This year, my decision to actually be picky about parts has been successful. I have been in three plays this year. One of them, I co-wrote. At the time, my joke was that it was the most challenging role I have had in a long time, but that's because I wrote it that way!
Next, I had a part in a play in a short-play festival. My joke here was that it was six minutes on stage, which is about what I have been getting the last two years . . . but this time, it's six minutes out of ten minutes! This short play was my "breakthrough" into a clique of community theatre groups that had constantly rejected me. People came up to me and told me that I was the high point of the whole show. In my mind, I was thinking "See what you all kept turning away?"
Finally now, back at a theatre company that has consistently given me chances in the past . . . and here I am with a real-live honest-to-goodness major role!
So, I've been feeling pretty good about acting. My "New Years Resolution", even though when I made it I strongly suspected that it would mean giving up acting completely, was a good idea.
Now, this doesn't mean that the world has changed. Taking small parts led to nothing, really. It most certainly did not lead to me "proving myself" and "working my way up". That's all nonsense. What did did, however, was fill up my schedule with a bunch of roles that were just not worthy of my time and energy. Fine: that part was addressed by my "New Years Resolution". But, let's not forget what I believe to be the big reason why I have so much trouble getting cast: my brown skin. That's still there.
A couple of years ago, I auditioned for "Deathtrap" at a local community theatre company. I went in with one other person: the two of us had arranged to audition early because of conflicts. The director did not read our resumes. He took one look at the other guy and one look at me. He said he wanted the other guy to read for the lead, and he wanted me to read for a bit part. I've heard people come up with many reasons for why he might have made this determination. Maybe he didn't know me and he wanted someone that he knew could handle the demanding role? Maybe, but he didn't know the other guy either. The only answer that holds is that, even though the play doesn't state ethnicity and doesn't depend on it in any way, he decided that the lead character was white. End of story. People have said to me, by the way, that I should have told him I would like to read for the lead. By the fact that he didn't want me to read for the lead, he had already made up his mind that I wasn't right for that part. If I did read for that part, how likely is it that he would have said "oh my goodness, what was I thinking?" It would just be a waste of time.
This was only one experience, but it was such a bad experience for me that I didn't go back to that theatre company. I received e-mail audition announcements, and sometimes they looked good, but like hell if I was going to go back. This company was on my "shit list". Early this year, I saw a production there that was set in the 18th or 19th century. Much to my surprise, they had cast an african american in it! It was a small part, true, but it was a tiny hint of color-blind casting (I'll hesitate to actually call it color-blind casting, until I see an african american put in a major role). I realized that it was wrong to condemn an entire theatre company for one director, and I would have to come back some time.
During rehearsal for the short play festival, a woman that was performing with me mentioned that she was directing a play at this same theatre company, and she had a part in mind for me. I read the play, and I was impressed: I told her that I would be at the audition. Now, I'm not going to say that this is a definite. First, this is that same theatre company. Second, I had auditioned for this woman before, at a different theatre company. She told me that I auditioned well, but she didn't give me a part. All the parts in the play were either too old or too young, she said. I had assumed it was because the play was set in Scotland, and I'm a wee bit too brown. The thing that upset me about this was that I received the "sorry" e-mail 3 1/2 hours after the audition. I would like to think that I'm good enough that turning me away would be a difficult decision. Oh well. I guess not.
That audition is in November. This theatre company was having an audition prior to that, for something called "A Perfect Ganesh". A couple of people at the short play festival were very interested in that, and were bugging me to audition too. So I did, last week. Yes, a play set in India. And . . . I was still turned away! The play had two male characters. One was the god, Ganesh. This character is, apparently, masked, so it could be played by any ethnicity. Most of the time, "it could be played by any ethnicity", by the way, translates to "white" . . . but surely not this case, with a Hindu god? The other character is just called "man". "Man" is different for each scene, and everything from the age to the ethnicity varied.
This time, the director called me to deliver the bad news. He told me that I was the big surprise of the audition, that I was very good. Okay . . . so why didn't I get a part? To be perfectly blunt, I wasn't impressed with the other men that auditioned. Yes, all the other men that auditioned were white, but I don't think this is a case of race. It also wasn't age. Ganesh could be any age. "Man" varied in age, but I felt that he needed to be played by a younger actor . . . unfortunately, I think I was the youngest one there. Like I said, I don't think it was race or age. My theory here is that he had precast the parts. I would wager that he wasn't expecting any men to show up.
Unfortunately, like I said, I wasn't impressed with the others that auditioned. Only one other person auditioned for the part of Ganesh, so I assume he's the one that got the part. He couldn't even pronounce the name! And, like I had said, I think the other men were too old for the part of "Man". This does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about how this show will turn out!
Yes, an Indian auditioned for a play set in India, and they STILL cast white people!
Normally, after two rejections like this, I would write off this theatre company. "So long." But I did promise that I would come to the audition in November. If I get the part, great . . . it looks like an interesting play and a challenging role. Either way, I probably won't bother with this theatre company afterwards. Unless someone explicitely asks me. I guess.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
"Blind" Casting
Last year, in my acting class, we were chatting about racial bias in casting. The teacher spoke of a play he had directed. He needed someone to play a senator. For some reason, the only person they could find to play the senator was black. The play was set in the 1940's, so there wouldn't have been a black senator. My teacher decided that they wouldn't make any big deal about this: they weren't going to explain how it was that he was a black senator; rather, it was simply that the actor that played the senator was black. He remarked that it took the audience 30 seconds to get over that.
Acting has a strong visual element. That's the nature of the business. And that means that racial bias is allowed and fully accepted. But there are other forms of bias.
I know one theatre company that, as a matter of policy, practices "blind" casting. They had no problem casting me as Abner Dillon in "42nd Street", even though I look nothing like an Oklahoma millionaire from the 1940's. Their willingness to perform "blind", aka "non-traditional", casting extends beyond just skin-color. I just saw their performance of "Legally Blond". The woman they chose to play the lead looked nothing like the part -- she was older, shorter, and more plump. But she handled the part quite well. By the ending, I don't think anyone minded how she looked. The audience clearly enjoyed themselves.
I didn't "forget" the fact that she didn't look the part, but that was because every minute or so I said to myself "isn't it great that they cast someone based on talent, not looks?" Of course, part of the reason I was so aware of that was . . . well . . . I really hated the show. This theatre company did a GREAT job, no doubt at all . . . but I have decided that "Legally Blonde" is on my list of third worst musicals.
For those curious: my #1 worst musical is "Oliver". 2 minutes plot, then a song that goes on for another 5 minutes . . . and when the song runs out of steam, go on to a 10 minute extended dance sequence. After maybe a half hour of this show, I was screaming to end this agony.
#2 worst musical: "42nd Street". If you want to create a pageant of musical numbers that is a tribute to Busby Berkeley, be my guest. But please, don't waste our time in trying to pretend you give a damn about telling a story or having a plot or having characters! This show was dreadful!
#3 worst musical: "Legally Blonde". When I saw the movie preview years ago, I said to myself "I have absolutely no interest in seeing this." Adding songs to the show didn't change that. This theatre group did a damn fine job, but I found myself almost smiling . . . once. I didn't care about ANY of the characters, and the plot was utterly predictable. It IS possible to have have-some-fun mindless-fluff and have it be good, but this wasn't it.
#4 worst musical: Oh, this one is difficult for me to decide. I'm tempted to say "Every version of Cinderella ever made". My goodness, this is the 21st century, and we are still telling our daughters a story where the lead character suffers through an abusive situation, waiting for a rich man to show up and rescue her!
Acting has a strong visual element. That's the nature of the business. And that means that racial bias is allowed and fully accepted. But there are other forms of bias.
I know one theatre company that, as a matter of policy, practices "blind" casting. They had no problem casting me as Abner Dillon in "42nd Street", even though I look nothing like an Oklahoma millionaire from the 1940's. Their willingness to perform "blind", aka "non-traditional", casting extends beyond just skin-color. I just saw their performance of "Legally Blond". The woman they chose to play the lead looked nothing like the part -- she was older, shorter, and more plump. But she handled the part quite well. By the ending, I don't think anyone minded how she looked. The audience clearly enjoyed themselves.
I didn't "forget" the fact that she didn't look the part, but that was because every minute or so I said to myself "isn't it great that they cast someone based on talent, not looks?" Of course, part of the reason I was so aware of that was . . . well . . . I really hated the show. This theatre company did a GREAT job, no doubt at all . . . but I have decided that "Legally Blonde" is on my list of third worst musicals.
For those curious: my #1 worst musical is "Oliver". 2 minutes plot, then a song that goes on for another 5 minutes . . . and when the song runs out of steam, go on to a 10 minute extended dance sequence. After maybe a half hour of this show, I was screaming to end this agony.
#2 worst musical: "42nd Street". If you want to create a pageant of musical numbers that is a tribute to Busby Berkeley, be my guest. But please, don't waste our time in trying to pretend you give a damn about telling a story or having a plot or having characters! This show was dreadful!
#3 worst musical: "Legally Blonde". When I saw the movie preview years ago, I said to myself "I have absolutely no interest in seeing this." Adding songs to the show didn't change that. This theatre group did a damn fine job, but I found myself almost smiling . . . once. I didn't care about ANY of the characters, and the plot was utterly predictable. It IS possible to have have-some-fun mindless-fluff and have it be good, but this wasn't it.
#4 worst musical: Oh, this one is difficult for me to decide. I'm tempted to say "Every version of Cinderella ever made". My goodness, this is the 21st century, and we are still telling our daughters a story where the lead character suffers through an abusive situation, waiting for a rich man to show up and rescue her!
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Breaking Through Cliques
As people that know me know, there are certain community theatre groups that are essentially on my "shit list". That number has reduced lately, however.
There was one theatre company that is very near to my home, let's call them "A". The first time I went there, I missed their audition, but they still needed to fill one more role, so they invited me to call-backs. At the time, I had been working with the professional actors at Hedgerow, and my first reaction was "this is NOT Hedgerow!" There were several of us auditioning for the part, and one man was chosen. The directors made it clear, he was chosen because he looked the part. Oh well. The thing that saddens me is that this man dropped out of the play . . . I guess I wasn't anywhere on the "call him next" list. I auditioned a second time for one of my favorite plays, even though I knew I wasn't right for any of the parts. It was one of those "I couldn't live with myself if I didn't try" moments. I didn't get a part, but a friend of mine got the lead. She did a great job and has become a "big deal" because of it. Okay, that meant two auditions at "A", and rejections both times.
I decided to give "A" one more try, and this time . . . I felt as though I did really well with the audition. The director seemed very impressed. I felt pretty good . . . and then I got a rejection 3 1/2 hours later. In other words, I was at the top of the first page of rejections. "A" was now on my "shit list".
On a related note, there was still the other matter of another theatre company, let's call it "B", that fancies itself as being quite prestigious. Several people have told me they are a bit stuck up. I went to one audition there. I was early because I had a conflict. One other man auditioned with me. The director, without having taken a look at our acting resumes and without knowing either of us, pointed to the other guy and said he wanted him to read for the lead part. He pointed to me and said he wanted me to read for a bit part. Oh, by the way, the other guy was white. This shouldn't have mattered with this play, as ethnicity isn't mentioned in the play and has no relevance . . . but who cares? The director saw him as white. "B", for all its prestige, was on my "shit list". Recently, however, I went to see a play there, set during the middle ages. Surprise, surprise, there was an african american on the stage! Sure, it was a small part, but at least he was cast! I decided that I needed to give "B" another try some time in the future. "B" was theoretically off the "shit list", but I hadn't been back there.
Back to "A" . . .
One day, they were having auditions for a one-act festival. A friend bugged me into going. Even though "A" was on my "shit list", I went. It was actually a very fun audition. There were a lot of people there, and we all sat in the theatre as we were called up one at a time to do a monologue. It was like a free show! When it was my turn, I did a poem ("She Moves Through The Fair") and then transitioned to the closing monologue from "Angels in America". I had to get to class, so I rushed out of there. As I was leaving, a number of people were saying what a great job I did. One guy reached back, hanging halfway out of the room, to shake my hand. When I got back in my car, I was surprised at how this hit me. I actually am good at this . . . and yet I can never seem to get a part.
It took a month or so for them to sort out who would be in what play at the festival. I was expecting a "nothing" part that I would turn down. I received the script and my part was a sort of "evil genius". Okay, they had my interest! For the first rehearsal . . . remember the third play I auditioned for at "A", and was rejected after 3 1/2 hours? The director of that play was in this play. She said I audition well . . . okay, I thought, but I was rejected pretty quickly. She remarked that my age was the issue -- all the parts were either too young or too old. Okay. I assumed that it was my dark skin, and the fact that the play was set in Scotland.
By the second rehearsal, she started bugging me to audition for a play she would be directing. The audition is in October, the performance will be in February. Ready for this one? This play will be at "B"! I asked her to show me the script. After reading it, I came back to her and said "if you want me, I'm in." It looks like a very interesting work!
It was just the three of us (remember that this is a 10-minute play) and the director. We met and rehearsed for several weeks. My character changed about six times before the director finally found something that he liked.
Then, tech week. This was where we got to meet and work with the rest of the cast for the rest of the short plays. There were a LOT of people here! I came to realize something: I don't have a shabby history for theatre involvement, but I've only worked with maybe three people there. I realized that "A" and "B" were a sort of "clique". They had never heard of Viviana, and Barnstormers . . . well, they were old, falling apart, and couldn't even get an audience nowadays.
So, these people didn't know me. First tech rehearsal, I went on stage. I did my part, and when I came downstairs to the green room, people were congratulating me. It would seem that I did a great job. The show opened, and this happened performance after performance. People were telling me that someone-or-another wanted to meet me, because they felt I was the high-point of the play. Sometimes, when the audience was a bit quiet, people would say that they were counting on me to get some laughs out of them.
I came out of that three-week run having gained some respect. This is good, but it's also a problem. I was cast because they try to cast everyone for this show. It was 11 short plays, and they needed people. I took that opportunity, and they got to see how good I am. More importantly, they got to see the guy they kept turning away. I wonder if they learned anything from this.
I learned something, however. I learned that I actually am good at this. I have more chances opening up for me, and maybe I'll take them . . . but I feel to this the way I feel to many cliques: I don't want to be a part of it! Both "A" and "B" are off my shit list. I didn't see any more shows at "A" that interested me, but there are maybe two at "B" that are on my list.
During this run, a play I wrote was performed at a short play festival in New York City. That is where my attention is right now. I want to put on another show in New York City. I want to find a way to raise the money, I want to either write the script or find a script, and I want to do it! It's a cliche, yes, but how can I be satisfied with community theatre in a suburb of Philadelphia after seeing one of my plays performed in New York City?
Monday, April 30, 2012
Acting Again, maybe
The big news last week was that I applied to join the "Dramatists Guild". I think I'm a member now: I received a newsletter via e-mail, and they have charged my credit card for the membership fee. I assume that a membership card is coming in the mail. Even though I don't have a membership card (and, in fact, I haven't received any confirmation that I'm a member), when I mentioned this at the Drama Book Store in New York City, they gave me a "Dramatists Guild discount".
I had been thinking about joining the Dramatists Guild before. Their requirement for full membership was that I show I have written a play that was performed in front of a paying audience. I fulfilled that with "The Crystal" and "Vampe". My concern was if it was like Actor's Equity: I hear plenty of stories about actors that are members of Actor's Equity having to get exemptions to be allowed to perform in community theatre. I wouldn't join the Dramatists Guild if it meant I couldn't work on plays with the co-author of "Vampe", or if I couldn't work with the director of "The Crystal". It turns out that the Dramatists Guild doesn't put those sorts of restrictions on you. They seem like a great resource, though. One thing that has me very excited is that they have a place in New York City where I, as a member, am allowed to put on one 90-minute staged reading every year.
The weekend before last, I was at ESTAFest. "The Crystal" was being performed there. It didn't win any major awards (it received an award for "best visual effects", but I think that had more to do with the fact that no other play had any visual effects). I saw some great work there and two that I felt were genuinely "bad". The big festival winner . . . well, I think everyone else saw something different than what I saw (which had a great first half, but collapsed utterly in its second half). I didn't expect "The Crystal" to win anything, because it's important to remember that horror doesn't win awards (it didn't help that the judges clearly didn't understand horror; they had one or two good suggestions, but when one of them remarked that we should have shown more and had less in the imagination, it was clear). But, people came up to me before and after, raving about it: that's what counts!
One thing struck me during this: the bane of my existence as an actor. I watched 14 shows that weekend, but in the end I couldn't tell one actor from another. On the other hand, people all knew who I was. Heck, people there recognized me from "Vampe" and "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park"! Yes, my brown skin makes me very recognizable. Unfortunately, while I don't disappear in a forest of 6-foot-tall-white-men, 99% of the roles out there are written for 6-foot-tall-white-men.
Writing is a different world from acting. In the past two weeks, I wrote two small plays. I just sat down and wrote them: "ta da". I don't need anyone else's approval to write something down. True, maybe the thing I write will never get performed. Maybe the thing I write will never get published. But it exists, it's something I created. I can fire up an e-mail and send it to people. Five years from now, it will still exist. As for acting? If I don't get a part, I don't get to act. Even if it's a group of friends goofing around in a basement, I need someone else's approval in order to act. I think I am a much better writer than I am an actor, for one basic reason: I can write any time, and I do. I realized in my acting class last winter that my acting skills are at a standstill, because I never get challenging parts.
Well, I am acting again.
This particular theatre company was on my "shit list". I went to one audition once. There were several men that were all auditioning for the one open part. I did well, but the director declared that he's going to choose based on age and looks (he even stated this). I didn't get the part. I went back there to audition for "A Streetcar Named Desire", although I knew there were no parts for me in this play. Finally, I went back for a farce set in the Scotland. I heard "wow's" from the audition committee, and I got my "sorry" e-mail a whole 3 1/2 hours later. Recently, there were auditions for a festival of 10-minute plays. A friend bugged me into auditioning, so I broke my "I'm not going to audition there again" rule. I did well, and a month later (it took them a while to get this arranged) I was offered a part. I read the script and saw that the part wasn't challenging, but it was fun. Okay, I accepted. I will be larger than life, hamming this up . . . I know, that's such a stretch for me.
I'm going to be performing with a woman that directed that play set in Scotland. She told me that they really wanted me for that play, but all the male characters were either too young or too old. Great . . . although I had hoped that I would have been "good enough" to have made them deliberate for more than 3 1/2 hours! She told me she will be directing a play next year, and there might be a part for me in it. Hey, I don't have any plans! By the way, this play will be at another theatre that was on my "shit list".
I should note that "taking silly parts in plays" was what led to my "writing career" actually taking root. If I hadn't been in "Godspell" and "42nd Street", I wouldn't have been approached for "Vampe". If I hadn't been in "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park", I would never have met the woman that directed "The Crystal".
I had been thinking about joining the Dramatists Guild before. Their requirement for full membership was that I show I have written a play that was performed in front of a paying audience. I fulfilled that with "The Crystal" and "Vampe". My concern was if it was like Actor's Equity: I hear plenty of stories about actors that are members of Actor's Equity having to get exemptions to be allowed to perform in community theatre. I wouldn't join the Dramatists Guild if it meant I couldn't work on plays with the co-author of "Vampe", or if I couldn't work with the director of "The Crystal". It turns out that the Dramatists Guild doesn't put those sorts of restrictions on you. They seem like a great resource, though. One thing that has me very excited is that they have a place in New York City where I, as a member, am allowed to put on one 90-minute staged reading every year.
The weekend before last, I was at ESTAFest. "The Crystal" was being performed there. It didn't win any major awards (it received an award for "best visual effects", but I think that had more to do with the fact that no other play had any visual effects). I saw some great work there and two that I felt were genuinely "bad". The big festival winner . . . well, I think everyone else saw something different than what I saw (which had a great first half, but collapsed utterly in its second half). I didn't expect "The Crystal" to win anything, because it's important to remember that horror doesn't win awards (it didn't help that the judges clearly didn't understand horror; they had one or two good suggestions, but when one of them remarked that we should have shown more and had less in the imagination, it was clear). But, people came up to me before and after, raving about it: that's what counts!
One thing struck me during this: the bane of my existence as an actor. I watched 14 shows that weekend, but in the end I couldn't tell one actor from another. On the other hand, people all knew who I was. Heck, people there recognized me from "Vampe" and "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park"! Yes, my brown skin makes me very recognizable. Unfortunately, while I don't disappear in a forest of 6-foot-tall-white-men, 99% of the roles out there are written for 6-foot-tall-white-men.
Writing is a different world from acting. In the past two weeks, I wrote two small plays. I just sat down and wrote them: "ta da". I don't need anyone else's approval to write something down. True, maybe the thing I write will never get performed. Maybe the thing I write will never get published. But it exists, it's something I created. I can fire up an e-mail and send it to people. Five years from now, it will still exist. As for acting? If I don't get a part, I don't get to act. Even if it's a group of friends goofing around in a basement, I need someone else's approval in order to act. I think I am a much better writer than I am an actor, for one basic reason: I can write any time, and I do. I realized in my acting class last winter that my acting skills are at a standstill, because I never get challenging parts.
Well, I am acting again.
This particular theatre company was on my "shit list". I went to one audition once. There were several men that were all auditioning for the one open part. I did well, but the director declared that he's going to choose based on age and looks (he even stated this). I didn't get the part. I went back there to audition for "A Streetcar Named Desire", although I knew there were no parts for me in this play. Finally, I went back for a farce set in the Scotland. I heard "wow's" from the audition committee, and I got my "sorry" e-mail a whole 3 1/2 hours later. Recently, there were auditions for a festival of 10-minute plays. A friend bugged me into auditioning, so I broke my "I'm not going to audition there again" rule. I did well, and a month later (it took them a while to get this arranged) I was offered a part. I read the script and saw that the part wasn't challenging, but it was fun. Okay, I accepted. I will be larger than life, hamming this up . . . I know, that's such a stretch for me.
I'm going to be performing with a woman that directed that play set in Scotland. She told me that they really wanted me for that play, but all the male characters were either too young or too old. Great . . . although I had hoped that I would have been "good enough" to have made them deliberate for more than 3 1/2 hours! She told me she will be directing a play next year, and there might be a part for me in it. Hey, I don't have any plans! By the way, this play will be at another theatre that was on my "shit list".
I should note that "taking silly parts in plays" was what led to my "writing career" actually taking root. If I hadn't been in "Godspell" and "42nd Street", I wouldn't have been approached for "Vampe". If I hadn't been in "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park", I would never have met the woman that directed "The Crystal".
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
More Whining
With my focus on "Vampe", I really haven't been thinking much about auditioning anywhere. Normally, at the beginning of the month, I would scour the web sites and get a list of auditions, and fill up my Google calendar with auditions. Well, I haven't done that since the new year.
My last three auditions . . . well, let's talk about that.
I drove out to TriPac in Pottsdown. I was auditioning for two plays. My sides were from the play "Farragut North". They told me several times that I was not suitable for "character 1", so they wanted me to read for "character 2". I prepared for "character 2". I went in to the audition and . . . they had me read for "character 1", the part they emphasized I was not right for. In other words, they screwed me over. After this, I received an e-mail asking if I would be willing to take a small non-speaking part in their other play. I politely said "no thank you". I never heard anything from them about "Farragut North". By the way, pet peeve: it takes 30 seconds to write a "sorry" e-mail . . . the actor took the time to audition, and deserves to get some word one way or the other!
I went to an audition at Barnstormers for a Christmas play. I was offered a small part and I took it. I put in my usual 110%, and I heard a number of very positive remarks. The assistant director admitted to me that they gave me that specific part because they wanted me in the play (they didn't have enough people at the audition), but that was the only part they could think of where they could fit someone with my ethnic looks. The leads in the play were both white, but were by far the worst actor and actress I have ever worked with. But even though they were terrible and brought down the quality of the play, the important thing was that they cast white people in those roles, right?
Again, at Barnstormers, I auditioned for "Macbeth". I was offered two small parts. I had no desire to take yet another part that required sitting for 1 1/2 hours in the green room. Hey, why should I expect more than a bit part, whereever they could fit the brown guy?
But, I had "Vampe". And I still have "Vampe". It is still going on. Sebastian was a challenging role and an interesting role . . . hey, I wrote him, so I made him that way!
Last night, I saw an audition announcement for "A Streetcar Named Desire", one of my favorite plays. I realized how "down" I felt about acting: I should have been bouncing up and down, thinking "I MUST AUDITION! I MUST AUDITION!" Instead, I knew that if I auditioned, the best I could hope for would be "one of the card players". This isn't Broadway, this is a wannabe-Broadway, so I didn't expect them to even try. Why bother? It just wasn't worth it.
I whined about this on Facebook. One of my Facebook friends said I should go to Colonial Playhouse and audition for their one-act festival. I had no intention on going there, as the Colonial Playhouse was on my "why bother?" list (I had auditioned there three times, and for at least two of those auditions I can honestly say I didn't get a part because of my skin color). But, hey, I was invited, so I went.
The audition was like a little show. Instead of sitting us in another room, we all sat in the audience as people were called up to do a short monologue. It was actually fun! I went back and forth as to what I would do. I decided I would do a poem and then I would do the closing monologue from "Angels in America", and I would have one of those oh-so-cool sharp transitions between them. I did it, and then I had to leave. As I was walking out, people were telling me I did really well. One guy reached out and shook my hand. People really liked what I did.
Yes, maybe I actually am good at this.
As I drove away, this really hit me, and hit me hard. I found myself in tears, and these weren't happy tears. If I was that good, why can I never get a challenging part? If I wasn't any good, then maybe I could work on it and improve. If I am good enough, what can I do? I can keep on improving, but no one will ever give me a chance, and it's not because I lack the talent. Besides, how much improvement can I do when no one will give me a chance?
The theatre world -- the acting world -- just doesn't want me. That's reality. And it's not because I'm not good enough.
I am surprised at how that hit me. I couldn't even feel good about a job-well-done, because in my heart I knew nothing would come of it. I've done job-well-done auditions before. If I do get a part, I'm sure I'll be "that guy standing against the wall for 3 minutes". I'll be phoning in my performance again.
And there is nothing I could do about it.
Punchline: I had mentioned, in an unrelated conversation, my crazy idea of starting a theatre group that would emphasize minorities. A friend remarked that she didn't feel there should be preference to minorities, so she disagreed with the entire idea of the theatre group. Casting should be based on talent. As I've seen so many times, it often is not based on talent. Taking the time to find minorities, people I have found a far too often excluded from community theatre (at least, around here), doesn't mean we are ignoring talent. If this theatre group ever comes into existence, we will be looking more at talent than most of the theatre-is-a-white-man's-club community theatre groups!
My last three auditions . . . well, let's talk about that.
I drove out to TriPac in Pottsdown. I was auditioning for two plays. My sides were from the play "Farragut North". They told me several times that I was not suitable for "character 1", so they wanted me to read for "character 2". I prepared for "character 2". I went in to the audition and . . . they had me read for "character 1", the part they emphasized I was not right for. In other words, they screwed me over. After this, I received an e-mail asking if I would be willing to take a small non-speaking part in their other play. I politely said "no thank you". I never heard anything from them about "Farragut North". By the way, pet peeve: it takes 30 seconds to write a "sorry" e-mail . . . the actor took the time to audition, and deserves to get some word one way or the other!
I went to an audition at Barnstormers for a Christmas play. I was offered a small part and I took it. I put in my usual 110%, and I heard a number of very positive remarks. The assistant director admitted to me that they gave me that specific part because they wanted me in the play (they didn't have enough people at the audition), but that was the only part they could think of where they could fit someone with my ethnic looks. The leads in the play were both white, but were by far the worst actor and actress I have ever worked with. But even though they were terrible and brought down the quality of the play, the important thing was that they cast white people in those roles, right?
Again, at Barnstormers, I auditioned for "Macbeth". I was offered two small parts. I had no desire to take yet another part that required sitting for 1 1/2 hours in the green room. Hey, why should I expect more than a bit part, whereever they could fit the brown guy?
But, I had "Vampe". And I still have "Vampe". It is still going on. Sebastian was a challenging role and an interesting role . . . hey, I wrote him, so I made him that way!
Last night, I saw an audition announcement for "A Streetcar Named Desire", one of my favorite plays. I realized how "down" I felt about acting: I should have been bouncing up and down, thinking "I MUST AUDITION! I MUST AUDITION!" Instead, I knew that if I auditioned, the best I could hope for would be "one of the card players". This isn't Broadway, this is a wannabe-Broadway, so I didn't expect them to even try. Why bother? It just wasn't worth it.
I whined about this on Facebook. One of my Facebook friends said I should go to Colonial Playhouse and audition for their one-act festival. I had no intention on going there, as the Colonial Playhouse was on my "why bother?" list (I had auditioned there three times, and for at least two of those auditions I can honestly say I didn't get a part because of my skin color). But, hey, I was invited, so I went.
The audition was like a little show. Instead of sitting us in another room, we all sat in the audience as people were called up to do a short monologue. It was actually fun! I went back and forth as to what I would do. I decided I would do a poem and then I would do the closing monologue from "Angels in America", and I would have one of those oh-so-cool sharp transitions between them. I did it, and then I had to leave. As I was walking out, people were telling me I did really well. One guy reached out and shook my hand. People really liked what I did.
Yes, maybe I actually am good at this.
As I drove away, this really hit me, and hit me hard. I found myself in tears, and these weren't happy tears. If I was that good, why can I never get a challenging part? If I wasn't any good, then maybe I could work on it and improve. If I am good enough, what can I do? I can keep on improving, but no one will ever give me a chance, and it's not because I lack the talent. Besides, how much improvement can I do when no one will give me a chance?
The theatre world -- the acting world -- just doesn't want me. That's reality. And it's not because I'm not good enough.
I am surprised at how that hit me. I couldn't even feel good about a job-well-done, because in my heart I knew nothing would come of it. I've done job-well-done auditions before. If I do get a part, I'm sure I'll be "that guy standing against the wall for 3 minutes". I'll be phoning in my performance again.
And there is nothing I could do about it.
Punchline: I had mentioned, in an unrelated conversation, my crazy idea of starting a theatre group that would emphasize minorities. A friend remarked that she didn't feel there should be preference to minorities, so she disagreed with the entire idea of the theatre group. Casting should be based on talent. As I've seen so many times, it often is not based on talent. Taking the time to find minorities, people I have found a far too often excluded from community theatre (at least, around here), doesn't mean we are ignoring talent. If this theatre group ever comes into existence, we will be looking more at talent than most of the theatre-is-a-white-man's-club community theatre groups!
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Broadway and Wannabe-Broadway
Today, I was looking at an ad for "A Streetcar Named Desire" on Broadway. What did I notice? Two African-American men. Are Stan and Mitch being played by men-of-color?
It's important to remember: I did audition for a local community theatre version of "Streetcar" last year and I didn't get a part. I don't believe this was because of my skin color, however. The director had already cast Stan and had a great actor in mind for Mitch (that actor is a friend of mine, and I would have questioned the sanity of casting me over him). He had me read for one other part, but my heart really wasn't into it (my feeling was that if I was going to play a bit part, I might as well play a bit part in "42nd Street", where I would be performing with my kids).
But, Stan and Mitch were both white. There are several times when Blanche refers to Stan as being a "Pollack". With few exceptions, every community theatre I know would insist that it MUST be done that way. They would insist on that because they aren't just doing a hodge-podge, they are striving for a professional quality show! They would insist on this even if they, for example, throw a sheet over two boxes and call it a sofa.
And yet Broadway doesn't seem to do that.
"Chicago", on Broadway, was set in the 1920's and had whites and blacks intermingling without a fuss or even a mentioning.
"How to Succeed in Business Without Even Trying": set in the corporate world of the 1950's. And on Broadway, we had black executives in the corporate boardroom.
There was a bunch of hub-bub about casting non-hispanics for the clearly hispanic leads in "Motherf*cker with a Hat" . . . but that hub-bub occurred when the show went on tour. On Broadway, this wasn't a problem!
And now, "A Streetcar Named Desire" . . . black men, apparently, playing Stan and Mitch.
Now, these are only a few cases. I don't recall seeing any minorities in "Phantom of the Opera". But these four instances are enough, in my opinion, to shoot down these community theatre companies that try to mask racial bias with a "professional quality production".
It's important to remember: I did audition for a local community theatre version of "Streetcar" last year and I didn't get a part. I don't believe this was because of my skin color, however. The director had already cast Stan and had a great actor in mind for Mitch (that actor is a friend of mine, and I would have questioned the sanity of casting me over him). He had me read for one other part, but my heart really wasn't into it (my feeling was that if I was going to play a bit part, I might as well play a bit part in "42nd Street", where I would be performing with my kids).
But, Stan and Mitch were both white. There are several times when Blanche refers to Stan as being a "Pollack". With few exceptions, every community theatre I know would insist that it MUST be done that way. They would insist on that because they aren't just doing a hodge-podge, they are striving for a professional quality show! They would insist on this even if they, for example, throw a sheet over two boxes and call it a sofa.
And yet Broadway doesn't seem to do that.
"Chicago", on Broadway, was set in the 1920's and had whites and blacks intermingling without a fuss or even a mentioning.
"How to Succeed in Business Without Even Trying": set in the corporate world of the 1950's. And on Broadway, we had black executives in the corporate boardroom.
There was a bunch of hub-bub about casting non-hispanics for the clearly hispanic leads in "Motherf*cker with a Hat" . . . but that hub-bub occurred when the show went on tour. On Broadway, this wasn't a problem!
And now, "A Streetcar Named Desire" . . . black men, apparently, playing Stan and Mitch.
Now, these are only a few cases. I don't recall seeing any minorities in "Phantom of the Opera". But these four instances are enough, in my opinion, to shoot down these community theatre companies that try to mask racial bias with a "professional quality production".
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
I'm acting again, but this will be a rarity
I am going to be in "Vampe". My part is interesting but pretty small -- I seem to be sticking with my "I get about 10 minutes on the stage" habit. The key is that I wrote this part. I am the co-author of this play, and the only reason I'm acting in it is because we are pushing through and performing the thing at the end of February, and we needed to fill all the parts! Make no mistake: just like with "42nd Street", while my part isn't unimportant, no one will remember my part by the end! But, I'm doing this so that a play I wrote gets performed. If I want to get petty, I think that means I get a share of every "good job" said to anyone in the cast! If I want to get petty, that is.
And that is very exciting!
I read two interesting articles lately, both of which have to do with film.
Film is a different world than stage in many ways. In the world of stage I find the door slammed in my face repeatedly -- stage is very much a white man's world -- but I understand that there are far more options for people with "ethnic looks" in film. That's great, but these aren't major roles: lead roles in film tend to still be young white men. I'm a middle aged Indian man, short with a pot-belly. If anyone wants to finance a summer action blockbuster with that sort of character as the star, just let me know!
One thing I read recently was by George Lucas. He has just made a big-budget action movie with an almost all-black cast. He felt that Hollywood didn't give the script a chance because of the almost all-black cast. Say what you want about George Lucas' "Star Wars" prequels, but I think he knows what he's talking about. This is the freaking 21st century, folks, and yet this attitudes still remain! Remember that this isn't a case of black actors not getting a chance because all the major roles are written for white actors. The film was written for an almost all-black cast. If George Lucas is correct, this script was not given a chance because all the major roles weren't written for white actors!
A common "it isn't racism" denial is that "it isn't racism" because the roles are written for white actors. "What are we to do? The starring roles for black actors are just not there." If George Lucas is right, that excuse is bullshit.
Oh, and by the way, don't mention Denzel Washington as though that makes up for it. Denzel has it all: he's talented, handsome, and has one hell of a presence. And he had to work his way up to being taken seriously as a leading man. To counter that . . . Sam Worthington. I watch him perform and I hope that some day he will find something he might be good at. It clearly isn't acting. Maybe he'll discover he's a talented painter.
Another article had to do with Heather Donahue, from Blair Witch Project. I thought she was very good in that movie, but she simply did not have "leading lady looks". She found herself typecast as the "best friend". She found herself playing increasingly crappy roles until one night, laying there during the filming of a bad horror movie, she asked "is this what I really want to do with my life?" Apparently, she took everything in her life from acting, went out into the desert, and destroyed it all, to start clean.
She went through some difficult times, apparently, trying to find herself, but appears to be happier with herself now.
I remind myself that these are about professional film. Professional entertainment is a different world, and the visual element is front and center. For every Meatloaf -- someone not particularly good looking but who made his name by being a great performer -- there are a dozen Britney Spears. It's just the way things are. My love of theatre was never built on dreams of being a professional actor. I'm strictly an amateur. My love of theatre suddenly plunged me into a world where I saw that no matter how good I am, no matter how much I build my skills, no matter how hard I work, I will never get a chance because I just don't look the part. I had to ask: did I really want to chase something that repeatedly told me "you just aren't good enough"?
"Vampe" is a good play. I'm very proud of my work. At readings and at our first rehearsal, I saw people thrilled with things I had written. This reminded me that I am more than "good enough". Maybe I should be spending less time trying to prove myself to something that is clearly not interested.
And that is very exciting!
I read two interesting articles lately, both of which have to do with film.
Film is a different world than stage in many ways. In the world of stage I find the door slammed in my face repeatedly -- stage is very much a white man's world -- but I understand that there are far more options for people with "ethnic looks" in film. That's great, but these aren't major roles: lead roles in film tend to still be young white men. I'm a middle aged Indian man, short with a pot-belly. If anyone wants to finance a summer action blockbuster with that sort of character as the star, just let me know!
One thing I read recently was by George Lucas. He has just made a big-budget action movie with an almost all-black cast. He felt that Hollywood didn't give the script a chance because of the almost all-black cast. Say what you want about George Lucas' "Star Wars" prequels, but I think he knows what he's talking about. This is the freaking 21st century, folks, and yet this attitudes still remain! Remember that this isn't a case of black actors not getting a chance because all the major roles are written for white actors. The film was written for an almost all-black cast. If George Lucas is correct, this script was not given a chance because all the major roles weren't written for white actors!
A common "it isn't racism" denial is that "it isn't racism" because the roles are written for white actors. "What are we to do? The starring roles for black actors are just not there." If George Lucas is right, that excuse is bullshit.
Oh, and by the way, don't mention Denzel Washington as though that makes up for it. Denzel has it all: he's talented, handsome, and has one hell of a presence. And he had to work his way up to being taken seriously as a leading man. To counter that . . . Sam Worthington. I watch him perform and I hope that some day he will find something he might be good at. It clearly isn't acting. Maybe he'll discover he's a talented painter.
Another article had to do with Heather Donahue, from Blair Witch Project. I thought she was very good in that movie, but she simply did not have "leading lady looks". She found herself typecast as the "best friend". She found herself playing increasingly crappy roles until one night, laying there during the filming of a bad horror movie, she asked "is this what I really want to do with my life?" Apparently, she took everything in her life from acting, went out into the desert, and destroyed it all, to start clean.
She went through some difficult times, apparently, trying to find herself, but appears to be happier with herself now.
I remind myself that these are about professional film. Professional entertainment is a different world, and the visual element is front and center. For every Meatloaf -- someone not particularly good looking but who made his name by being a great performer -- there are a dozen Britney Spears. It's just the way things are. My love of theatre was never built on dreams of being a professional actor. I'm strictly an amateur. My love of theatre suddenly plunged me into a world where I saw that no matter how good I am, no matter how much I build my skills, no matter how hard I work, I will never get a chance because I just don't look the part. I had to ask: did I really want to chase something that repeatedly told me "you just aren't good enough"?
"Vampe" is a good play. I'm very proud of my work. At readings and at our first rehearsal, I saw people thrilled with things I had written. This reminded me that I am more than "good enough". Maybe I should be spending less time trying to prove myself to something that is clearly not interested.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Politics
The other day, I had a chance to chat with someone from a local theatre company, about some interesting politics they had encountered.
I didn't know the details, but something odd happened with their performance of "Rent" last summer. When I was there at the end of a rehearsal, the directors were giving notes . . . yet the person that was the "main director" was out of the room, and there was some new guy giving notes. Who was he? Later, chatting with that "main director", he most certainly made clear he didn't want to talk about "Rent".
I had heard rumors that some people in the cast staged a revolt. The "main director" wanted to perform the songs according to the score, and from what I heard some people in the cast wanted to perform it according to the Broadway soundtrack. Apparently, from what I heard, these people in the cast came in with a different music director and demanded he be in charge of the singing.
What?
This made no sense.
While I'm still very curious, I don't have all the details I would like. What actually happened was that the director's mother was putting on two youth plays, but she didn't have anyone to handle the lighting. The director agreed to do this, but this meant he would be missing a crucial week's rehearsal for "Rent". One of the cast members of "Rent" asked if she could bring in her voice coach, just for that week. The other director and he had an understanding: he was just there to help out that week. That understanding went out the window, and he took over. For whatever reason (perhaps the lack of time before opening night), the voice coach/faux director wasn't sent packing. The main directors just threw their hands in the air and let things go.
A huge number of the cast were now blacklisted. The deal with the faux director was not the only issue: there was a great deal of unpleasantness, and a whole lot of egotism. The directors of that theatre company told me that they would never work with many of this cast, ever again. Not only that, the theatre company was working with another theatre company for this show, and people from that other theatre company were shocked at what they were seeing. These people were now blacklisted from both theatre companies!
The first word of "community theatre" is "community". We're not headlining a show on Broadway here. We all work together and we all pitch in. I've been in shows where a lot of members of the cast didn't help with set strike . . . this is inexcusable, in my opinion! I saw this theatre company's production of "Rent", and I saw a very enthusiastic and talented cast . . . but there was no reason for the overinflated egos! They weren't that good!
By the way, I'm on record as not much caring for the play "Rent". Yes, I see that it openly deals with HIV. Great. So does "Angels in America", a much better show. All through "Rent", I found myself looking at a bunch of intensely pretentious people that sit around whining. Not my cup of tea, thank you very much. The cast for this performance did a fine job (although the woman that played the exotic dancer had clearly never seen an exotic dancer), but in the end I said "yup, I don't like this play."
I didn't know the details, but something odd happened with their performance of "Rent" last summer. When I was there at the end of a rehearsal, the directors were giving notes . . . yet the person that was the "main director" was out of the room, and there was some new guy giving notes. Who was he? Later, chatting with that "main director", he most certainly made clear he didn't want to talk about "Rent".
I had heard rumors that some people in the cast staged a revolt. The "main director" wanted to perform the songs according to the score, and from what I heard some people in the cast wanted to perform it according to the Broadway soundtrack. Apparently, from what I heard, these people in the cast came in with a different music director and demanded he be in charge of the singing.
What?
This made no sense.
While I'm still very curious, I don't have all the details I would like. What actually happened was that the director's mother was putting on two youth plays, but she didn't have anyone to handle the lighting. The director agreed to do this, but this meant he would be missing a crucial week's rehearsal for "Rent". One of the cast members of "Rent" asked if she could bring in her voice coach, just for that week. The other director and he had an understanding: he was just there to help out that week. That understanding went out the window, and he took over. For whatever reason (perhaps the lack of time before opening night), the voice coach/faux director wasn't sent packing. The main directors just threw their hands in the air and let things go.
A huge number of the cast were now blacklisted. The deal with the faux director was not the only issue: there was a great deal of unpleasantness, and a whole lot of egotism. The directors of that theatre company told me that they would never work with many of this cast, ever again. Not only that, the theatre company was working with another theatre company for this show, and people from that other theatre company were shocked at what they were seeing. These people were now blacklisted from both theatre companies!
The first word of "community theatre" is "community". We're not headlining a show on Broadway here. We all work together and we all pitch in. I've been in shows where a lot of members of the cast didn't help with set strike . . . this is inexcusable, in my opinion! I saw this theatre company's production of "Rent", and I saw a very enthusiastic and talented cast . . . but there was no reason for the overinflated egos! They weren't that good!
By the way, I'm on record as not much caring for the play "Rent". Yes, I see that it openly deals with HIV. Great. So does "Angels in America", a much better show. All through "Rent", I found myself looking at a bunch of intensely pretentious people that sit around whining. Not my cup of tea, thank you very much. The cast for this performance did a fine job (although the woman that played the exotic dancer had clearly never seen an exotic dancer), but in the end I said "yup, I don't like this play."
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
1/3/2012
I'm contemplating going to an audition for Theatre Company D tonight. I think it might be counter-productive, though: it's a four person play set in the south, and there's only one male in the cast. I'm totally not right for the role, but perhaps I might go there just to see how they treat me this time. Keep in mind that I have refused to go to Theatre Company D because of how badly they treated me the one time I auditioned there, but I am seeing that I should give them another chance (I'm seeing indications that the bad treatment was more the "director" than the "company").
In a few weeks, I'll be hearing from Theatre Company E because of their acting classes. Last fall I signed up for two of their acting classes, both on Monday nights. IF I sign up this time, I will only sign up for one of the acting classes. I didn't get a whole lot out of the other acting class, and honestly I felt a bit out of my league. Besides, taking two acting classes is expensive! Still, I'm considering not taking any acting classes this time. The problem is that I feel as though I need some practical experience. I feel like someone that has taken a bunch of computer programming classes but has never actually written a program. One can learn a lot from the classes, but one will eventually hit a wall until one actually programs! I feel like I am at that wall with acting. I need to actually use the things I am learning.
I'm going to have to disappoint Theatre Company B regarding "The Producers". For this show, they are setting up little animatronic pigeons, and want me to operate one of them. Okay: contact me for tech week. But, they also want me to be in the chorus for one scene. I love this bunch, but that suddenly means "time commitment" and I'd rather not put in that commitment for that one chorus scene.
One of the down-sides of Theatre Company B is that they charge, and sometimes they charge a lot. They're a theatre company constantly on the edge of financial disaster. It's not uncommon for community theatres to charge, but most of the time the amount is small. Theatre Company B used to charge $40 or $50 per show, which was expensive. The problem is that they would then expect fundraising. For "Godspell", we were all expected to come up with an extra $100 for fundraising, which would go to lighting. I was in the show with my ex-girlfriend. I did fundraising, she didn't, so we wound up paying $140 for her to be in this show! She was in "Hairspray" with my younger son, and for that fundraising with hundreds of dollars! Neither my ex-girlfriend nor my younger son did the fundraising, and in fact this was true of many in the cast. Because of this some corners needed to be cut in the staging. For "42nd Street", this got a bit insane. The fee was now $50, and I don't remember the exact fundraising number. I did fundraising, but neither of my kids did any. I was a bit annoyed that I did fundraising (and contributed a good bit of money myself) AND I wound up having to buy my own costume. The problem was that enough people didn't fundraise that we couldn't pay for the lighting. Performances were followed by pleas during the performance: could people donate money so we could keep the lighting? We managed, but I would wager the net result was the company didn't make a penny.
After that, Theatre Company B decided to not depend on fundraising. Instead, they would raise the fee to be in their show. It cost me $120 for my younger son to be in their last show, "Nutcracker Fusion"! And I will be putting out $70 for him to be in "The Producers"!
Now, Theatre Company B is going to put on "Vampe", a musical I co-wrote, in February. For this, we are renting out the theatre for Theatre Company H. We are telling people upfront: this is an original work, and we need everyone to supply their own costumes and put money in to pay for the theatre rental (we are estimating $60/person). I will be in this show, so that will be occupying my time and attention. In this case, I don't mind the fact that my part isn't huge (it's still interesting, however), and the fee is understandable (we need to fund this ourselves): I wrote this thing, damnit!
In a few weeks, I'll be hearing from Theatre Company E because of their acting classes. Last fall I signed up for two of their acting classes, both on Monday nights. IF I sign up this time, I will only sign up for one of the acting classes. I didn't get a whole lot out of the other acting class, and honestly I felt a bit out of my league. Besides, taking two acting classes is expensive! Still, I'm considering not taking any acting classes this time. The problem is that I feel as though I need some practical experience. I feel like someone that has taken a bunch of computer programming classes but has never actually written a program. One can learn a lot from the classes, but one will eventually hit a wall until one actually programs! I feel like I am at that wall with acting. I need to actually use the things I am learning.
I'm going to have to disappoint Theatre Company B regarding "The Producers". For this show, they are setting up little animatronic pigeons, and want me to operate one of them. Okay: contact me for tech week. But, they also want me to be in the chorus for one scene. I love this bunch, but that suddenly means "time commitment" and I'd rather not put in that commitment for that one chorus scene.
One of the down-sides of Theatre Company B is that they charge, and sometimes they charge a lot. They're a theatre company constantly on the edge of financial disaster. It's not uncommon for community theatres to charge, but most of the time the amount is small. Theatre Company B used to charge $40 or $50 per show, which was expensive. The problem is that they would then expect fundraising. For "Godspell", we were all expected to come up with an extra $100 for fundraising, which would go to lighting. I was in the show with my ex-girlfriend. I did fundraising, she didn't, so we wound up paying $140 for her to be in this show! She was in "Hairspray" with my younger son, and for that fundraising with hundreds of dollars! Neither my ex-girlfriend nor my younger son did the fundraising, and in fact this was true of many in the cast. Because of this some corners needed to be cut in the staging. For "42nd Street", this got a bit insane. The fee was now $50, and I don't remember the exact fundraising number. I did fundraising, but neither of my kids did any. I was a bit annoyed that I did fundraising (and contributed a good bit of money myself) AND I wound up having to buy my own costume. The problem was that enough people didn't fundraise that we couldn't pay for the lighting. Performances were followed by pleas during the performance: could people donate money so we could keep the lighting? We managed, but I would wager the net result was the company didn't make a penny.
After that, Theatre Company B decided to not depend on fundraising. Instead, they would raise the fee to be in their show. It cost me $120 for my younger son to be in their last show, "Nutcracker Fusion"! And I will be putting out $70 for him to be in "The Producers"!
Now, Theatre Company B is going to put on "Vampe", a musical I co-wrote, in February. For this, we are renting out the theatre for Theatre Company H. We are telling people upfront: this is an original work, and we need everyone to supply their own costumes and put money in to pay for the theatre rental (we are estimating $60/person). I will be in this show, so that will be occupying my time and attention. In this case, I don't mind the fact that my part isn't huge (it's still interesting, however), and the fee is understandable (we need to fund this ourselves): I wrote this thing, damnit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)