Posted: 3/22/16 at 4:05pm
I'm genuinely curious why people support a theater company whose season is primarily based around productions with a resident acting company that receives no pay while meanwhile, they are spending millions to open a new space next year? How is this still acceptable in 2016?
Posted: 3/22/16 at 4:11pm
Sounds like someone didn't get a callback!
Posted: 3/22/16 at 4:14pm
I'm actually not an actor sooooo projecting much?
Posted: 3/22/16 at 4:19pm
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2014/01/when-is-a-job-not-a-job-when-its-in-the-arts-apparently/
Posted: 3/22/16 at 4:41pm
Thank you for that article, Lizzie, very interesting read. I know someone who runs a theater company that puts on performances in Central Park a few times a year, and she and I were discussing this issue. She said they make it a priority to pay their actors for their time. It isn't very much, as they're a small company, but that was a huge concern for them and they made it work. A stipend that's less than $50 for weeks of rehearsals and performances is almost more insulting than no pay at all; that amount of money will pay for what, maybe two weeks of subway fare? As a young actor and writer myself it's really disheartening to see the amount of very talented people I know across all theatrical disciplines working for minuscule amounts of money, or no money at all. An established company in NYC that touts itself as professional should frankly be embarrassed by the fact that they don't pay their performers.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 4:45pm
and its not just not paying them, they are required to work 3 hours a week for the Flea even if they aren't in a current production, seriously? how is this ok?
Posted: 3/22/16 at 4:46pm
I know several former Flea performers who feel very used and mistreated. I'm glad that unpaid arts work is finally being discussed a bit more openly.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 4:57pm
The reason I bring this up specifically now is The Bats are doing an Adam Rapp play that requires nudity and its not even like a showcase production it is a 8 week run, that feels really exploitative considering they aren't being paid and are working at the theater and they are doing work onstage where they have to strip down seriously ****ing pay them for that, you're charging $20 a ticket
Updated On: 3/22/16 at 04:57 PM
Posted: 3/22/16 at 5:22pm
It's a legitimate concern to point out, and it's one that comes up repeatedly- for instance, in the article that Lizzie shared, at Upright Citizens Brigade, where the members of the comedy teams are not compensated (and actually are expected to spend more money on coachings weekly).
These companies are willing to take advantage of the desire of young performers to... well, perform. And on the flip side, that's how these companies have been able to flourish.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 5:27pm
right and while i also strongly feel UCB needs to pay performers as well, the difference here is a one off improv show, or house team show every few weeks, vs a 8 week 8 shows a week performance run+tech+ however many hours of unpaid labour on top of it+opening a 18 million dollar space
Posted: 3/22/16 at 6:02pm
Besides the point of the thread, but... Has anyone seen the show? Just watched the trailer for it and read a synopsis and it looks interesting.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 6:25pm
It's absolutely crazy they can finance an 18 million dollar facility while giving nothing to every performer. It's also wrong.
Artists are continually expected to work for free. This would be considered madness in most other industries.
At the end of the day, the sad reality is that it will continue until performers say no.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 6:33pm
It's obviously part of a much larger conversation that has to be held about many topics, like real estate and skyrocketing rent costs in the city, as well as funding for the arts in general. And as someone who works for a non-profit, you naturally want to try and save money as much as you can. Still, the idea of performers not getting paid (beyond that nominal stipend, which is virtually nothing even if it isn't taxed) . I get that theater companies are hard as hell to run in this city, largely because it costs an outrageous amount of money to have any kind of operating space. But the company I work for, which is quite small, manages to pay our actors for every performance. It's not a lot, no, but it shows that we value their skill and time and talent- not to mention our actors don't have to do additional tasks in our space.
Of course, with all that said, people who do join The Bats do so by choice and I'm sure that there are many who love the experience. But that doesn't change the fact that at the core of the situation is a very well-regarded off-Broadway theater who doesn't feel that it's necessary to pay actors for their work. It's a troubling situation, and I do think it's worth addressing, especially because acting is already a sort of rigged game as it is. Actors are constantly asked to pay for classes, workshops, new headshots, etc., so to not even pay your actors on top of the demands that this industry makes seems like something of a slap in the face.
Updated On: 3/22/16 at 06:33 PM
Posted: 3/22/16 at 6:38pm
It's off-off Broadway.
There red was an NY Times article a while back about The Bats and their day jobs. A couple of them were making around $150k a year at their other jobs and did this as a fun hobby.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 6:52pm
Just doing some quick research, the in-residence acting company and cast of their current production seem extremely proud and excited about the production they have mounted and are currently in. They are NOT performing a consistent 8x a week and it seems like more of a passion project type of place. So until the actors start voicing complains I'm not really sure why any persons here are. We should be thankful that this type of place exists to support art and artists who wish to support art and artists.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 7:06pm
I have no doubt that lots of the actors who are involved are excited- why shouldn't they be? It's a well respected company that makes good work. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't be compensated for their work.
And for me, it's not necessarily just about The Flea, but it's a larger conversation about art and how artists should expect to be compensated. I don't know why "supporting art" means that the people actually making the art shouldn't get compensated for their work, especially since it's not as if this company is brand new and starting to get established.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 7:47pm
I know a number of actors who take parts for no pay just for the experience and exposure. Could that be the case here? Just wondering.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 7:54pm
wonderfulwizard11 said: "And for me, it's not necessarily just about The Flea, but it's a larger conversation about art and how artists should expect to be compensated. I don't know why "supporting art" means that the people actually making the art shouldn't get compensated for their work, especially since it's not as if this company is brand new and starting to get established.
"
Valid point. But as you make in your point: an established and talented acting company are probably VERY able to get a job to be compensated for. As mentioned above, could it be possible for these performers to be in it for the experience. I mean, G*d forbid that's the case. *sarcasm*
Posted: 3/22/16 at 8:01pm
to me its one thing to not pay your performers but to then on top of it go, oh and yeah even if your not in the show, 3 hours of labour from you unpaid every week is required, THATS taking advantage of young artist desperate for exposure, when they move to a 18 million dollar space they would be really out of place to continue not paying The Bats.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 8:06pm
Okay, is there a source on this $18 mil+ new space? Or is that just a number we've pulled out of thin air?
Posted: 3/22/16 at 8:35pm
I think this stinks as well, but to play devil's advocate, no one is putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to be in the company.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 8:36pm
GreasedLightning said: "Okay, is there a source on this $18 mil+ new space? Or is that just a number we've pulled out of thin air?
"
from the above linked article.
"It’s a remarkable turnaround, so remarkable that The Flea has managed to raise $18 million to purchase a nearby building and convert it into a new space. The new space will have three state of the art theater spaces available to local companies to rent for cheap[2] and allow The Flea to produce more work."
Posted: 3/22/16 at 9:03pm
Why can't a company offer performers both pay and experience? I don't understand this mindset that these two things are one and the same. Experience is valuable, of course, but it isn't compensation.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 10:24pm
It seems odd to me that an off off Broadway company could possibly raise 18 million dollar new facility. Something doesn't seem right. I would say "follow the money". I am sure there is a Flea LLC or some form of non profit. If they were to sell this 18 million dollar facility where would the money go? Who owns it?
The Flea has "managed" to raise 18 million. "Manages" to raise 18 million. That sounds so strange. As if they stumbled on it almost by accident. That is a huge amount of money. Again.. something doesn't seem right to me.
Wouldn't they be elevated to Off Broadway after this? Wouldn't Equity have something to say about this?
Posted: 3/22/16 at 11:02pm
but they wouldn't have to pay all 90 Bats, just whoever was onstage at a given time. My much bigger issue here is forcing people even if they aren't in the current production to come work for 3 hours a week and apparently even more time if you ARE in the production, that's my bigger issue here
