Stage Acting: It's Nice Work if You Can Afford It

[mint0621]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 9:48pm

From the NY Times...interesting article about actors struggling financially due to their art. There's a funny story about Denis O'Hare from when he was a struggling actor:

"Running into a familiar face on the street, he [Denis] fell into a friendly chat before sheepishly saying: "I'm sorry. How do I know you?" "I'm your agent," came the seething response"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/theater/newsandfeatures/15ishe.html

If actors are "subsidizing their art", ballet dancers are completely suffering for their art, New York city ballet corps dancers receive ~$30,000/yr to dance and live in NYC

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 10:01pm

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=883013&dt=011506071920

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 10:15pm

Yeah, I saw that article yesterday. Very interesting, and sadly true. However, I recently realized something: being a stage actor is NOT full-time job, even if you're on Broadway doing eight shows a week. You always have to have something else on the side--that's the way any part-time job is.

That said, I hope to get a voice-over career going, and, when I'm old and experienced enough, teach acting classes to subsidize my stage career, which at moment doesn't even pay for my groceries.

[My Name in Lights]

Posted: 1/16/06 at 10:18am

I just read the same article. It's a shame that many actors working on the Broadway stage and off, off off, etc., cannot truly make a living at it; especially in the cases where the actor is really good at his/her craft.

Being an avid theatregoer, I am always in awe of the incredible talent available. It infuriates me that so many talented people have to worry about where the next paycheck is coming from, yet so many "personalities" (and I use the term very loosely) from TV, movies and God knows where else (a rich, hotel chain family, perhaps) command the public's attention and reap the rewards of overinflated paychecks, acting jobs and publicity. They get cast in movies and television because they are the flavor of the month, not necessarily because they are talented, and then make obscene amounts of money. Yet stage performers who are usually trained and work at their craft make much less.

It reminds me, too, of articles I've read in the past where some really great actors chose to make really mediocre movies just for the money. Their reasoning for doing some of the not so great movies had to do with making enough money, so as to be able to perform at their first love, stage acting, which doesn't pay all that well in the first place. Of course, there are some exceptions; but generally theatre performers are really at a disadvantage.