Reading/Workshop/Lab

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 2/4/15 at 12:15pm

Not sure if this has been clarified before, but what is the difference between a reading, workshop, and developmental lab.

[gleek4114]

Posted: 2/4/15 at 2:22pm

This is what I think:

Reading - Performing the material without staging. Usually with music stands with scrip and score in hand.

Workshop - A staged reading in a studio or theatre where actors present the material off book.

Lab - I'm not that sure. I think this one doesn't pay, when Workshops and Readings do.

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 2/4/15 at 2:31pm

I'm fairly certain it all has to do with what state of development the project is in. Developmental Lab comes first, then a reading, then a workshop. I could be totally wrong though.

[BobRandomGuyMan]

Posted: 2/4/15 at 9:29pm

Readings come first. There are two different types: table reads and staged readings. A table read is just what it sounds like - actors sitting around the table and reading the text. There is generally little rehearsal. Maybe a music rehearsal or two if it's a musical, or some private sessions. Some of the time depending on the audience, the composer/lyricist will just sing the score while the actors read the book. In a staged reading, the actors have around a week of rehearsal and present the material at music stands. The rehearsal period for each actor can't be more than 29 hours according to Equity, and there are to be no props, costumes, sets, choreography, production values period. Everyone involved gets paid for these, and it's generally very low.

Workshops are full presentations of the material in a rehearsal room with staging and choreography. Minimal costumes/sets/props are allowed, there are usually full bands, and the actors are in microphones. It's a lot like seeing a rehearsal of a finished production before it moves into a theatre. The actors are pretty well paid and receive a small collective percentage or "points" in the final production and all subsequent productions of that script. This all stems back from when Michael Bennett rehearsed the first workshops of A Chorus Line and technically "stole" all of the dancers stories without proper compensation. Since the musical being workshopped is in development and changing based on everyone's work, the actors usually tend to inspire script changes, cuts, sometimes even lines.

Developmental Labs are fairly new to the game and very much like Workshops. However, there is a wide range of options for what a finished Lab would look like. Some use 4 weeks of rehearsal and stage the whole thing with actors off-book and doing choreography like a Workshop. Some use only 2 weeks of rehearsal and stage only a few numbers, or stage one act and do the rest at stands or moving around with books. The point being that whatever is useful to the creative team at that specific step of the show's development is what the Lab will be. Aside from that flexibility, the actors are paid more weekly to compensate for the fact that they do not receive any percentage/points in the show. This is a big criticism of Developmental Labs, and you'll hardly ever see a traditional Workshop being staged anymore. To an actor, that can look like a big rip off and that producers are taking advantage. But the reason given by AEA for this is that shows no longer follow a predictable route to Broadway and there are more developmental steps needed in the current commercial climate.

Hope that helps!

Updated On: 2/4/15 at 09:29 PM

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 2/5/15 at 8:01am

^^^ that helps incredibly! Thanks, Bob

[Pootie2]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 12:00pm

This thing has been circulating my social media feed, being retweeted by the Broadway performers I'm following: https://twitter.com/Actor_Friend/status/672779043251572736

Interesting.

Updated On: 12/5/15 at 12:00 PM

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 12:45pm

Getting a lot of traction...

 

[Pootie2]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 12:52pm

The latest on my feed is from Kelli O'Hara. I think I saw the one about the survey from @ActorsEquity, but I wonder what can come from that?

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 12:53pm

Two prominent Hamilton cast members retweeting an article that takes Hamilton to task seems to be a pretty big deal...

[Pootie2]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 12:56pm

Yes, I thought about posting to one of the (many) Hamilton threads but this is really relevant for any show. But what can they do now?

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 12:58pm

Restructure the paperwork to include the actors who helped create the show? It's not a sacred document now just because the show is open.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 3:56pm

Hamilton is only being highlighted because it's the only show where it could have made a difference. Like the article says, the last new musical that had a workshop contract was Book of Mormon. How many new musicals have been workshopped, opened, flopped and closed on Broadway in the last 5 years where the contract difference would have made no financial difference to the actors whatsoever?

 

I'd be curious- when it comes to a vote- whether more actors would prefer workshop contracts on the extremely rare chance they will get a Hamilton or A Chorus Line or Book of Mormon, or would prefer the money up front since 95% of workshops don't become hits. It's easy for the Will Chases, Celia Keenan-Bolgers and Steven Pasquales to get behind the workshop contract because they're the ones getting cast in workshops for good shows that get commercial runs. It's less beneficial for the average no-name Equity actor (like the strawman in the article) who makes their living off labs that never go anywhere.

Updated On: 12/5/15 at 03:56 PM

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 4:15pm

haterobics said: "Restructure the paperwork to include the actors who helped create the show? It's not a sacred document now just because the show is open."

They don't need to restructure anything. If you read the story it says that workshop contracts are still an option, but producers choose the lab contract so they can make more money for themselves. What the actors want is the producers to put out more workshops and less labs, king of like full equity tours compared to the lower tiered ones.

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 7:17pm

Call_me_jorge said: "They don't need to restructure anything. If you read the story it says that workshop contracts are still an option, but producers choose the lab contract so they can make more money for themselves. What the actors want is the producers to put out more workshops and less labs, king of like full equity tours compared to the lower tiered ones."

 

You would need to restructure it for Hamilton (which was the show we were discussing) for the people involved in its workshops to start seeing any additional money for their role now, though.

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 7:19pm

orangeskittles said: "Hamilton is only being highlighted because it's the only show where it could have made a difference. Like the article says, the last new musical that had a workshop contract was Book of Mormon. How many new musicals have been workshopped, opened, flopped and closed on Broadway in the last 5 years where the contract difference would have made no financial difference to the actors whatsoever?"

 

As someone who has worked for tech startups, it is the same thing, though. You have a share in companies that often end up not being worth anything. They are given to you when there is no promise of value, but you are also invested in the company more because it could pay out someday. You never structure businesses based on them eventually failing anyway, so who cares...

[Kad]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 7:20pm

The issue is that costs more money, and when the majority of productions are not profitable, producers don't want to gamble even more money. The actors aren't the ones risking money here; they are losing potential additional income.

Equity is interested in preserving Union work, particularly as tours are becoming less viable. 

Actors, for their part, are divided on whether it's better to work more, or be paid more. 

 

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 7:27pm

Just because there are two models doesn't mean those are the only two options, though. Surely there should be a way for a show, once it recoups, to switch to a different structure or something that sort of helps producers get a show on its feet, and the actors to benefit when the stars align.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/5/15 at 7:48pm

There is certainly precedence for terms of the contract to be changed. 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 3/18/16 at 4:42pm

Frozen is doing a lab... https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Want-to-Be-in-Disneys-Broadway-Bound-FROZEN-Developmental-Lab-Audition-Details-Revealed-20160318

 

Updated On: 3/18/16 at 04:42 PM

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 3/18/16 at 5:42pm

https://twitter.com/actor_friend/status/710933545636614144

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 3/18/16 at 5:56pm

People who would likely be involved in workshops of successful shows are in favor of having workshops rather than labs, and that makes sense from the perspective of giving up some guaranteed earnings in the short term in exchange for the possibility of much greater earnings (or no additional ones) in the longer term. 

 

But i guess i'm confused then about why the tiered touring contracts are so unpopular.  Isn't a tiered tour contract kind of the same trade-off as a workshop vs. lab?  A lower guaranteed salary in exchange for the potential of a much higher payout from profit sharing if the audience turnout is large and sales are very successful.  Why favour that option in the workshop-vs-lab case but oppose it in the tiered-vs-fixed-tour case?  Or have i misunderstood what a tiered tour contract means?

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 3/18/16 at 6:15pm

Hope they get Betsy Wolfe for Elsa!

[JM226]

Posted: 3/18/16 at 6:17pm

and DTG has every right to do it as a lab. that is their decision to make.  cannot fault a for-profit corporation for that.... nice try jose 

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 3/18/16 at 9:33pm

adam.peterson, many of the actors you hear objecting to the Tiered tours and SETA tours view them as Equity laying down and letting producers walk all over them. While the profit sharing is nice, it still typically works out to be less than what they would be making under a full Production Contract tour. 

 

Personally I am a realist when it comes to the touring world. While some believe that if Equity had not created the Tiers and SETA all of these tours would be forced to go out under full Production, I really believe that we would be seeing more shows than ever sending out their first national tour with a non-Equity cast. 

 

During some of the meetings that were held about it (especially when Newsies and Kinky Boots announced their tours would not be going out full Production) some of the people who objected to the lower contracts felt that we should just stop negotiating with the producers, who were only out to make money (which they are, that's their job), likening it to the old analogy of taking our ball and going home. The problem is while that analogy is appropriate for the situation they were assigning the wrong roles to everyone. The show is the ball, and it belongs to the producers, who can take it away and find someone else to play with (i.e. a non-Equity cast) if they don't like the terms Equity is presenting. While I don't think that Equity should let producers get away with whatever they want (and that's why Bullets is out non-Equity right now, because those producers did ask for concessions that were even lower than the standards set out in the lowest SETA level), Equity does have to toe a fine line with the producers, because we have a lot more to lose than the producers do if a deal can't be reached in negotiations.

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 3/19/16 at 8:05am

Thanks for the reply, AEA.  That makes sense.  I remember when the Newsies tour came through here, it was playing to packed houses in a large theatre that wasn't offering discounts, so i would assume that the profit-share model must have been beneficial to the cast in our city, although i don't know the details and i might be wrong about the amounts involved, of course. 

 

I guess another difference is that a lab/workshop is a short time period of salary to risk against a possibility of bigger future gain, while a tour represents a year of salary that might be less attractive to risk for a profit share, but very successful shows could work in the cast's favor to share.  I guess also when a show tours, there is some sense of how successful it might be based on how well it did on Broadway, whereas a lab/workshop might be more of an unknown entity.  And like the start-ups that offer stock in the company as part of the compensation package, it incentivizes the employees to help make the company successful.