The concept of the freelance actor, for the most part, does not exist over there. A German actor, for example, usually gets a 2-year contract and is attached to a local theatre. There is usually no guarantee of roles and one receives a regular salary, whether one is actually working on a show or not. The drawbacks? More or less like ours. Directors have their favorites. Company A is substandard according to common lore; Company B is preferable because of an established artist or its location, etc. This is much like the life of those who do regional theatre in our country, with the difference being the removal from the equation of the constant search for the next job.
Theatre was invented by the Greeks, but show business was invented by Americans. Could the actor-as-civil-servant be a viable model down the road for regional theatres in our country? Aside from a very few like the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, theatre companies - i.e. companies of artists who work together over a period of years - are a thing of the past. Mike Daisey, the monologist, in his very funny, HOW THEATRE FAILED AMERICA, talks about the current system of creating theatrical works as being in the main a chemistry experiment - add actors and a director for a few weeks and see what happens. We know what happens - hit or miss.
Does not a country like ours deserve better? The echo I already hear reverberating is "The Economy-onomy-onomy." The money is there. It's just apportioned to other things.
The actor as civil servant, hmm....
No comments:
Post a Comment