I am currently a non-union actor, but I do hope to reach a point where I am making a living off of my acting, and will eventually join a union. However, this attitude that unions are taking towards non-union actors, movies, productions, etc. is, to be totally frank, extremely discouraging.
3 comments:
I have a real problem here. I have worked both with unions and union houses and not. First, let’s get one thing clear, in no way shape or form does having membership in a union have anything to do with your talent. If you think that your acting ability is going to get better because you belong to Equity, then you have been, at best, misinformed. Equity and SAG-AFTRA are organizations that argue for better working conditions, proper treatment of the person and fair pay. The talent that a person needs or the skills they learn are not taught or found buried in an equity contract. This whole campaign is an insult to the myriad of educational institutions and training centers that teach the skills needed by these individuals to perform their craft. When was the last time you saw a music class hosted by Equity? Working IATSE, I have been able through loading in and out shows, learn more skills than I previously had. This has nothing to do with it being IATSE, but it has to do more with me working along side industry leaders who have that knowledge to pass on. This could have been the idea that SAG-AFTRA was going for, but sadly, they missed the mark. Unions have a place for sure, but disparaging community theatre actors or those who are not yet Equity or SAG-AFTRA was a dirty move. Bad form.
The rule of thumb is that if you are a union actor, you are a responsible professional who cares enough to pay the dues. But we all know that not all Equity actors can pull it off. And we all know at least one non-Equity actor who is better than most of the Equity actors. Having said that, I agree with the author that the advertisement is toxic in a sense. The intention may be just to highlight the "approved" quality of the union members, but as a result it disparages non-Equity actors. Negative campaign is not good for anybody. However, it is not at all toxic from another viewpoint. "Ask if it's Equity" not only aims the quality of the actors, but also the quality of the work environment for the actors. Being Equity could mean that you have the talent to join the union, but it also means that you support the minimum wage, work hours and other work standards that Equity has fought for the actors. Supporting an Equity show means that you support paying your actors the proper dues for their work so they can make a living by acting. So, acknowledging that the attitude of the advertisement was wrong, I still think going Equity will benefit the author in a longer run.
I actually saw this advertisement first on an actor friend's Facebook page and I immediately shared her outrage. The elitism and bad taste necessary to put out such an ad in the public domain was startling to me. I couldn't believe that a business that is so dependent in every area on freelancers, many of whom can't afford union fees, would put out an ad so determined to put off all of them. Elitism has no place in an industry that seeks to tell stories. Theatre could not survive as an art form if every single theatre and every single person associated with it was union. Theatre survives and (sometimes) thrives as an art form because it can exist anywhere and take whatever form is needed to propel its message forward. This form of toxic advertising in the long run benefits no one. It turns wealthier audiences and producers against non-union performers and poisons poorer audiences and producers against even trying to produce or see non-union theatre.
Post a Comment