Defending EPAs by Dismissing Actors

To combat the ennui, frustration and dissatisfaction many Equity members have towards the EPA process, an article appears in the AEA newsletter of May 2011 that ‘kicks off a new series in Equity News on EPA Success Stories.’

The situation is this:  theatres operating under Equity contracts are required to hold open EPAs (Equity Principal Auditions).  In the audition notices for EPAs the theatres must list a character breakdown and state whether any roles have been offered and accepted previous to the open call.  It seems to be the practice that many of these theatres already have a very good idea who they want to cast, but being unable to get a 100% commitment before the audition, make the announcement that they are looking to fill roles when they are in fact, not.  Many actors believe theatres are just going through the motions before casting their first choice despite the auditions.

Of course, Equity wants the very sizeable portion of their dues-paying membership who believe that EPAs are a waste of both their time and money, to feel at ease and that they are getting a fair shake at employment.  To this end, Equity News has launched this series of articles.

Well surprise! Some people do get cast from these auditions.  But truly, the complaint is not that people are not getting cast.  By phrasing the complaint in this manner, Equity is attempting to dismiss the legitimate concern that theatres are only holding these auditions out of obligation and not as genuine casting opportunities.  Yes, ensemble, understudies, supernumeraries and interns may get cast from EPAs, but the principal characters – Equity Principal Auditions – honestly, when is the last time the Phantom or King Lear or Willy Loman was cast from an EPA? Or Carlotta or Kent or Happy?

Perhaps these are principal auditions in the sense that these are the principal auditions that the company holds, and not necessarily that they are looking for actors to fill principal roles.  Fair enough, but the theatres still should be up-front about which roles they are looking to fill, seriously looking to fill, from these auditions.

A more constructive article, and an argument that would help to settle the myth one way or the other, would be to release the names of theatres holding EPAs, how many roles advertised were cast through the EPAs, which advertised roles were cast through EPAs, how many different actors were cast through EPAs, and conversely how many roles and which roles that were advertised for the EPAs were given to actors through different means.  Every professional actor is aware of the incredible odds against getting cast out of EPAs due to the shear number of people auditioning.  Actors want to know what roles the theatres are actually looking to fill, and whether or not they should waste the time and money.

The writer signs off saying: ‘After all; if you don’t show up for the audition, you won’t book the job.’  To which actors respond: ‘Well, if the theatre is not interesting in casting the role, why should you show up?’

What's In A Name?

__________________________________________________________ 

From Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language:

Repertoire:

1. the stock of plays, operas, roles, songs, etc. that h company, actor, signer, etc. is familiar with and ready to perform

2. all the musical or theatrical works of a particular category, or of a particular writer, cmposer, etc., available for performance

3. the stock of special skills, devices, techniques, etc. of a particular person or particular field of endeavor.

Repertory:

1. a) a repository for useful things; storehouse

    b) the things stored; stock; collection

2. same as repertoire

3. the system of play production engaged in by repertory theatres

Repertory Theatre:

A theatre in which a permanent acting company prepares several productions for a season and keeps alternating them in limited runs.

Ensemble:

1. all the parts considered as a whole; total effect

2. whole costume, esp. one of matching or complementary articles of dress

3. a) a company of actors, dancers, etc., or all but the featured stars

    b) their performance together

__________________________________________________________ 

Go to any listing of theatre companies and one will find numerous institutions with the words ‘repertory’ or ‘ensemble’ in their names.  But if one researches these companies, one discovers that perhaps 80% of these theatres are neither repertory nor ensemble theatres.  Many of those calling themselves ‘company’ are only so in the loosest or legal sense, in that they are a business concern, but a company of performers is quite rare.

Some ‘repertory’ theatres are so in that they pull from an established stock of plays.  Fewer still repeat productions or cast in repertory fashion.  Yet this word appears frequently, even when the theatre’s mission, history and reputation exclude that description.  American Repertory Theatre states proudly (as it should) on its website that it ‘has welcomed major American and international theatre artists, presenting a diverse repertoire that includes new American plays, bold reinterpretations of classical texts, and provocative new music theatre productions.’  However, used in this manner, ‘repertoire’ could be applied to any theatre that has produced more than one play.  This description says that this company does pretty much anything without supporting a permanent company of actors.  That is completely antithetical to the description of ‘repertory.’

Every piece of theatre is created by an ensemble, if it is accepted that each separate cast is an ensemble in itself.  However, very few companies consist of ensembles.  It’s extremely rare to come across an ensemble of actors that stay together for more than one production let alone a season or more.  Most theatres have certain actors with whom they work repeatedly, but these actors are more guest artists than company members.  At a vast majority of theatres, the only company members are the administrative staff and board members.  It is an ensemble of administrators, not a theatre ensemble.

Is this a case of not fully understanding the terms ‘repertory’ and ‘ensemble,’ or are we experiencing a shift in the meanings of these words?  In either case, we are losing two defining characteristic strengths of Theatre. Working with and through a repertoire, theatre companies and performers build a knowledge and ease with a large body of work.  The audience knows that a particular theatre is a place to go to see Shakespeare or Chekhov or works from the Pan-Asian experience.  On television we are offered ensembles every night.  Sometimes we watch the same ensembles for years, but we see them playing the same roles and with the same rules all the time.  Whereas in live theatre, an ensemble can swing back and forth from Ionesco’s absurdity to Seneca’s tragedy, from RENT to Guilbert and Sullivan.  These are experiences lie exclusively in the realm of Theatre and communal story-telling that is at the heart of the medium.

Why are so many theatres identifying themselves as repertory and ensemble, and not embracing these forms and tools?  Until they do, they are selling the audience a false bill of goods and misinforming the public as to the nature of Theatre in general.  This practice renders two of live theatre’s great strengths impotent.