained therein. Let us not forget that this theatre being honored had no obligation to use any AEA performers whatsoever at one time. There is no union jurisdiction where they are. They CHOSE to use some AEA members, no doubt because they were growing into a theatre company which would allow it. This is all part of developing a theatre company. It's a natural evolution. To have Equity behave this way is akin to being an ungrateful and annoying houseguest.