Why do people support The Flea Theater? — Page 2

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 

Across the board, the arts are the only industry where practitioners -- actors, writers, etc. -- are not only told that it's in their best interest to give away their work for free in trade for "exposure," but that they should be thankful for striking this bargain. It's mind-boggling. 

It's staggeringly naive to believe that anyone who calls themselves an artist deserves to be paid for their "art," when it's a simple case of supply exceeding demand - everyone and their dog wants to be an artist. And why not? It's much more fun than office drudgery or cleaning toilets, isn't it?

But doing "art" well, as opposed to doing medicine or law well, is a subjective thing. And there's a bottomless well of "artists" who don't have that combination of talent+skill+luck that enables them to make a living at their "art."

If anyone feels that all artists should be guaranteed a minimum amount of paid work per year, put together a detailed financial proposal that illustrates clearly and feasibly how that can work. I'd love to read that - but be warned: saying "it should come from that $18M they raised for a new facility" isn't going to cut it. In NYC, $18M in capital for a new performing arts space is chicken feed, and there won't be a cent left to pay salaries; in fact, I imagine that they're going to need to raise much more to complete building.

Updated On: 3/23/16 at 09:42 AM

I think the original post in this thread asked the right question, and implicitly at least also suggested that the way the do things ought to give us pause. We then devolve, as we often do, into a series of sidebars and irrelevant tangents. Whether folks want to boycott something because of the theatre's modus operandi, even when the work is good, is a personal decision (just as it is with sweatshop clothing). The question to me-and it might be nice if more meat was put on the bones-is how this is justified by the Flea and by the Bats themselves. (I know people who love doing stuff at UCB; I don't think I have ever known a Bat.) I think it is a continuum when actors are not paid: how do we distinguish between this an the showcase code, or a production at Juilliard where the students are also obviously not getting paid?

The point here is not that all artists everywhere should be paid, but that a theater that calls itself professional and premieres new works by professional writers (right now they're doing an Adam Rapp play) should be paying its performers. According to their website, tickets for Wolf in the River run from between $20 and $80, with $100 "premium" tickets available as well. That's as much as many of the major off Broadway non profits charge, and those establishments pay their actors. Even a small stipend would establish that they respect the people who put the work onstage and allow it to be seen at all. 

"According to their website, tickets for Wolf in the River run from between $20 and $80, with $100 "premium" tickets available as well."

Clicking through available tickets for the run, almost all tickets are $40 (less than some "showcases" I've seen), with only a handful of VIP $100 seats or $20 seats available.

In other words, ticket sales are not a major source of their funding.

It's staggeringly naive to believe that anyone who calls themselves an artist deserves to be paid for their "art," when it's a simple case of supply exceeding demand - everyone and their dog wants to be an artist. 

This is not merely a case of "supply exceeding demand." That is a rather simplistic and not entirely accurate representation of this situation, and others like it. These are not a ragtag group of performance artists doing skits in a Lower East Side bar. It's the resident acting company of a major nonprofit theater company. The Flea wants their artistry, sees value in it, but doesn't want to pay for it. This happens all the time at major theaters, literary outlets, orchestras, etc. Artists have been taught that it is okay, even prudent, to give away their work for free -- and thus companies have come to expect it. There's only one way to change that.

not that i am defending the Flea but newintown is CORRECT. they spend over one million dollars a year on their productions and artistic programming but generate only $400k in ticket sales and other related revenue sources (ad sales, box office fees, etc.). that's really really bad. again, not defending the Flea but i think people need to understand perspective.  a non-profit theatre company that has its box office covering less than 50% of its total production expenses less than 35% of its overall operating budget??? NOT good. NOT good at all. i cannot imagine how they would stay afloat if they began paying all of their actors.

 

but listen, that is on the actors.  as long as there are actors willing to do this, the company will keep on utilizing it. you CANNOT blame the non-profit theatre company that is scraping by and only paying its top administrators a measly annual salary of $50,000... in my opinion.

 

when discussing non profit companies, it helps to have some real hard facts, numbers and a little bit of context. granted these numbers are three years old but its the last publicly available return: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/133/904/2013-133904262-0af32a79-9.pdf

I was a Bat. The turning point in the company came in 2012 when the Flea did a show called These Seven Sicknesses. It was 5 hours long and required 50 people. Two things happened:

 

First, the show was a massive hit. It was unique and brought uptown theatre artists and mainstream critical praise back to the Flea. It renewed interest in the theater and ended up getting extended for many months. The audience also got dinner as part of the show. Given the length, it was a real event. The Flea realized they could charge a lot more than $45 for it. Tickets for the extension neared $100. Then they just took that model and decided to apply it to all of their future shows. Only the Equity shows used to be that expensive. Now they charge upwards of $80 to see a bunch of kids doing Adam Rapp for free because they think they can get away with it. Even the downstairs shows, which never used to top $20, are now $35.

 

Second, the Bats used to be about 50 people. Not all of us were willing to do a 5-hour show six times a week for free. The company ballooned from 50 people to 150. I believe now it sits around 175. So it became a far less prestigious thing and the company kind of fractured. Some people came for a show and left. A lot of people got in and saw it wasn't for them and left. A lot of people got in but were never actually cast in anything and lingered around forever. Some are still there. The system can only work for so many people. 

 

I left in 2012 because I was 28 and too old to be doing things for free. I actually think it's a great experience for people just out of school. Your first couple years in New York you're trying to find footing and everyone is out to exploit you. It's at least nice to be exploited at a place where you can do good work in a well regarded setting. But I can't stomach going back there today and giving the theater my money when I know it's not going to the actors and I know all the horrible stuff I had to do there for my work hours.

Let's not delude ourselves that only artists are asked/expected to do this.   There has been much attention lately paid to all the unpaid internships in the world.....even AFTER college.   Not any different here, really.

wonderfulwizard11 said: "For whatever it's worth, while I can't comment on The Flea specifically, I don't think most non-profit theatres make most of their money from ticket sales- that comes from individual donations, government and private grants, memberships, etc. So, I don't think it's necessarily fair to point to their ticketing revenue and use that as a reason that actors don't need to be paid. "

 

if you ask any reputable arts administrator, they will tell you every company should strive for 50% revenue based on earned income; whether that be program fees, ticket sales or the like. The industry average is closer to 35% but that doesn't mean it's a GOOD thing. with how unpredictable and difficult contributed/unearned income is, they really should all be closer to 50%. there are even some companies out there that credit 60 to 75% of their revenue from earned income but they're a very small minority.... just my two cents (from someone who knows what hes talking about)