Think Theatrically, Hire Locally?

Comments to this post raise the possible solution of hiring as many local actors as possible for shows as a way of improving local theatre scenes. To whit, here's Tony:

Here's an even better long-term fix. If more regional theatres hired local actors, they would have better actors around them.

Why would actors want to go to American City X? If theatres in Other Major American City only cast out of NYC, and sometimes LA and Chicago.

And here's Scott Walters:

Absolutely hire local actors -- and not just for one show. Offer them a year contract -- create a company. The director above is right -- older actors don't want to travel travel travel. But if they could work full time for a year in one place -- and maybe stay on for additional years. The actor-as-migrant-worker model works as much against the development of the American theatre as the lack of new scripts.

I've been loathe to talk about this because i feel a bit conflicted about the issue, but I also feel a desire not to piss people off creates a climate in which this issue (hiring locally) doesn't really get talked about honestly. So here goes, and keep in mind that this is based primarily on conversations with other people, rather than my own (very limited) regional working experience.

When I talk about hiring local actors with directors (these would be peers and more experienced directors) the answer they give is "the actors where I'm working aren't very good compared with actors in New York".

Now I've heard this both from directors who live in other cities and were simply hired to work in other cities... the best actors are to be found in New York and Chicago. I'm not saying they're right, I'm just saying this is what i've heard.

Some examples:
(1) A friend of mine and I got coffee. She makes her living directing regionally, and a few years ago directed several shows in DC (which has a vibrant local theatre and acting scene). She said she really loved the city and the working environment down there and felt no attachment to New York. I asked her why she didn't move there. She said "the actors just aren't that good, I had to pull teeth to get theaters to agree to use New York actors because I didn't like most of the people I saw".

(2) Someone I know recently moved far away to a different city, but one with a reputable theatre scene. I asked him about working out there and he said "look, very few people can make a living acting out here. those that do work constantly. Those who don't tend not to take theatre quite as seriously. Since there isn't a chance of having a career doing it, they have a less professional attitude towards it. So you end up hearing `can we do rehearsal later in the day, the weather is really nice tomorrow and I want to go on a hike' or whatever."

(3) A local director I talked to recently at yet another city said "there aren't good actors here, I have to import at least 50% of my casts"

I have plenty more examples like that, and i doubt I'm the only one...Now, as I said, they may be mistaken, but this spectrum of directors and casting associates and artistic directors includes as I said both locally based and migrant artists. And the consensus seems to be that non-NYC-and-Chicago actors in general aren't as good. (Again: I'm not necessarily agreeing with this consensus, i'm just articulating it so we can talk about it)

Now I'm guessing this probably has more to do with percentages than anything else... not everyone who wants to be an artist is good at it. People move to New York because of the chance to make some kind of living being an artist, so many artists move from their local area to New York for that chance. So there's a higher concentration. The cycle will perpetuate itself until something happens to change it.

Here's the thing though... Put yourself in the shoes of a local theatre company for just a moment. let's assume you have the money to hire out of town. And let's assume for a moment that were you to hire 50% of the roles in your season with out of town actors, you'd have better casts for that season of work. Are you telling me, honestly, you wouldn't do it for the long term benefit of the arts in your city?

I'm guessing that's what happens in a lot of casting conversations. The theatre feels they have a choice between having better shows (short term gain) over a better overall theatre scene (long term gain) and they choose the former. I don't really blame 'em for it. We can say the thinking is flawed, or ask to redefine what "good acting" means*** or talk about any number of other ancillary concerns, but at the end of the day, if the theater views its job as putting on the best show possible and if to them that means casting outside of their local area, why shouldn't they do it?

In other words, for what reasons should we break that cycle? Because believe you me, I believe that cycle should be broken and I believe an American theatre scene with as many robust well funded and well staffed local mini-scenes as possible would be a good thing. I think decentralizing theatre away from New York would be a great thing. I just think that those who are resistant to making the first steps towards doing so have perfectly good reasons for being resistant and it's worth looking at and talking about honestly.

*** There's another post I've got in the works about what "good acting" means and how different cities have different styles, but we'll get to that tomorrow.

Comments

[Karl Miller]

Sure, it's simple math from an admin point of view. And a director's. When I talk about actors being "primary" to the art, I mean to say that the whole New York Centrism question is largely in their hands, not casting folk or local theatres. I don't see it as an institutional problem that local theatres can fix by making some categorical judgment about local-vs-New York actors. Although Scott's idea sounds good.

All I know is that I've seen plenty of horrible acting at every echelon of NYC theatre, when I lived in DC we got a ton of bad imports from NYC, and there are enough capable, idle actors in NYC to fully populate a dozen regional circuits. If the system is going to change, it won't be by petition of local theatres, it will change because actors have started building local companies from the ground up.

I completely sympathize with your director-friends. But your questions to them might be better put to actors, accepting (as you said in your first post) that they and the audience are really the essential elements of the industry.

[Travis]

This makes me mad enough to spit.

Of course they are better in New York.
If you're any good any you want to make money you have to move to New York.

It's not a question of "New York" actors being better. It's that they all happen to live there. I have a better shot at working at Berkeley Rep living in Brooklyn than in Berkeley.

And part of that is confirmation bias. The rubes aren't any good. Ever.

[VW (SF Actor)]

thanks for starting this thread. Absolutely it's a question of percentages. And out here in the acting community, there is the thought that to be taken seriously one has to move to NY or LA.
Another aspect of this whole thing - when a theater brings a director in from out of town - that director may have actors that they already have a shorthand with, that they've built a language with, and that's who they cast, not taking time to look at who's available locally. The same is true for designers - this out of town director will bring in the designers that they're used to using.

[Calllie Kimball]

Firstly, can we agree that mediocrity is not limited to stages outside Manhattan.

That said, my take on it is that there's more at stake (real or perceived) for artists living in Manhattan, so more actors go balls-out in their work. Here in DC, most of our top working actors have day jobs with benefits. A lot of actors here stop taking classes once they move past the beginner stage. From my understanding, actors in NY are constantly taking scene study classes, even when they are further along in their careers. I wish that were the case here.

I think the artists that consistently challenge themselves are the ones, whatever city they are in, who should be working the most.

I'm not in favor of any kind of affirmative-action for local actors. I'm in favor of local actors stepping up.

[Calllie Kimball]

I also meant to say that many of the NY actors I see that get farmed out into shows down here aren't necessarily any better than the locally grown variety.

Which may seem contradictory to what I said above, but it's not.

[Scott Walters]

Thanks, Isaac - my response is here:

http://theatreideas.blogspot.com/2008/01/changing-direction-of-wind.html

[VW (SF Actor)]

Another thought - when an actor lives in NYC or Chicago or LA, because more work is cast there, there are more opportunities to audition than for folks elsewhere, resulting in the NYC talent having sharper audition skills. Perhaps one way to 'step up' on the local level is to do more auditioning?

[August]

I can only offer my own personal experience from having lived three years in Philadelphia and four years here in NYC. While I did decide to leave Philly for New York, it certainly was not due to either a lack of theatrical talent, or the ability for that talent to make a living in Philly. Quite the contrary! The primary difference between my actor friends in New York and those in Philly is those in Philly are home owners, many of whom have bought that affordable housing primarily though theatre/film/voice-over work. While I've been away from the city for some time now, and so perhaps things have changed; the dynamic there was far different than the one here lamented. Many of the theatres routinely hire local actors, and do so with good reason - Greg Wood, Grace Gonglewski, Ian and Karen Peakes, Matt Pfeifer, Jen Childs, Pete Pryor and many others are all doing great work and developing loyal local audiences. There is an informal company of actors and directors who have worked together now over many years, and in doing so, have created the kind of quality work that only longstanding artistic relationships can provide.
But maybe someone who lives there now has a different perspective. And, for different reasons, I am now here and not there.

[Travis]

I read quickly and reacted quicker.
more reasoned thoughts in a moment.

[Peter]

you know, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT to examine first and foremost (instead of from the artist's default viewpoint) WHO THE HELL THE AUDIENCE IS and what an audience (even if starting with the vague generalities) EXPECTS.
'Expectation' is paramount when mounting a play these days. 'Acting' takes on a more pejorative term (I agree with Marlon Brando's foreword in Stella Adler's book) as you hand every semi-willing person a digital camera and tell them to make faces in front of it and post it on YouTube. Theatre is not a 'young person's' artform (I'm referring to scripted plays now-- maybe not so much as improvisation) anymore. The 'seasoned' actors are ones who are older and more experienced... basically, you get your youth feeling the pressure to migrate to the big cities where they can feel part of an artistic collective (whether theatre related or not-- happens with indie bands, too) and where the "work" is. Theatre is a job. Therefore, acting has become a job. A commodity. A product. The Dilettante's Ball. Make money first so you can make your art. Not vice versa. You rarely can make your art first and then make money. Big cities have the work-- the sponsors, the corporations, the liberals. It's so hard to keep a small or mid-size theatre community interested when the subscriber base consists of old money protected by our grandmothers and fathers who think their actor grandsons and daughters look "cute" on stage, never mind the story.
I don't know... I'm in grad school and obviously not nearly as concise when sharing my intellectual views... I'm gone...