Featured Column

Playwrights on Playwriting, 2017: An LGBT Panel

Featured Column, Paul Birchall's Got It Covered / 0 comments

March 14, 2017

[ssba]

Playwrights on Playwriting, 2017

A panel ostensibly about gay theater resounds with universal themes

By Paul Birchall

L-R: Donald Jolly, Robert Patrick, Michael Kearns, Mary Casey, Tom Jacobson, Odylys Nanin, Dee Jae Cox, Victor Bumbalo (Photo by Paul Birchall)

Last Wednesday night, West Hollywood was all a-glitter, as an LA Fashion Week show was taking place in the Pacific Design Center courtyard. In front of the famous blue glass-walled skyscraper, models stomped behind splashing fountains and a gigantic neon screen flashed gorgeous blue-glowing images of butterflies, while a siren-voiced songstress warbled a haunting ditty. However, as it turns out, the real fireworks were across the street, in a humble meeting room at the West Hollywood Library, where a panel of locally and nationally renowned playwrights came together to discuss the history and the future of LGBT theater.

(Note: The West Hollywood Library is part of the Los Angeles County Library system, where the writer of this article is on staff.)

Hosted by playwright and TV writer Victor Bumbalo, the panel, entitled “Gay Theatre, Its History and Its Future,” boasted a who’s who of local theater queer royalty, from legendary godfather of gay theater Robert Patrick to figures such as Tom Jacobson, Mary Casey, and, of course, Michael Kearns. Also on the bill were impresario and writer Dee Jae Cox (LA Women’s Theater Project) and Macha Theater’s Odalys Nanin.

The younger generation was represented by Donald Jolly, author of Riot/Rebellion (about the Watts Riots) and Bonded (about the scandalous love affair between two male slaves in pre-Civil War Virginia).

Beginning with accounts of how they got started writing, the general theme was one of breaking boundaries in an undiscovered area. And although the mood of the panel was upbeat and amiable, their actual views, informed by the current political/social climate and its relationship to the arts, was pessimistic.

Patrick noted that what was once edgy and challenging has become increasingly mainstreamed. “It is much harder today to get noticed,” he lamented. “There are today more small gay theaters than anyone can imagine. Did you know that there’s a gay theater in Kankakee? I get offers to cover gay festivals every day – some of them earn ten prizes and still they’re just on a list of plays getting sit-down readings in a room in the afternoon.”

Interestingly, as the talk commenced, the LGBT aspect of the panel almost became secondary: What was important was that the panelists were all playwrights, and, as playwrights, their considerations, fears, and hopes were essentially the same as playwrights working in any genre – e.g., how do we get our plays performed, and how do we grow great theater?

Bumbalo sagely suggested that the trend these days is actually to avoid putting on full on productions of plays that might be too challenging for a mainstream audience. “Nowadays, the works are put into ‘development,’ with new plays being presented only for readings or for ‘development’ – it’s because they can get a grant [to develop] the new work, there’s no real plan to put the show on!”

There’s also been this rise of five- or 10-minute play festivals, Bumbalo continued. “If you have 25 plays, you have at least 25 sets of friends who will come and see each show. And you can tell the grant givers that you served 25 different playwrights, even though each play is only 10 minutes long.”

Cox confirmed some of these complaints, claiming, “One of the ways theater has changed is in its cost. The cost to produce a show is astronomical. Yes, you can do staged readings and development, but people simply don’t want to put money into a play.”

An equally grim impression was offered by Nanin, who, while discussing the phenomenon of gentrification, by which a theater moves into an area, boosting real estate values, before being shuttered because the theater company can’t afford the increasing rents, mused, “Small theaters are disappearing because so many of them are being demolished and turned into condos!” Nanin announced that her Macha Theater, the former Kings Row Theater, has been sold for condos. Nanin mentioned that she is currently petitioning to have the theater declared a historical landmark in an attempt to prevent this from happening.

The discussion turned to how LGBT playwrights can reach an audience. Kearns took the lead here, noting that his recent production of Queerwise, just completing a successful run at the Skylight, had utilized non-professional performers telling their own stories about the AIDS crisis and legacy. This, to him, suggests that LGBT theater is expanding into different niches. “Gay theater has burst open in so many hybrids,” he noted.

He also suggested taking a good strong look at the market — advice useful for any playwright, not just one laboring in the LGBT field. “What audiences are not being served? What isn’t being done? If you feel invisible, and you hear of a show and your story is being told, you will go and see it.”

Jacobson mentioned that productions of his ferocious Walking to Buchenwald and a trilogy he is writing about a neighborhood bathhouse of his youth will be expected in the seasons ahead. He noted that it isn’t ticket cash that will save a show. “What I’d suggest is not to entirely depend on the audience (to fund the show),” he explained. “Cornerstone Theater, for example, gets great grant funding and foundation funding — their shows are chosen to plan for that.”

Added Patrick, “One of the reasons Off-Off Broadway worked was because people put on the shows in places that made their money by other means — coffeehouses, bars — they weren’t dependent on the play for their living.

Mentioned, almost as an aside, was the local omnipresent 99-seat issue, with the discussion of how Equity’s decision to demand that small theaters pay its union actors minimum wage will affect the creative scene. Jacobson suggested that the LA scene might wind up echoing Chicago’s scene, where there’s an exciting fringe theater circuit, but made up mostly of non-Equity actors. “Once you turn to Equity, you have to stop performing. The truth is, you can do theater anywhere with non-union performers.”

In the end, though, much of the concern came down to money — how to make it and how to sustain the theater that puts on LGBT plays. Cackled Patrick, “Two companies I go to regularly sell booze!” to which almost all members of the panel nodded sagely.

The Mad Russian and the Dane, Part 2: More Rudi

Featured Column / 0 comments

February 14, 2017

The Mad Russian and the Great Dane, Tales of Rudolf Nureyev and Erik Bruhn

Part 2: More Rudi

By Neal Weaver

For Part 1, read here.

Rudolph Nureyev and Margot Fonteyn in Paradise Lost

I went to the Hurok office and picked up the Nureyev photo file, as requested. The pictures did not seem all that remarkable to me, but if that was what he wanted, so be it. And meanwhile, I’d arranged to get tickets to see the ballet Paradise Lost. I loved it, but the critics hated it, dismissing it as a frivolous piece of pop culture, but I didn’t think it was that at all.

The piece began with Nureyev’s character being born. Wearing only white tights, and draped with miniature Christmas lights, he seemed to slowly become conscious, shaking off the string of lights, and discovering his body, experimenting to see what it could do. I found it a charming interlude, revealing what I called Nureyev’s goofy side.

Then Fonteyn appeared, and he was immediately attracted. They had an erotic pas de deux, overtly sexual, and indicating a seduction. Then, he broke free and began looking for new adventures. Behind them the corps de ballet was playing the erotically charged denizens of the permissive society, rolling on the floor and changing partners frequently and promiscuously. He joined their erotic games for a while, as Fonteyn watched him from afar. Then the chorus changed its identity, becoming the inexorable force of primitive morality, not about to let him get away with his irresponsible dalliance. They picked up Fonteyn and lowered her into his arms.

Commitment shy, he struggled fiercely to break free, but she grasped him round his thighs. Desperate to escape, he raced across the full vast width of the Met stage, dragging her on her knees. (How she did that without wrecking her knees is a mystery.) The piece came to a rather shocking end with Nureyev leaping into the red mouth of a pair of lip-sticked lips on the wall of the set—finally consumed by the heedless hedonism of a voluptuous society. And Fonteyn was left alone, shattered and bereft. It seemed to me a sternly moral work, but the critics were not ready for that in the Swinging Sixties, and it was soon dropped from the repertoire.

I presented myself at the Met at the appointed time — before a Sunday matinee — but no word had been left to let me in. And Rudi had not yet arrived. I sat down on a bench to wait for him, and shortly he breezed in, imperiously, indicating to the doorman that I was indeed his guest, and signaling me to follow him to his dressing-room. He was wearing an intimidatingly stylish military great-coat of grey wool: sharply tailored at the waist and upper torso, but with skirts that flared out below the waist. It was the kind of garment that, even if you put it on over even the grungiest outfit, made you appear to be a figure of high style. He was also accompanied by a handsome, cheek-bony young man, who I assumed was his current boyfriend, or boy toy, or whatever.

He immediately got down to business, not bothering to introduce the young man. He took the file of photographs from me, thumbed through them quickly and angrily, and announced that the picture he wanted us to use was not there. He then, quick as a flash, took the pile of expensive photos and ripped them in half. This was serious business. These weren’t valueless photo copies; they were original photo prints by name photographers, with a lot of expensive retouching.

I was so furious that my intimidation vanished. When other people get angry, they may yell. I just get dangerously quiet. I said, “Mr. Nureyev, I borrowed those photos at your request, and I am responsible for them!”

He reacted like a dog that has been chastised for misbehavior. He couldn’t look at me, and retreated to his clothes closet, his tail between his legs. He knelt down and began furiously but pointlessly sorting through the shoes. In muffled tones, he said, “It’s all right. I will return the photos to Mr. Frankenstein myself.” The man in question was, I think, named Frankenheimer. Then Rudi gave me a copy of the souvenir program, with the photo he liked so much. I didn’t like it at all. But clearly he wanted to be presented as a serious artist, not as a pretty boy or a sex-symbol.

The photo that Nureyev wanted to use. . .

He said he would personally get me the photo in question, and call me when he got it. And I departed, with mixed feelings. I’d managed not to be too intimidated by him, but the photo he wanted me to use was far less appealing than the Zoe Dominick picture, and I was sure it wouldn’t sell nearly as well. On an impulse, I went straight to the office, which was deserted on a Sunday, and sat down at the typewriter, determined to make one last effort to persuade him to let us use the Dominick picture.

The photo by Zoe Dominick

The letter I wrote him was spontaneous but carefully crafted. He was a man of enormous perceptions, alert to every nuance and subtlety, which made dealing with him rather Byzantine. And I wrote a letter to out-Byzantine him. I told him I could understand his fondness for the photo, and acknowledging that it did have a certain Beethoven-esque gravitas, but suggesting that it also made him look slightly simian. It was a long letter, full of compliments disguised as insults and veiled insults disguised as compliments. I signed it and dropped it in the mailbox before I could lose my nerve. And I was frankly fearful. If I made him really angry it would put the kibosh on the whole project. I knew he did not like people who gushed and fawned on him, and I thought he respected me for fighting back. But who knew?

At work on Monday, I discussed the situation with Lydia Joel, the editor of Dance Magazine. And she said, “He’s playing with you. Playing hard to get, and making you chase after him and do his bidding. He’s flirting with you!” I was skeptical. Why would a gorgeous man and an international star flirt with the likes of me? But now I think she was right. He was flirting. Maybe he flirted with everybody. Lydia also interpreted his calling the man at the Hurok office Frankenstein as evidence of his well-known (she said) anti-Semitism. I rather thought it was just evidence of his dislike for the Hurok office and everybody in it.

Meanwhile, I waited with trepidation for his response. And it came soon enough. When I returned to the office from lunch the next day, my young assistant Michael told me rather breathlessly that Nureyev’s manager had called and said to tell me that he had acquired the photograph I (he) wanted, and I could pick it up at the Met at my convenience. Michael was clearly spinning some fantasies about me and Mr. Nureyev. “Golly,” he said, “maybe he’ll grab you up and take you away with him.” I assured him that was highly unlikely, and besides I didn’t want to be grabbed up by anybody. But I was nurturing a few fantasies myself, of a sexual fling with the God of the Dance. It never happened, of course, and judging from what I’ve heard from those who did go to bed with him, it probably wouldn’t have been much fun. His casual sex encounters were apparently pretty impersonal and “Slam-bam, Thank you ma’am.” I’m sure it was different with someone like Erik, whom he really cared about.

In any event, I presented myself at the Met before the Sunday matinee, and was received by an entirely different Rudi. He was in a sunny mood, friendly and casual. He was wearing what I later learned was his usual warm-up out-fit: a russet-colored unitard with a tank top, probably made to order, and worn over a mustard colored tee-shirt. Always in fashion was he. He took me on a guided tour of the vast Met stage, stopping to flirt with the girls from the corps who were warming up in a dark corner. We chatted amiably about nothing in particular, and I took the opportunity to tell him how much I liked his autobiography. I’d made a point of never complimenting him on his dancing because I knew he hated gush. He murmured something about “the follies of youth” but he seemed pleased. But finally it was time to get down to business and he led me back to his dressing room.

“Now,” he said, “What about the money?”

My heart sank. The ever stingy Jean Gordon had told me I could only offer him a ridiculous amount: twenty dollars. I hurriedly explained that I knew it was a pitiful figure to offer someone of his talent and magnitude, but I’d only been authorized to pay him twenty dollars.

“Twenty dollars?” he said, incredulously. It was a good thing we were standing at the time, because at that moment I realized that I was considerably taller than he, and that tiny advantage was enough to get me through the moment. He began to play out a farce version of the events, in which I was cast as the big bad businessman out to fleece the poor, helpless little dancer. He wasn’t really angry, and he was having fun. I think he enjoyed the audacity of my offering twenty dollars to a man who commanded ten thousand or more for a single performance.

Then he relented and gave me the photo. The one I hated, but it was the best I could do.

I took the photo, and extended my hand. He looked at it as if it were a dead fish he was being offered, but then he broke into a broad grin and shook my hand. I felt that in some strange way I had been accepted.

I left in a glorious mood, feeling I’d come out of it all as well as possible, even if I didn’t like the picture. I had the curious feeling that I’d made a friend. And this was not to be my last encounter with Rudi.

Next week in Part 3, an interview by the author with Rudolf Nureyev.

This is the fourth in a series of memoirs by Neal Weaver. Here’s the third, the second and the first.

sr_logo1-300x300

L.A. Theater’s Witch Hunters

Featured Column, Paul Birchall's Got It Covered / 2 comments

February 7, 2017

[ssba]

L.A. Theater’s Witch Hunters

By Paul Birchall

Photo credit: Flickr user Robert Mongomery, cc license by 2.0

UPDATE: February 8, 2017. A source close to Actors’ Equity Association (AEA) confirmed that a “Cease and Desist” letter had been sent by the Union to “Equityworksla,” and added that “Equity had absolutely no involvement in this communication to Playwrights Arena.”

There has been one disturbing incident of a new bullying tactic by an anonymous party towards the entities that put on intimate shows in our community. It is directly related to the murky waters covering the reciprocal agreements among unions in the entertainment field. A complaint currently being adjudicated by the National Labor Relations Board is the right of one union (Actors’ Equity Association, or AEA) to place, summarily, members of other “reciprocal” unions, such as the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Radio and Television Artists (SAF-AFTRA) on AEA’s “do not work” list.

Though AEA has been claiming that reciprocity is part of its agreements, AEA’s sister unions (including SAG-AFTRA) have been conspicuously quiet on this matter for almost two years, while private conversations with union reps suggest that they have no incentive or desire to enforce reciprocity.

Jon Lawrence Rivera of Playwrights Arena, received an oddly menacing letter, following the posting of ads for his company’s next round of auditions at the breakdown website Actors Access for his company’s next drama Hotel Play. The show, commissioned by both Playwright’s Arena and Center Theatre Group, is going to be an immersive production, by several playwrights, set within several rooms at the Radisson Midtown Hotel near USC.

A few days after the ad was posted, Rivera’s casting director Raul Clayton Staggs and Rivera received a letter from a mysterious address Equityworksla@yahoo.com, which, at the bottom of the letter and in small font, stated, “We are in no way authorized to represent AEA and this notification has not been approved or authorized by AEA. We are concerned, professional members of the L.A. Theatre community and we are in support of their efforts.”

However, the note then proceeded to list a series of seemingly regulatory rules: “Please be advised that a series of complaints have been filed with AEA and SAG-AFTRA against your theatre company (Playwrights Arena), your production of The Hotel Play and your casting director (Raul Clayton Staggs) because of the casting notice that appeared this week on Actors’ Access: While you have the right to produce a non-Union production, it is not OK for you to engage members of any of the other 4As (such as SAG-AFTRA) or other unions/guilds that have agreed to reciprocal arrangements with AEA and the other 4As.

“You are being be advised of the following:

Under the reciprocal arrangements, members of SAG-AFTRA, SDC, WGA, DGA, etc. may not accept any kind of work (paid or unpaid) in any theatrical production that is not working under an officially approved contract, code, or agreement sanctioned by AEA.

Under federal and state laws, your company may not refuse to hire union members. This means you are either completely a union shop or you’re not.

Now that a complaint has been filed with AEA by current members, AEA will have the right to add Playwrights’ Arena and its affiliated producers and casting directors to the Do Not Work List.

“Your production is now on our radar and we will be keeping a careful watch. If we see any members of SAG-AFTRA, SDC, WGA, DGA, etc. accepting roles or work of any kind with this production without the actors receiving the benefit of a sanctioned agreement with AEA, we will file official complaints with their unions/guilds against those members. As many of us are members of those unions/guilds we can and will insist on disciplinary action to be taken against anyone who violates these rules.”

According to Rivera, this note came a few days after he received a phone call from an actual representative at AEA, who had called to see if the production would be signing on with AEA’s new Agreement. Rivera says he responded that he had no choice but to take the show non-union, since “the cost of 16 actors surpasses our budget.” Two days later, the note from “EquityworksLA” arrived.

The letter acknowledges that Playwrights’ Arena might have the right to not utilize AEA actors, but should also not employ actors from any of the other unions. (The number of AEA actors in the region is under 8,000, while an estimated count of SAG-AFTRA actors in the area is around 160,000. While there is in theory a reciprocity among all unions who have agreed to reciprocity, it is extremely unlikely that any SAG-AFTRA member would be expected to stay away from a non-union stage production, since they aren’t members of AEA. That’s the very question that the NLRB is now considering, i.e. whether such an AEA “policy” constitutes an unfair labor practice, essentially sidelining tens of thousands of local actors from performing on any stage that isn’t sanctioned by an AEA contract.

What, then, is the purpose of the letter? A request for more information was sent to the EquityworksLA address, but no response has been received. One theory is that “EquityworksLA” represents some individuals who are very close to AEA leadership, but may not be officers or officials within it, a group of self-appointed vigilantes following info on shows, on behalf of AEA.

When informed of the letter, Pro-99 Plaintiff Gary Grossman said “(The letter) is not from Equity and carries no teeth. There is no penalty or sanction that they can throw at you. Equity can say that SAG-AFTRA cannot participate in non-AEA shows, but that means nothing until SAG-AFTRA says that, and they haven’t.”

However, I do find the anonymous nature — dovetailing, as it does, with the more formal call from Equity — to be disturbing, trafficking as it does in nebulously legal “information.”

Our advice is to ignore such notices unless they are clearly from, and authorized by, any of the unions.

The Mad Russian and the Dane, Part 1: Rudi

Featured Column / 0 comments

January 24, 2017

The Russian and the Great Dane, Part 1 – Rudi

By Neal Weaver

Rudolf Nureyev and Erik Bruhn

During the years that I worked at The Actors Studio, I also had a money job, as a salesclerk at the Marboro Bookstore on 42^nd Street (sold to Barnes and Noble in 1979 after 30 years in business). That also produced some interesting adventures, but not of the theatrical variety. I had been working at Marboro for a couple of years, and was feeling decidedly in a rut. I decided the time had come to quit, though I had no other immediate job possibilities. Finding another job proved harder than I expected, but eventually I spotted a want ad concerning a job in the circulation department at Dance Magazine.

I had a meeting with a go-getter guy Dick Toman, who was the circulation manager, and went to work for Dance Magazine and its sister publication Ballroom Dance Magazine, which was essentially a sort of house organ for ballroom dance teachers at the Fred Astaire and other studios. It was a painstaking job, but not a difficult one, and I enjoyed it. Though I had no notion then of the opportunities it would present, to meet and interview Russian dancer Rudolf Nureyev, then probably the biggest star in the world, Danish premier danseur Erik Bruhn, who was his lover, and a host of other stars and celebrities.

I guess I must have done the job well, because Dick soon left for a better-paying job, and I assumed his role, though I didn’t get his salary or title. Jean Gordon, the publisher of the two magazines, was notoriously tight-fisted when it came to salaries or credit.

In addition to putting out the two magazines, we also sold dance-oriented merchandise, and I was responsible for overseeing this. We published a Dance Magazine Calendar, with photos of dance stars on every page, books on dance technique, and some rather tacky dance-oriented Christmas cards. And there was a photo set featuring photos of famous dancers. I was eventually able to get some better designs for the Christmas cards, and I decided we should do a Rudolf Nureyev photo set. I had great fun tracking down the most interesting photos of Nureyev, and getting clearances to use them. And they sold quite well. But I heard rumors that Nureyev was furious because he thought (wrongly) we were minting money at this expense. He had on more than one occasion ripped up photos from our set when they were presented to him for autographing.

I then conceived a notion that we should do some personality posters—after all it was the 1960s, and posters were very big. We did posters of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, Erik Bruhn, Pavlova, and of course, the big cheese, Nureyev. It was decided that though we hadn’t sought his permission to do the photo set, we would have to get it before issuing the poster.

I was frankly slightly terrified of having to deal directly with a super-star like Nureyev, so I procrastinated. Then, one morning I came to work decidedly determined. I called the Sol Hurok office hoping to get information as to how to reach him. Surprisingly they gave me his private phone number without any questions. He was staying at an apartment hotel called The Navarro on Central Park South. It was still early morning, but I thought it would be safe to call him because I thought there’d be some underling taking his calls. Instead, it was Nureyev himself who answered, sounding extremely groggy. Apparently I’d woken him up. Not a good beginning. Flustered, I explained about the personality poster, and conscious of his reported anger over the photo sets, I was quick to explain that we could not pay much by way of compensation for the use of his image. Unfortunately, this was lost on him, both due to his sleepiness and his precise but rather limited knowledge of English. He didn’t say no, but he clearly wanted to get off the phone and go back to sleep. He said, “Find me at the Met sometime.” He was dancing with Margot Fonteyn and the Royal Ballet for a New York season at the Metropolitan Opera House.

I knew the backstage at the Met had rather tight security, and didn’t know how I’d get in, much less find Rudi. I screwed my courage to the sticking point, and called him again. This time the call was answered by a very nice but unidentified man. (It was only later that I realized that he was the legendary dancer Erik Bruhn, who was Rudi’s lover at the time.) I explained my dilemma, and he understood at once. He gave me the telephone number of the Royal Ballet’s stage manager. She proved both nice and helpful, telling me that on a certain day, Nureyev would have a dress rehearsal for the Roland Petit pop ballet Paradise Lost, and I could talk to him afterward. She said I should be there around four p.m., and she would tell the stage doorman to admit me.

Nureyev and Fonteyn in the 1967 production of PARADISE LOST

Full of trepidation, I arrived early, and was directed to a bench in the corridor which led from Rudi’s star dressing room to the stage. I sat there for a very long time, getting more and more nervous, but finally Rudi emerged from the stage, looking sweaty, exhausted, and rather ape-like in his exhaustion. I grabbed his attention as he walked by me, and hurriedly explained who I was and what I wanted. I had brought along a the despised photo set, because I’d hoped to use a wonderful photo by British photographer Zoe Dominick, of Rudi in practice clothes—wool-knit tights and a tee-shirt—and wearing a nice smile. I was convinced that photo would sell like hot cakes. But he didn’t agree. He took the photo and ripped it in half. Then he said he had to shower and change, and I should wait for him. And he padded off to his dressing room, at one end of the hall, where it intersected with another corridor going past the dressing-rooms.

Once again I was left alone in the corridor, but then I sensed movement and looked up, just in time to see Margot Fonteyn enter his dressing room. She was there for quite a while, and when she emerged, she was clearly fresh out of the shower. She was naked, but holding a towel to her front, and carrying an African violet which Rudi had apparently given her. She looked both ways, but did not think to look straight ahead to where I was. She gracefully raced to her dressing room next door, her bare back-side shining.

There was at that time much debate among the more gossipy balletomanes, as to whether Rudi and Margot were sleeping together. I can’t begin to settle that question, but it was clear to me that, whether or not they slept together, they certainly showered together.

Finally Rudi emerged from his dressing-room, now stylishly clad. He explained that he didn’t like any of the photos I’d showed him, so I should go to the Hurok Office and get his personal picture file. And when I had it, I should come back and we would talk further.

This was shaping up to be a fascinating but rather protracted adventure.

This is the third in a series of memoirs by Neal Weaver. Here’s the second and the first.

sr_logo1-300x300

Hope and Despair at Year’s End

Featured Column, Paul Birchall's Got It Covered / 0 comments

December 31, 2016

[ssba]

Paul Birchall’s Got It Covered:

The year of despair; WSJ covers local theater’s battle with AEA; Theatre Asylum reboots; upcoming memorial for Gordon Davidson open to the public

2016: The Year of Despair

despair-election-554x350

Well, AEA-members who labor in the trenches of Los Angeles intimate theater must now come to grips with the new reality of opportunities for work being constricted by their own union’s new Agreement, which replaces the 99-Seat Theater Plan. It is no wonder that many of these folks are now either deeply depressed or furious: With the court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ case against Actors’ Equity Association, the only remaining attempt to preserve the city’s fecund 99-seat theater scene lies in the promise of an appeal, which Plaintiff Gary Grossman has said “remains on the table.”
California went Democratic hugely in the last election – but we are still forced to live under the assumed authoritarian control of a nation dictated by Donald Trump and his minions, who will offer this State no love in the years ahead. Meanwhile, this decision as to which actors will be allowed to perform on small LA stages was unilaterally made in New York, over the loud and pronounced opposition of the actual practitioners on the local scene. Thus, in both a large and small scale, we are finding ourselves in a uniquely powerless situation, at least politically, out here in the Big Orange. Our frustration and fury is palpable county-wide.

Wall Street Journal Reports Again on the L.A. Theater Scene

LONDON - APRIL 16: A copy of the U.S. Edition of The Wall Street Journal on a copy of The Guardian, bith of which have been purchased at the same London newsagent on April 16, 2008 in London, England. It is the first day of the U.S Edition of the newspaper being on sale in U.K. (Photo by Cate Gillon/Getty Images)

An article about AEA’s new Agreement in L.A. came out in the Wall Street Journal earlier this Tuesday, peppered with quotes from both defenders of the 99-Seat Plan — such as Veronica Brady (“You can go play Hamlet and have a day job working in television or doing voiceover”) and John Lacey (“You’re probably going to see a lot more one-person shows.”) — as well as AEA’s Executive Director Mary McColl, who defends the union’s actions, noting, amongst other things, that “At the end of the day, this is work… It’s not an unpaid internship.”

It’s probably best not to linger over the gaping hole in Ms. McColl’s argument – that if there are fewer productions and fewer roles for union actors, there will be less money and artistic validation for them – but the particularly intriguing aspect of the article are the comments, some of which are really quite disturbing to read and proof that opinions are indeed like sphincters: Everyone has at least one.

The Wall Street Journal is, of course, a periodical that leans right, but there is still some distress to be gleaned by the East Coast Shadenfreude of conservatives ridiculing liberals like Ed Asner for bucking their Union and elements such as the minimum wage. We have not heard much of this particular irony yet. And going over the comments is a little like when you have an ache on the roof of your mouth and you rub your tongue over it again and again just to make sure the pain is still there.

But at least some of the vitriol in the comments section, lauding the karmic revenge against Asner, Ed Harris and other “left-wing progressives who support minimum wage agendas” was answered succinctly by William Salyers:

“There’s an amazing amount of ignorance in many of these comments. There is no Big Money in these theaters. There are no ‘deep pockets’ hoarding cash. There are small venues doing mostly new and experimental work while desperately trying to keep afloat. There is nothing inconsistent about ‘commie’ Asner trying to help these organizations survive while arguing that actual laborers deserve minimum wage.”

Added Robert Camm with back-handed praise: “Even Ed Asner seems to understand the problem.”

But the attempts of Pro99 to differentiate between the support of unions and their fury at AEA got muddied in a comment by William Hobbs:

“Earlier this year, union members voted on eliminating the 99-seat-theater waiver, and roughly two thirds of about 3,000 votes opposed the union’s plan. The vote was advisory, and the union leaders chose to move forward with the change anyway. . . When you join a union, you have to keep in mind that your interests are secondary to the interests of the union bosses. Tough luck folks.”

And James Babin’s “curse on both your houses” comment offered a rare example of thoughtful moderation:

“This is an unfortunate example of the people most affected by a situation – the members – being adversely affected by uncompromising positions of leaders on both sides. One is the Review Committee who did not modernize the original agreement. Then Actors’ Equity Association dismissed members’ suggestions of a Tier System to allow companies more time to develop and better foster long-term job growth. Leadership disenfranchised their membership by promulgating a proposal rejected by a 2-1 margin. People like Mr. Asner and Mr. Harris were most likely responding to those types of concerns. Lastly, this contract offers no health insurance.

“Los Angeles intimate theatre is a thriving incubator with a track record of critically acclaimed productions. Many have gone on to other venues, creating jobs along the way. It needs to be treated with the same care as any other small business community.”

Quinn Reboots The Asylum

Matthew Quinn with Paul Birchall

We can stand a little bit of pleasant news, and I was happy to hear that Matthew Quinn, former Artistic Director of the Asylum Theatre, is back and rebooting his former company, which will be re-launched as a production entity with Bertha Rodriguez’s “Combined Artform” shingle.

The two companies, melded together into Theatre Asylum/Combined Artform, will be headquartered a mere few doors down from the former Asylum Theater complex on Santa Monica Boulevard’s Theatre Row.

In their press release, the company notes, “Theater Asylum/Combined Artform is a venue management and live performance production company, specializing in working with artists and venues in live performances and festivals. We offer rental spaces and offer PR and production support. As producers, we develop our own works as well as co-produce and present top talent from the Hollywood Fringe Festival.”

I suspect that the new company, headquartered at 6448 Santa Monica Boulevard and contactable via its website at https://theaterasylum.com, will have its most active days during and after the Hollywood Fringe Festival, which Quinn helps produce. Quinn’s also known for providing venues for extensions of the more successful and innovative Fringe shows, will likely utilize the space and production skills for such a purpose again.

Quinn appears to position the new iteration of Asylum, which, as part of casting entity Studio C, will be part of an entertainment synergy that includes stage, screen, casting, and producing. If it just allows Quinn to continue the good work he has done with the Fringe, that is good enough for me.

“Having over 10 years of fringe experience combined in San Francisco and Los Angeles, I hope with Asylum Consulting to help new producers with their productions in the Hollywood Fringe and beyond,” optimistically noted Quinn in an e-mail to Stage Raw. “Having our office and solo venue on Theatre Row gives Theater Asylum a presence without a large theater complex to run. We no longer have to find shows to fill our space – but instead find the right space for the shows we want to produce!”

Davidson Memorial Set for January 9

gordon-davidson-1600x500

A special memorial celebration honoring the late Center Theatre Group director and founding producer Gordon Davidson will be held at the Ahmanson Theatre downtown on Monday, January 9, right after we have managed to put dreadful 2016 to bed for once and for all. Davidson, known for his decades of leadership in the Los Angeles theater scene, ran the Ahmanson and Mark Taper for decades, passed away in October. He was a huge figure locally and nationally, as we reported at the time.

From our October article, I recalled a few of his career highlights, noting, “ the majority of Angelinos will remember him for his years of glittering prizes, in particular the early ‘90s, when, as Taper Artistic Director, he helped develop and oversaw early productions of Angels in America, Anna Devere Smith’s Twilight, and Robert Schenkkan’s The Kentucky Cycle.”

The memorial is open to the public, but an RSVP is required and may be made here. Center Theatre Group publicist Jason Martin noted, “I don’t have a list of participants but it will include the actors, playwrights, directors and staff who worked with Gordon over the years remembering him and the shows they created with him. The emphasis will be on the passion, love and laughter that Gordon invested in the theater and all of the shows.”

Judy Garland: Live at the Actors Studio

Featured Column / 3 comments

December 27, 2016

Judy Garland: Live at the Actors Studio

By Neal Weaver

Judy Garland in MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS (1944)

I believe it was 1963. I had signed on at The Actors Studio in New York as the stage manager for the Playwright’s Unit, and later was accepted for membership in the Unit. In December, the Studio was abuzz with talk about the upcoming benefit for the Studio. It was to be held at the Studio and I think it was scheduled for New Year’s Eve. It was rumored that the entertainment would have a roster of big stars, including Judy Garland.

I was helping set up the auditorium for the party and wishing I could afford the $100 admission price for the benefit, when actor Fred Stewart appeared and asked me if I’d be interested in volunteering to run the hat-check concession. It was Fred’s way of recruiting unpaid workers to get the chores done, and at the same time give us underlings the chance to attend the party we couldn’t otherwise afford. So of course, I said yes.

The Studio was housed in an old church, and the sanctuary had become the auditorium and classroom, and was the site of the party. It had a low balcony which housed the light booth, and had wooden benches on three sides. This was to serve as the cloakroom, not open to the guests.

The stage-manager of the Acting and Directing Units was working the door, keeping the riffraff out, and I was at a table beside him checking hats, and placing them on the benches upstairs. It was a very starry crowd, though I don’t recall many names. I remember thinking that I must be almost the only person there who wasn’t a star or a VIP. I know Keir Dullea was there, and Jan Sterling, and Salvador Dali squiring a beautiful, sullen young Latino stud who was clearly playing hard to get.

When the entertainment finally got under way, the rumors proved true. The headliner was Judy Garland, alongside other talent including Shelley Winters, Josephine Premice and Carol Channing. Joan Sutherland had been supposed to appear and sing “Yes, We Have No Bananas,” but Rudolph Bing of the Metropolitan Opera felt that was inappropriate behavior for his star diva, and vetoed it. Judy had just gone through a messy divorce from Sid Luft: She was convinced he was trying to kidnap her children, so she had brought the kids along; in an odd bit of casting, Ava Gardner was there to serve as duenna and guard the youngsters. She looked absolutely ravishing in a white, slipper-satin, floor-length, strapless sheath that fit her like a glove.

Judy, however, looked like the wrath of God. She was gaunt, her legs like toothpicks in a black satin pants-suit. She was obviously not in great shape, either physically or emotionally. She had a pot belly, a double-chin, and a defensive manner, as if she expected someone to pop up and accuse her of being a bad mother, or a hopeless neurotic. Looking at her, I thought she could never again make herself presentable for a public performance, but of course she did, later. She always had the ability to pull herself together one more time, even if it required herculean cosmetic assistance. And so it was when she began to sing. She introduced Ava and the kids, and I think she did a musical number with her children. Then she sat down on a wooden kitchen stool, and the crowd of glittery stars sat down on the floor in a circle around her. I remember seeing Jan Sterling, in a white bouffant formal gown, plunking herself down on the Studio floor.

Jan Sterling, circa 1951

I had managed to escape my hat-checking duties during the show, and placed myself in the balcony directly above Judy. I was almost close enough to reach out and touch her — my seat was the best in the house. And when she began to sing, the voice and all the old magic were there. Her rickety appearance was forgotten, and the crowd adored her. (Nobody loves celebrities more than other celebrities.)

She invited requests for songs, and ran through much of her repertoire. When someone requested “Over the Rainbow,” the crowd cried, “No, no!”, thinking she must be tired of it. But that wasn’t the case. It was her star turn and she was determined to sing it. So after a couple of other songs, she cajoled the crowd into asking for it again, and she sang it. Gloriously, of course.

After her performance, there was a grand finale, with Garland, Premice, Winters, and Carol Channing singing “Hello, Dolly!” It was somehow not surprising that the one who forgot the lyrics was Channing, who’d arrived late after a performance.

Ava Gardner

Midway in the finale, Ava Gardner, seated with the Garland children in an improvised VIP pen at right stage, decided she’d had enough. She was more than a little drunk, and since that was the only way to get out, she mamboed her way through the other performers and headed for the front door.

I had come downstairs to watch the finale from the foyer, and as Ava sashayed by me I followed her to the front door, where there seemed to be an altercation taking place.

A personable young man, probably from New Jersey or one the outer boroughs, had parked his car in the street before attending a party of his own in the neighborhood. Now he wanted to go home, but one of our guests had double-parked, blocking him in. He didn’t know anything about the Actors Studio and he was furious. There were a few moments of argument, and then he recognized the gorgeous creature now standing beside him. “Aren’t you Ava Gardner?” he asked, incredulous. She gave him a dazzling smile and replied, “Um-hum.”

“Gosh, I think you’re wonderful!” he said.

“I think you’re pretty wonderful too, Honey,” she said, pushing him backward in a deep dip, and giving him a long and passionate kiss.

Afterward, he just stood there, wearing a dazed smile, as she boogied her way down the steps and into the night.

By this time guests had started to leave. But I still had chores to do. The Studio had made some sort of deal with the PR people for Arpege perfumes. They had sent over a stack of LP records called “Promise Her Anything,” as sung by a Latin crooner whose name I can’t recall. Attached to each album was a tiny, ribboned bottle of Arpege, with a card that read, “Promise Her Anything…But Give Her Arpege!” It was my job to hand these out to the departing guests. They invariably asked me if I was the singer on the album; I assured them I was not.

Kier Dullea, circa 1963

I noticed a very drunk young man wobbling toward me. It was Keir Dullea.

“Can I have one of those?” he asked.

I replied, “Yes, if you don’t ask me if I’m the Latin crooner?”

He said okay, and I gave him a record. Then he giggled and said, “Are you the Latin crooner?” I wanted to smack him. And I remembered Noel Coward’s famous crack, “Keir today, gone tomorrow.”

When we finally finished the after-party clean-up, I filled my pockets with leftover balloons, took a copy of “Promise Her Anything,” and wended my way downtown to my apartment on East Sixth Street. But I was too over-stimulated to sleep, and not ready to pack it in.

Neal Weaver in 1963 (Alex Bender photo)

I decided to make a side-trip, despite the late hour, and visit a charming young man who lived a few doors down. It turned out he was still up, and he invited me in. Without much ado, we tumbled into bed, providing a satisfactory denouement to a spectacular evening.

(And I gave him my copy of the record.)

This is the second in a series of memoirs by Neal Weaver. Here’s the first.

sr_logo1-300x300

Court Dismisses “Ed Asner” Lawsuit

Featured Column, Paul Birchall's Got It Covered / 2 comments

December 8, 2016

[ssba]

Paul Birchall’s Got It Covered:

Ed Asner, et al Vs. Actors’ Equity Association, et al dismissed without prejudice.

By Paul Birchall

cacd

In news that just broke on Thursday, December 8, U.S. District Court Judge Hatter has dismissed, without prejudice, the complaint brought against Equity by the Pro 99 Plaintiffs. Each of the four complaints filed against Equity by the Pro99 plaintiffs – that Equity breached the Agreement, breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breached the duty of fair representation, and violated the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act’s equal rights guarantee – have now been dismissed. The decision, posted earlier today by Footlights, may be found here.

As far as the complaint on the breach of contract claim is concerned, Hatter suggests that the Plaintiff’s “do not sufficiently allege” that Equity’s actions are not inconsistent with the original agreement with the 99-seat Producers.

He notes that the obligation for Equity to consider changes to their proposal was met by their holding the referendum (which was ignored) and by meeting with the 99-Seat Review Committee on February 18, 20, and 21 of 2015.

In the discussion of breach of implied covenant, Hatter believes that “no express provision of the Agreement has been breached.” “The court finds (no facts) that demonstrate the alleged actions, such as Equity’s alleged lack of neutrality through the proposal process, constitute a frustration of Asner’s expectations under the express covenants of the Agreement.”

As far as dismissing the third complaint, that of the breach of the duty of fair representation, Hatter notes, “The majority of Equity’s alleged actions, such as not remaining neutral and refusing to meet with the Review Committee… can be characterized as not cooperative, deceitful, or dishonest. To the extent that certain alleged statements… may be probative of deceit or dishonesty (and this Order does not decide whether the statements are)… these facts cannot satisfy the requirement that the Complaint allege “substantial evidence of bad faith.”

In the matter of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act claim, Hatter notes that the 2015 referendum, which suggested overwhelming local member approval for the maintaining of the 99-seat scene, was “merely advisory, as opposed to binding on the ultimate decision maker.” “Thus, whether there were irregularities in the voting has no bearing on the validity of the Council’s decision to abolish the 99-Seat Theater Plan and does not give rise to a cognizable claim.”

This is, obviously, quite bad news for the local theater scene and we will need to take some time to absorb just what all this means and how we will react to it. Already, we are seeing several Facebook posts from Equity actors who are vowing to go rogue and act secretly (and, yes, illegally) on 99 seat stages. Others are seriously discussing the notion of going FiCore, a topic discussed at length in journalist Myron Meisel’s excellent earlier Stage Raw article.

We do note that the complaints were dismissed “without prejudice,” which generally means it can be re-filed, but whether the Plaintiffs have the energy or the funding to continue this battle may be worth considering.

Letter to the Court, and the (Re) Emergence of Better Lemons

Featured Column, Paul Birchall's Got It Covered / 5 comments

December 8, 2016

[ssba]

Paul Birchall’s Got It Covered

Letter to the Judge, from Armina LaManna; Bitter Lemons Reincarnates Itself as Better Lemons

From the Desk of Armina

cacd

As December dwindles, we all wait anxiously to see which comes first: the decision on whether any of three filings will be heard by their respective authorities, the U.S. District Court for the California Central District, and the National Labor Relations Board. Those filings are Ed Asner, et al Vs Actors’ Equity , et al; and two NLRB Filings: one on AEA’s handling of the now infamous April, 2015 non-binding referendum in which AEA’s proposed plan was rejected by 2/3 of local members, yet was pushed through regardless by the union’s National Council; and the other on whether or not Financial Core in one union has any bearing on a member’s participation in a sister union. (AEA’s Executive Director Mary McColl has asserted that sister unions have reciprocity, in matters of Financial Core.) Meanwhile, the new AEA Agreement scheduled to take effect December 14 threatens to permanently alter the small theater landscape in Los Angeles, one of the country’s largest theater communities.

On November 7, Judge Terry Hatter (who is presiding over the AEA case) received a letter dated October 31 from none other than performer/99-seat scene dissident Armina LaManna, and others.

In an annoyed response, the court not only rejected the letter for being both meddling and inappropriate, it ordered counsel to instruct all parties that the letter had not been entered into the case file.

In the letter, LaManna writes, “Make no mistake, this case is about the producers’ (plaintiffs’) unwavering goal to never pay their employees — artists like me.”

She continues, “The list of the plaintiffs in this case comprises (sic) producers and employers who have for decades benefited not just from unfair and ethical business practices, but who have also shirked all responsibilities… by paying themselves, but not paying any wages to their employees — actors, stage managers, and in many cases, directors, designers, and stage hands.”

Later she writes, “Some producers have even convinced certain city councilmembers into advocating actors’ endless illegal labor as engines for attracting patronage to local businesses in their district.” She then asks the judge to, “please stand up for me and the many other artists who have been taken advantage of for decades in this town by the same group of slum-producers.”

LaManna appears to think that Los Angeles is a town full of fat cat producers of 99 Seat Shows making their money from those $15 buck tickets. Apart from that, the letter is intriguing because it concludes with a list of names, preceded by the statement, “The names below are those of union artists who join me in my plea to you because they too have been victims of these plaintiffs’ actions over the last five decades.” The list includes Tom Buderwitz, Kyle Nudo, John Ross Clark, Perry Lambert, Perry Ojeda, Melissa Bailey, Robert DuSold, Matthew Cargegis, Jeffrey Landman, Bryan Landrine, Barry Pearl and Ann Colby Stocking.

The ruling shows up on the case docket as follows:

NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: Re Letter sent to Judge received on 2016, Local Rule 83-205 no letters to the judge. The person is not listed on the docket as a party. The document is NOT to be filed, but instead REJECTED, and is ORDERED returned to counsel. Counsel shall immediately notify in writing, all parties previously served with the attached documents that the said documents have not been filed with the court by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. (shb) (Entered: 11/28/2016)

A Better Bitter, or a Bitter Better?

logo_better_lemons_

In other news, we were curious when we received a press release last week from Enci Box, announcing the reboot of the defunct Bitter Lemons site. Bitter Lemons, as you will remember, shut down this summer as a result of a series of unfortunate posts by then-editor Colin Mitchell and several other affiliated writers. (Mitchell suggested that actors who were abused at a theater, and knowing that theater’s history for abuse, must share some responsibility for their own abuse.) The resurrected site will now be known as Better Lemons and, according to Box, will return to its roots as a site for aggregating reviews from various sources and running what seems to be promotional content for producers who submit content to the site. Box is listed as the publisher, with the editor-in-chief chores handled by Ashley Steed, a capable individual knowledgeable about our theater scene and who has been variously active with the Stage Raw website, the LA Theater Network Facebook page, and other organizations.

A few weeks earlier, Box had sent an e-mail to local critics suggesting that they register with Better Lemons. A visit to their newly launched site shows a new layout for the compilation of reviews of shows that have recently opened.

I am hopeful that Better Lemons will be a good thing for the local community, instead of adding to the bad feelings that typified its previous incarnation. We’re confident that Steed is a straight-shooter and that her agenda is the betterment of local theater rather than the aggrandizement of herself.

One technical issue: I can’t help but notice that critics are listed on the site as if they are native to it, which strikes me as presumptuous. In any case, we’re interested and excited by what Better Lemons will add to the local debate on matters of interest to the community. More voices are needed, and Stage Raw welcomes them.

Getting Inside The Actors Studio

Featured Column / 1 comment

November 1, 2016

Getting Inside the Actors Studio

By Neal Weaver

The Kazans, and their four children

In the course of my 60-odd years in and around theaters as an actor, director, stage manager, playwright, puppeteer, critic and editor, I’ve had opportunities to know, meet, or observe many amazing people and performances, and some of the memories seem to merit setting down, if not for posterity, then for anyone who might be interested.

When I arrived in New York City, fresh out of Northwestern University and a season of non-Equity summer stock, I was the greenest of greenhorns. I’d done lots of shows, at school and elsewhere, but never in a really professional context. I was star-struck, and simultaneously contemptuous of the commercial theater which had created those stars. I was insufferably high-minded, and gave short shrift to anything I thought was less than serious theater.

Director Elia Kazan’s playwright wife, Molly

I soon learned that lacking an agent, an Equity Card, or important useful contacts made it nearly impossible to get into most auditions. But one door that was open was the auditions for membership in the famed Actors Studio. All you had to do was sign up. So I signed up. And I decided that for my 5-minute audition, I’d do a scene from Strindberg’s The Father, which I had played in a workshop production. I rounded up a scene partner and went to work on it. (My scene partner was a beautiful blond actress named Nancy Forsythe, who was as naïve as I was. She said, “I always thought the theater was people like Lawrence Olivier and Helen Hayes, but all I meet are sleazy old men!”)

We arrived at the Studio filled with trepidation, and were told to wait in the lounge/green room till we were called. Eventually the call came, and we were led upstairs to the main studio. There were three judges: director John Stix, actress and teacher Tamara Daykarhanova, formerly of the Moscow Art Theatre, and an actor named Fred Stewart. But they were barely perceptible to us in the darkened studio. Only the stage area was lit, creating an eerie and slightly ominous atmosphere. We did our turn, and left, neither pleased nor displeased with our work. I knew my chances were slim in any case.

Fred Stewart

A few days later I was surprised to receive a phone call from Fred Stewart. He said that although they didn’t think I was ready for the Studio, he’d like to meet with me and talk about my audition. I was immediately suspicious, fearing he might just be a dirty old man. But it seemed unwise to turn down his offer. We made an appointment to meet at the studio in early evening a few days later. And I began to research Fred. I discovered he had played Reverend Tooker in Elia Kazan’s production of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Reverend Parrish in The Crucible, and other respectable productions.

(Later he would play Natalie Wood’s father in Splendor in the Grass.)

When I arrived at the Studio, no one was there except Fred and me. Suspicions alerted. But far from being predatory, he was a portly, distinguished Southern gentleman with white hair and mustache, and more like a mother-hen than a predator. He went to the utility closet in the office and extracted a pair of felt slippers embroidered with pansies, and the makings of a formal tea. He put on the slippers, settled me in the library and served me with tea and cookies. It was as if he were entertaining me in his own home, and indeed, it was his real home. Then he asked me if I was studying with anyone. I told him I was looking for a teacher, and had a tentative list of prospects. He said he was not allowed to recommend acting teachers, but he’d like to add one name to my list: Michael Howard. I took that as a recommendation, and immediately started classes with Michael, and never had cause to regret it. And I felt I had acquired a friend in Fred.

We stayed in occasional touch over the next months, and when I received my draft notice, I called him to inform him of the fact that I wouldn’t be around for a while. He was most sympathetic, because during World War II, he’d been drafted on the same day that he’d been signed for his first show with Kazan, Jacobowsky and the Colonel. He told me to call him when I got out of the army and he might be able to do something for me.

Two years later, after an 18-month stint in the U.S. army in Germany, I was back in New York. I didn’t think Fred would even remember me, but he did. He said there was a job opening for a stage manager for the Playwright’s Unit at the Studio, and I should meet with Molly Kazan to talk about it. Molly was wife to the legendary Elia Kazan, and the woman who’d discovered Tennessee Williams! She was brisk but friendly, and she hired me on the spot. I was thrilled beyond measure.

In addition to a job (poorly paid), I would now have the glorious opportunity to audit all the classes, in the Playwrights’ Unit, the Actors’ Unit, and the Directors’ Unit. (And there was a certain enjoyment in the fact that while many actors I knew were paying through the nose to study with Lee Strasberg, he would be signing my pay-checks ($40 per week).

I immediately rushed to attend the acting unit to watch Strasberg in action. I was giddy at finding myself surrounded by famous faces: Shelley Winters, Mildred Dunnock, Ben Gazzara, Geraldine Page, the young, crew-cut Edward Albee, and a host of others. I took my seat to observe what was happening onstage.

A woman in a white house-coat and scuffs was doing a private moment, and she’d brought in a truckload of personal belongings for the occasion. She was prowling the stage, deep in concentration, as she prepared. Gradually it dawned on me that the woman was Viveca Lindfors. And the scene she was doing was “The Jewish Wife” from Brecht on Brecht, for which she was then in rehearsal. I had seen her in Anastasia on Broadway, in her Hollywood films, and in a wonderfully strange Swedish film called Singoalla, in which she played a beautiful 14^th Century gypsy girl in love with a doomed young nobleman. So I was impressed.

Strasberg ceremoniously took his seat in the first row and the scene began. It seemed wonderful to me, and apparently Strasberg also liked it. In the discussion afterwards, he was gentle and approving. But apparently Ms. Lindfors hadn’t lived up to her own personal standards. “Don’t patronize me, Lee,” she said, in her distinctive Swedish accent. “I’m not a child.” She seemed more and more upset. Finally she said, “You know, Lee, sometimes I think I don’t know how to work…No, that’s not true . . . I know how . . . I can teach other people . . . I just can’t DO it.” This from a woman who’d just played a marvelous scene most actresses would be justly proud of.

Viveca Lindfors

It seemed that the great and famous were just as insecure as the rest of us.

Fred Stewart remained a stalwart workhorse of the theater and of the Actors Studio in particular. He never achieved a spectacular career, but he worked often, did his job quietly and well, and won the respect of those who knew and worked with him. He was always eager to help, advise and mentor young hopefuls, and he remained a devoted worker for the Studio, as fund-raiser, manager of volunteers, and being a general behind the scenes factotum. And he died there in 1970, of a cerebral hemorrhage, while sitting in the receptionist’s chair in the office, schmoozing with a bunch of old actors and trading theatrical war stories.

Can the Clock of Doom Be Re-Set?

Featured Column, Paul Birchall's Got It Covered / 2 comments

October 21, 2016

[ssba]

Can the Clock of Doom Be Re-Set?

Plus Ann Colby Stocking’s complaint and the Ovations

By Paul Birchall, and Stage Raw Writers

labo21715

The Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle, representing drama critics throughout the L.A. area, has released an updated version of its statement concerning the stage union’s (Equity/AEA) plan to do away with the 99-Seat [Theater] Plan. The original statement was released in 2015 at the start of the conflict between AEA and the Pro99 community.

The statement came within 60 days of the deadline imposed by Equity for mandatory adoption of their new rules (December 14, 2016), whose provisions (with three exceptions) include the requirement that theater companies employing union actors pay minimum wage for rehearsals and performances. (Full disclosure: I’m an LADCC member, and a signatory of the letter.)

Although the document is mostly a reprint of the talking points from the original statement, it does offer a new introduction that reiterates the urgency of the situation and the practical threat to the artistic health of the theater community. That urgency, however, may be over-stated, as there are rumblings coming from all parties that the December 14 deadline may be extended.

“If the pending changes are allowed to take effect, the immediate impact on the community of greater Los Angeles, as well as on its actors and other theater artists, would be deleterious and probably irreversible,” notes the new introduction to the statement. “Los Angeles’ most dedicated theater actors will be deprived of their free expression and realization of their craft, under circumstances that pose no genuine threat to the interests of AEA and contrary to their overwhelmingly expressed desire to continue to do so.”

The document goes on to cite the “incalculable” cultural and economic losses, and the deleterious impacts on “all the businesses interdependent” on the hundreds of productions cancelled or diminished-in-quality, because of the new contract. “We believe the net impact on the city could be catastrophic.”

The revised statement also recommends that “. . . the current system be maintained in place until the issues in controversy are resolved. . .”

That remedy, even as a temporary measure, may well be underway. We’ve learned of conversations taking place between Equity and its members, in which all sides are considering an extension of the currently-employed Transitional Plan beyond the December 14 deadline, until the legal complications sort themselves out.

In the meantime, over 60 intimate L.A.-County theaters have signed a commitment to continue operating under the Transitional Plan, even after December 14 if need be, unless or until the Natinal Labor Relations Board (NLRB) or the court orders them to do otherwise.

The court has still not ruled on the union’s Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit Asner, et al V. Actors’ Equity Association (filed by union actors and some producers against AEA) which aims to reboot the process by which the former 99-Seat Plan got removed. That removal was allegedly in violation of a 1989 out-of-court settlement that was ostensibly intended to protect the 99-Seat Plan and to provide local union members with fair representation over control of that Plan. There’s some speculation that the court is waiting for the outcome of two NLRB filings against AEA, before deciding whether or not to accept or dismiss the lawsuit, and that could take months.

The most recently filed NLRB complaint concerns AEA’s position regarding members who opt for “Financial Core” status: a hiatus from union privileges, rules and restrictions, while they remain in the union. Going Financial core essentially removes union members from AEA jurisdiction. Financial Core, generally interpreted as an anti-union position, is permitted under federal law, and is considered a temporary option for union employees who find union policy too restrictive and/or punitive for their own interests.

AEA has insisted that because of reciprocity within AFL-CIO (the labor federation of which AEA is a part), Equity members who choose to go Financial Core are also suspending themselves from AEA’s sister union within AFL-CIO, The Screen Actors’ Guild/American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA). This could have a constricting financial impact (barring employment in union film and TV work) on actors who are members of both unions, but who seek a reprieve from the restrictions of AEA in order to appear on local stages.

So far SAG-AFTRA has offered no corroborating opinion on compelling its members to go Financial Core in their unions, should those members choose that option for AEA. And the latest NLRB filing by Pro99 argues that AEA has no authority to bar its members from employment under those sister unions, should those actors choose Financial Core in AEA.

Meanwhile, in other news, AEA has just announced plans to hold their long-deferred special membership meeting on November 7 at 11:00 AM at the Sportsman Lodge in Studio City. Equity members may RSVP to Equity at (323) 978-8080. It will be interesting to see if the Pro99 activists will be given an opportunity to make their case one last time, or if the Union will shut down any attempt to discuss the regional issues.

The Case of the Volunteer Who Is Now Demanding Back Wages

sunshine

In a somewhat related point, the case of actress Ann Colby Stocking against the Odyssey Theatre, filed earlier this year with the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), dithers along. The filing appears to be yet another attempt to shoot the 99 Seat Plan in the knee. Stocking’s only conceivable defense is that the Plan itself, for the 30 years it existed, was in violation of California labor law.

In 2013, Stocking appeared in a production of Hamlet, co-produced by Los Angeles Women’s Shakespeare Company and the Odyssey Theatre, under the AEA- sanctioned 99-Seat Plan. Stocking acknowledged in a written agreement that she signed, under the terms of the Plan, that she was working as a volunteer, though she received expense stipends, also permitted under the Plan.

Earlier this year Stocking filed a complaint against the Odyssey Theatre (curiously, not co-producer LA Women’s Shakespeare Company), with the DIR, for over $6,000 — $2,888 for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, plus an additional $2,296 in “liquidated damages,” plus a $36/day penalty from the time of the filing that the demand remained unmet, for up to 30 days.

It appeared until recently that the case had disappeared into the ether, when the Odyssey Theatre’s Ron Sossi reported that he’d received notice from the DIR that a scheduled hearing had been cancelled. In fact, according to the DIR, the case administrator retired in the middle of the case, and it took the DIR several months to find a replacement.

On Monday, October 17, at a preliminary conference, the DIR attempted to settle the case between the opposing parties. Neither wished to do so. According to Sossi, his attorney made a request to dismiss the case on the grounds that the DIR only has jurisdiction over “employers and employees” and that under both the 99-Seat Plan and the agreement signed by Stocking, she was a volunteer, not an “employee.”

Sossi says that the DIR is now taking his argument back to its legal department, and he expects it will take another month or so for the DIR to determine whether or not it even has jurisdiction. If DIR accepts the case, it will take the department six to eight months to schedule an actual hearing.

David Mack, who is serving as Stocking’s non-attorney advocate for this case, wrote that he was willing to provide comment, but 48-hours after the initial request for comment was made, Mack was still seeking clearance from the DIR and from his “team” on what he was permitted to say. We will update this column if and when that comment comes in.

Ovations Awards Date Announced

ovations

LA STAGE Alliance has announced the date for its 27^th annual Ovation Awards, the only peer-judged theater awards ceremony for So Cal theaters, large and small. The event will take place at the Ahmanson Theatre on January 17^th, 2017.