Paying the Price

The first Monday back after the No Man’s Land of Christmas and New Year is an exciting time for actors. Pantos are grinding to a halt and Santa’s Grottos are shutting up for another year so it’s time to start thinking about finding some good ol’ acting work.

As 9am…Ok, 9:30am…fine, 10am…oh for heck’s sake, MIDDAY hits, we all sit in our clean pair of pyjamas, logging into the casting sites that we’ve given our hard-earned cash to, in the hope that we’ll find that one job that will mean 2014 is our year.

So you can imagine my dismay when, fired up with the expectation of getting work that will definitely put me in all the ‘Ones to Watch in 2015’ articles, I find that there’s an awful amount of unpaid jobs. And when I say awful, I mean ‘actors first role out of drama school’ awful. So awful in fact that, by the end of the day, just one casting site had listed a meagre 37 paid roles and a rather staggering 293 unpaid roles. And that was just the jobs that had been listed that day.

It’s a terrifying statistic. It means that for every 1 actor that can maybe breathe a little easier for a month, there are another 8 actors desperately panicking and hounding their temp agency for more work just so they can afford to live in the damp-ridden, mouse-invaded shack that they call ‘home.’

Since I’ve started blogging, I’ve been very passionate about making sure people see the other side of the industry. I want people to see the side that isn’t represented in Sunday supplements where actors are interviewed in quaint little cafes during a few snatched moments between that 5-star run at the National and that feature film that the director demanded that they were in. For most actors, this industry is that friend who only gets in touch after they’ve contacted everyone else they’ve ever met. At its best it’s fickle and at its worst you wish you’d never met it.

So to see such a staggering amount of unpaid work is a worry. It means that acting work is the work you do in between your other job when really you wish it could be the other way round. I’ve written so many blogs on unpaid work that to write about it again would be pointless. It’s the sad fact of this industry that sits in a musty box along with sexism, racism, ageism and people who think it’s OK to not provide lunch on a shoot.

There’s nothing more frustrating than not being able to make a living from what you want to do with your life. And it’s something a lot of actors will be coming to terms with at the moment while they sit, filing their last minute tax returns and realising just how little they’ve earned from such a wonderful job. Last year I earned £510 from acting work. That’s not even a month’s rent.

So why do we still do it? Why do we insist on supporting an industry that really doesn’t seem that bothered about us? Well it’s that little skip it puts in our step when we know we nailed that audition. It’s that little dance we do around the room when we get the call to say we got the job and we realise there’s no one else in the house to celebrate with. It’s that glow you get when you’re walking home after opening night, cheeks flushed with pride and three too many glasses of wine. It’s knowing that even though you dread being asked what you do for a living, you’re pleased you don’t have to answer them with any other job in the world.

It’s being able to sit at home in your pyjamas at 11am on a Wednesday and calling it work.

National Minimum Rage

As sure as night follows day, unpaid work will always hang around actors. It's part of the job. At drama school you're always taught to have a monologue ready and have a headshot that supposedly resembles you at any given moment despite the fact that you spent 3 weeks barely eating and 8 hours on hair and make up. However, what they don't teach you is how to not tear your soul on the walls after seeing yet another casting call that offers sandwiches, tea but no money.

So, seeing the news this week that five actors had won an employment tribunal to be paid national minimum wage should've had me dancing around in my practice skirt. But it didn't. I mean, for maybe one minute, I cheered quietly. Hearing that actors are being paid is always good news. The world likes to think that we live off thin air and slices of pizza so cheap and doughy, you could use them to plug the gaping holes in your tragic CV but we need money too. It may seem a tad unfair but the world works the same for actors as it does for everyone else and we have bills to pay and food to eat.

I want actors to be paid properly. I want to think that I can do a job I can actually make a living from rather than feeling that I'm trying to make a career out of a hobby. Saying you're an actor should make you feel as awesome as the kid who says they want to be a dinosaur when they grow up. But, most of the time, it makes you feel as ridiculous as the kid who says they're going to be a dinosaur when they grow up. But, because there's actually very little legislation in the world of acting (yes, there's some but it's sadly not as a far-reaching as I'd like it to be) anyone with a camera phone and a vague idea can cast a film and, because there are more actors than there are half used jars of oregano in my cupboard, there will always be actors happy to work for free.

I could waffle on for hours about whether actors should work for nothing but hey, we've all got damp-ridden homes to go to. But, what is important is to look at the implications of this ruling. Yes, it means that more actors might get paid in the future and that's a great thing but it could also mean that theatre companies will have to charge insane amounts for tickets to make sure they can pay everyone. Maybe productions shouldn't be put on if there isn't money to pay people but, if actors have a problem with working for free then they shouldn't apply for profit-share work. I've done profit-share before in the past and there's always the chance that you'll come away with nothing. Or, you put your heart and soul into a show for three months and come away with £30. It hurts but if you've agreed to it already then it's really up to you to deal with it.

If companies decide not to put on productions because they don't have the money then there will be even less work for actors than there is now. So, if they do put on shows they'll have to charge so much for tickets that audience figures will drop and actors, although finally able to pay their rent, will be playing to half-filled rooms that only contain the cast's parents. Every theatre company will then be forced to seek assistance from bigger companies a la Spacey and American Airlines and you won't be able to see anything without a corporate logo beaming down at you and you're director appearing in yet another TV advert.

But, on the other hand, maybe we'll live in a world where actors are guaranteed national minimum wage and we can have a shred of dignity back. It might make the few unscrupulous companies out there who think actors and crew don't need paying that maybe some of the money should be shared around a bit. And that'd be nice, wouldn't it?

Trainspotting

'We are an immersive, interactive show that is entirely volunteer-led.'

 This, my friends. is code for 'we won't be paying you a bean.' We know this. If you’re an actor, it’s highly likely that you’re fluent in the language of ‘You’re ok with not being able to pay rent, right?’ We’re highly adept at spotting the words ‘experience’, ‘credits’ and ‘mug’ and know in an instant that this means we’ll have to endure another month in a call centre or flogging theatre programmes or massaging pervy strangers in a club to keep us alive. 

Even those who’ve vaguely glanced at my blog will know that I like to complain about unpaid work. As an actor it’s a daily battle that’s getting worse as more and more companies get in on the act. Like skinny jeans, it’s a fashion trend that just won’t go away. But unpaid work isn’t just unflattering, it’s also demeaning, frustrating and utterly tiresome. But there’s one company who crop up time and time again. One ‘award-winning company’ who, for a few years now, have somehow got away with not giving their performers a penny. But now Equity have stepped in. Now You Me Bum Bum Train have more to answer for than just their ridiculous name.

If you’re even remotely interested in British theatre then you’ll probably remember the first time you stumbled over the name You Me Bum Bum Train. I first saw it, unsurprisingly, on a casting site. It’s a name that instantly tugged at my scowling muscles. It's a name that instantly sets my teeth on edge. And upon reading the description of the piece (which I’m fairly sure threw the word around ‘experience’ like cheap tinsel at Christmas) my scowl and itchy teeth set in for the longhaul.

YMBBT (if you think I’m typing out that name in full every time then get out of here, kiddo) was quite a revelation back in 2010. It was a simpler time when immersive theatre just meant the actors entered the stage via the audience. It was a time when actors were actors and audience members were allowed to sit back, maybe have a little snooze and choose just how much they wanted to take from a show. But now, we’re a lot more used to audience members being hoisted from their threadbare seats and being made to prance about like a very reluctant performing monkey. But back in 2010, YMBBT was new and it sounded a bit bloody exciting. A single audience member is treated to their own private show where they get asked to do all manner of things for a full 45 minutes. Unless the idea of audience participation makes you queasy in your bones, this sounds like a lot of fun so it's no wonder that tickets get snapped up extremely quickly.

But fun is pretty much where the positives end. Because the people behind YMBBT have set it up in such a way that it’s practically impossible to ensure performers are paid. If you’ve ever worked in fringe theatre then you’ll know the rule that if the cast outnumber the audience then you’re allowed to call the show off and dance down the street in your pants. Well, in YMBBT’s case, that means a show would never, ever take place and there would be a lot of street-pant dancing in Stratford. While most shows would draw the line once the cast gets into double figures, YMBBT hire up to 250 actors. Now that would be the best thing since people worked out you could put crisps between sliced bread if they were actually paying actors. But they’re not. Because they’re marketing this as a community piece that’s entirely run by volunteers, you earn the princely sum of nothing. And considering this is now a sell-out show that is backed by the Barbican and Theatre Royal Stratford East with support from the Arts Council, the Canary Wharf Group (click on the link and weep at the property they own) and the Stratford Renaissance Partnership, it’s concerning that there’s still not enough money to go around to at least keep the actors on a minimum wage.

The argument of YMBBT’s artistic directors is that it’s simply not feasible for them to pay actors and of course it’s not. When you set up a business plan that allows for only 16 paying audience members a day seeing the work of 250 actors and a whole load of crew members then you find there’s just not enough money to go around. So why put the show on? Why not scale it down until you get to the point when you can afford to pay people to be involved? Because they don’t have to. Because there are people that still want to be involved in this. Another one of their arguments is that despite casting their shows via actors’ casting sites, they’re not just looking for actors. They get all manner of people involved in their show you are just there for the ‘experience’ (that bloody word again.) According to this article in The Guardian, the organisers believe that paying people would ‘change the dynamic’ of the show. Apparently, if they start paying people then the whole show will be utterly ruined as their performers would be far too happy. You listening, Hollywood? Apparently it’s a lot more exciting when you don’t pay actors. Nothing creates a thrilling atmosphere quite like 250 performers worrying about where their next meal is going to come from. 

Because I could waffle on about this forever more until I write myself into an unpaid frenzy, I’m going to leave the final word with the excellently eloquent Samuel West:

“I can't support a working model where actors aren't paid at all. Otherwise the only people who can afford to be in those shows are those who have other jobs or savings or private incomes – and that alters the demographic of actors you can use, and eventually the demographic of the profession."

Network Fail

It's very normal to see a casting that only promises food and travel to actors. However angry it makes me, I'm used to seeing it now. So, last night, while taking one final look at castings before retiring for the day, I wasn't expecting to see anything particularly out of the ordinary. Maybe a few mentions of bikini-clad zombies who turn to a life of prostitution but nothing more. So imagine my surprise when I see a corporate casting that isn't offering any pay. That's quite a thing in itself because corporate work is one of the few strands of acting that can actually pay your bills but it happens very ocassionally for smaller companies. But this wasn't just your local start-up business. Oh no. This is the company that you probably complain about on a daily basis. This is the company that's responsible for making you late and meaning you spend your commute pushed up against a pain of glass. This little company is Network Rail.

Network Rail appear to be producing an internal film and they're in need of ten extras to help them out with this. Fair enough. But for your efforts, this company which made a profit of £754 MILLION last year, is only offering to give you food and cover your travel expenses. And I'm not sure, given their track (gettit? Track? Y'know, like rail track? Oh forget it...) record, they would even get food and travel right. An over-priced stale sandwich and infuriatingly late trains, anyone? And don't even get me started on their depressingly limited choice of crisps...

So what the heck is going on here? Why can't a company that made more money in a year than I'll see in a zillion lifetimes not even offer a minimal payment to their extras? Ten extras at a £100 each for a day's work. That would cost them £1000, about the same amount they make from one very small person purchasing the opportunity to possibly get a seat on the 10.04 from London Paddington to Reading. Even if they paid each extra £1000, that'd mean them begrudgingly handing over 0.001% of their eye-wateringly huge pile of money. But no, instead of paying actors (who make up a huge proportion of their customers anyway) they choose to smugly sit on their pennies and watch on in the hope that yet again, they'll find a few performers willing to pimp themselves out as a very unglorified slave.

Network Rail's ethos is the following:

‘We are passionate about what we do and take pride in a job well done’ 

Apparently it seems that their primary passions are keeping their grubby hands on their profits and exploiting actors for their own personal gain. Apparently a job well done means that Sir David Higgins, the Chief Executive of National Rail, protects his £560,000 a year salary by denying actors the right to even receiving the National Minimum Wage when working for them.

But the worst thing about all of this? The fact that this situation is becoming all too familiar. Actors have now gone for so many years where they've allowed companies to take advantage of them that it has now become the norm rather than the exception. Equity now know about this and I seriously hope they take action otherwise these money-grabbing, exploitative companies will destroy that final scrap of dignity that the world of acting is still desperately clutching on to.