Observations Along The Road... at Dreamwidth

As I wrote in the previous post, I just concluded a week as Local Arrangements Chair for the ACSAC conference. Part of my responsibility was to coordinate some form of dinner entertainment. Luckily, the Hollywood Fringe Festival made that easy, for it was there that I discovered The Nigerian Spam Scam Scam, the duologue based on a true incident.

Here’s the description of the show from the Fringe website, which is as good as the description I might write: ““Please help me transfer $100 million from Bank of Nigeria!” We’ve all gotten this e-mail. Writer performer Dean Cameron did something about it. After he received an email from a Nigerian con artist posing as the wife and son of a dead Nigerian leader, Cameron replied. Posing as a sexually confused Florida millionaire, whose only companions were his cats, houseboy, and personal attorney, Perry Mason. Cameron embarked on a 11 month correspondence with  the bewildered and tenacious Nigerian, impeccably played by co-star Victor Isaac. This hit duologue, taken from actual email threads, documents the hilarious relationship as it descends into a miasma of misunderstanding, desperation, and deception.”

That is literally the show. Two podiums and a digital projector. Dean Cameron (FB, IMDB) relates the story of how he baited along Nigerian spammers, with the ultimate goal of getting them to send him money. Co-star Victor Isaac (FB) provides the voices of the spammer side, from MRS MARIAM ABACHA to IBRAHIM ABACHA to DR DONALD ABAYOMI. The story itself is pretty much just condensed versions of the actual email dialogue, with hysterical side commentary and the occasional visual.

My purpose here is not to review the show again. Rather, I want to talk about something specific to ACSAC — something that made me learn the stresses a producer faces. What stress? Well, consider that in the audience for this show we had a Nigerian Senator (from the newly elected opposition government), and two representatives from the National Assembly Antimoney Laundering & Cybersecurity Coalition of Nigeria. Yes, it is a real organization. How would they react to this show? Would they find it funny? Would they sue us? What have I done?

So, Dean and Victor do the show. Many people are rolling in laughter (especially Gene Spafford, who wants to now book them for a phishing conference). The Nigerians? Straight-faces. They go up and talk to Dean and Victor after the show. Oh, what we would have given to be a fly on that wall.

It turns out that they were worried the audience would believe the actors were portraying real Nigerian officials, and that people might thing the government was behind the scam. We (including one Nigerian student) worked to convince them it was clear that wasn’t the case. This was a true incident, with the words as written in the emails, that was perpetrated by scammers who are running the good name of Nigeria through the mud.

We also worked to convince them that the best way to fight the problem was with the truth. If you read the linked article from the Nigerian News Service, it noted that the goal of the organization is to align Nigeria with the global initiative against terror financing, cybercrimes, currency trafficking and money laundering. The organization was born out of the realization that huge financial losses through such financial crimes had become a threat to the nation, and that the collaboration with strategic partners, particularly the central bank, was to discuss ways to align foreign exchange operations with international best practices. Lastly, in line with the anti-corruption drive of the president, the coalition aimed to meet the expectations of Nigerians to kick out crimes denting the image of the nation internationally.

The upshot of this is that the Nigerian delegation is interested in presenting a case study next year telling a major technical conference the work that Nigeria is doing to prevent crimes such as this, and other forms of fraud that hurt their country.

Step back now, and look at this in perspective: A show from the Hollywood Fringe Festival, presented at a long standing technical conference, has served to encourage a government to tell the world broadly that the image the world has of them is wrong, and that they want to be in the forefront of fighting this type of crime.

The power of theatre. As Dean says at the end of the show, “mic drop”.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

Time to wade back into the frey. While finishing my salad at lunch, I was reading another take on the “Pay for Review” situation that I stepped into yesterday. For background, read the introduction on my previous post. I want to say upfront that I do not like, do not approve, do not condone, theatres paying for reviews.

That said, there are two arguments in this discussion that may be red herrings: the argument that theatres cannot afford these reviews, and the argument that if this works, everyone will do it. The two are connected, and let me show why they are wrong.

1. Theatres cannot afford to pay for reviews. One of the key things that seems to be forgotten is that no one is holding a gun to the head of a theatre company and making them pay for a review. They can always just ignore the Bitter Lemons Imperative and do what they did before: send out press comps and hope that someone comes. Although the option is there, a theatre that uses it end up with egg on its face if it uses it either due to quality of the result, the tainted nature of the result, or what it implies about the show. Furthermore, they may not want a review from Bitter Lemons, seeing the unpredictable quality that comes out and its reputation as a review source. That’s true even for unsolicited reviews: consider the power of an “LA Times” recommendation vs. a recommendation the North Valley Chamber of Commerce Newsletter (or even this blog ). However, that’s neither here nor there. If theatre companies don’t have the money, they just don’t have to pay.
2. But Everyone Will Want To Charge. Two schools of thought here. One is that, given the nature of journalism, press outlets may finally stop giving free coverage, unless it is real news, to non-advertisers. They’ll cover your theatre if it burns down or someone dies in a rehearsal. A review, especially a good one? That’s advertising. So — independent of what Bitter Lemons has done — papers may try to start charging anyway. So, you say, perhaps Bitter Lemons will start the trend. Papers will then start charging more and more, and theatres just cannot afford it. This brings us back to the previous point. If they don’t have the money, they don’t have to pay and Bitter Lemons will demonstrate that the idea was a failure. The theatres will just shift even more to word of mouth, recognized theatre bloggers for whom sufficient payment is free tickets, social media promotions, and promotion sites such as Goldstar. Human nature being what it is, you can always find people that will review for free.

Again, let me emphasize that I am not supporting theatre companies paying for reviews. I personally feel it is an incredible conflict of interest (whether real or just perceived) that devalues the review, devalues the theatre, and devalues the publication. That, alone, to me is a reason not to do this. But the two arguments above — affordability and slippery slope — are poor arguments.

P.S.: Lastly, you might say this hurts the “pro99″ cause. It only does if theatres buy into it (thereby demonstrating they have the hidden cash in the budget). If they ignore it, they will succeed if they invite legitimate independent theatre critics and recognized bloggers with traditional perqs (accommodating those like me who feel free tickets are also a conflict of interest), and double down on the social media and postcards. If you ignore the “imperative” and just plain and simply do good and compelling work, you’ll succeed far better.

P.P.S.: With respect to these points, the larger theatres (major houses with seating above 300 or so) may be able to afford this. There, well, you get what you pay for. They are also the theatres that can pay $$$ for newspaper advertising, which may make the print journalists in mercenary mode more likely to send the critic. They are also the theatres that tend to get reviewed, and they may not pay for it simply because a Bitter Lemons review buys them no additional attendees. Most importantly, their greyhair audience wouldn’t be able to find Bitter Lemons (<granny-voice>”Where do I find that, Sonny? At my grocery store? I asked, and they said all lemons were bitter.” </end-granny-voice>)

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

This morning, as I was getting ready to write up last night’s show at the Colony, my mind was swirling about mathematics and theatre. I was thinking about tiers and when shows could go to contract; about discussions I had had with Barbera Beckley before the show about audiences and what they could and would pay. I was thinking about the whole AEA kerfuffle, and I’ve realized that we may have it wrong — and a lot of this is because we keep trying to build things on dependent factors without data. Before I could tackle my writeup, I had to get this out of my head.

I’ve seen a number of proposals for tiering, and most are based on show budget. I think — to some degree — that’s wrong. You can’t determine whether you can pay the actors from budget alone. The budget of a three-actor show is very different than a show like Candide with a large ensemble. This got me thinking about what are the independent factors that might go into whether a show had the potential to earn sufficient funds to cover the rent and pay the actors. If you can look at shows and work out the factors from the existing data, you can come up — mathematically — with a good algorithm that might permit adequate tiering. I’ll note that by “pay the actors”, I mean all actors. If you treat any actor as an employee, you need to treat all of them as an employee. Pay rates might differ based on various factors, but some can’t be volunteer and some employees.

So let’s think a bit about common factors and whether they are independent. Here are some that come to my head:

• Theatre Rental. Independent and Fixed. Your rental cost is based on time, location, and quality of the facility.  Cheap facilities make it easier to pay actors; shows in expensive locations make it harder.
• Number of Actors. The number of actors in a show has a direct bearing on operating costs. This should capture the total costs that vary based on actors — not only what you pay them, but their costumes, sound, makeup, wigs — things that vary based on more or less actors.
• Musical or Play? This is the play vs. musical distinction. Musicals have increased operating costs due to musicians; they also tend to have a better draws as audiences tend to go to musicals.
• New or Old? This is another significant factor in a show. New and unique shows may draw better for audiences looking for something new; on the other hand, they may be more difficult to promote because the show is not as well known.
• Star Power. I don’t just mean actor-power here. Having a “well-known” somewhere in the credits — be it the director, an actor, the playwright — may draw the audiences in. For example, I can feel confident if I go to a local musical Nick directs that it will be well worth seeing.
• Creative Cost. This is the fixed creative cost — the budget for the fixed aspects of the show such as set, lighting, and publicity.  This would include both the costs of the creative team (people) as well as the cost of materials (set) and equipment rental (lights). This might be where budget based tiering could come into play.
• Number of Seats. I was thinking about average ticket price as a factor — but it is dependent. Number of seats is a different factor. It is independent of the show, yet a key determinate of how much you make.

There are two additional factors that come into play: Length of Run and Ticket Price. I’m not yet sure about these and the impact on paying the actors. The length of run is clearly a factor under control of the producer. They help cover the fixed one-time costs, they help a little on fixed recurring costs (such as rental), and they have no effect on salaries (number of performances per week is a better factor on that). Ticket price should be set on cost in order that you can pay the actors appropriately. The problem is that sometime that needed ticket price is more than the audience can bear. This isn’t Broadway where you can name any price. The other factors must be such that the audience will be willing to pay it. We can’t quantify “willingness to pay”, but we can know that anticipated average per-patron income, taking into account comp, discount, promotional, and full price sales based on data, and we can determine that by company and community. We can then determine, based on that number and the factors above, the amount that actors can be paid.

It is important to note the factors that do not appear in the above. Membership companies? Makes no difference. Self-produced? Not a factor in and of itself. Both go to the creative costs, if anything. Budgets also don’t quite come into play fully because they are a product of the factors above. Note that I said “fully” into play. The budget can increase costs — fancier sets, more publicity — but doesn’t always translate into income.

As for what to pay the actors — that’s a can of worm I’m not going to tackle. I do believe that if you treat one actor as an employee you should treat them all — AEA or not — as employees. You can’t mix volunteers and employees in the same job; that’s the law. There’s also a distinction between exempt and non-exempt employees. The discussion to date has been simplistic, thinking actors are non-exempt employees. Non-exempt employees are typically hourly; there are requirements for breaks and lunch hours and overtime and such. Exempt employees — think white-collar professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and yes, computer scientists — have a fixed salary. They have different rules for overtime and breaks and such. I would tend to think actors would be non-exempt, meaning you could have a fixed salary for a fixed task. It is something that should be explored. I do believe there are factors that should go into actor pay once you are beyond the employee / volunteer distinction — that’s where union status, experience, “draw”, and other performance based factors can come into play.

As I’ve written before — I’m just an audience member (and a computer scientist and a mathematician). I can help identify what might be the factors that come into play, but I can’t plug in the numbers. What is clear, however, is that budget is not the sole simplistic factor. Being able to pay the actors at one budget level for a particular play doesn’t mean that for a different play, with different draw and number of actors, that budget will permit the same pay.

One of my favorite podcasts is Freakonomics. They emphasize that decisions must be made on hard data. The Los Angeles needs to determine the true independent factors for its productions — at any size theatre. What needs to be determined next is what values of those factors would permit appropriate levels of actor pay? This is what should go into the tiering discussion.

But… but…

The above is a pure mathematical approach. It is what we should pay the actors if we assume we are doing this based solely on profit and income and such. That’s the bean counter in me. But, as I’ve learned from this discussion, many LA actors don’t do this for the money. They do this for the challenge and the experience and the need to feed the soul. These are intangible forms of payment that offset dollars for many (not all; I’m sure there are mercenaries out there). The payment via intangibles is also independent of membership companies — but it does say that a given production has — as an additional factor — some intangible factor that comes into play that captures this. It would relate to the meatiness of the roles, the value of working with a particular creative or actor or company, the “payment to the soul”.

I don’t know how to address this; I don’t believe that I — a 30 year cybersecurity professional — could solve this nut. But I did want to share my musings on all the factors in the hope that someone might be able to piece them together algorithmically, and figure out a way to have that algorithm balance the “soul payment” vs. the “wallet payment” aspects as well.

Thoughts? What do you see as the key independent factors that we are forgetting to discuss?

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

Well, Actors Equity has gone and done it. Not only did they fire a shot across the bow, but war has been declared. They’ve been the aggressor, starting the fight and moving the tanks in despite the wishes of the people. Oh, and us peasants? As usual, we’re the ones that get it in the neck.

What am I talking about? Simple. Perhaps two months ago, Actors Equity (the union that represents stage actors) dropped a proposal that any AEA actor working in intimate theatre (99 seats and under) in Los Angeles must be paid as an employee and at the current prevailing minimum wage for both rehearsals and performances. There were also work place requirements and performance minimum requirements, with limited exceptions solely for membership companies and self-produced works. They claimed that (a) members wanted this, and (b) it was required under California labor law.

The problem was, however, that a majority of Los Angeles AEA actors did not want this. They understood that the nature of Los Angeles theatre is such that most theatres cannot be financially sustained under these rules. The cost for AEA actors would quadruple or more. There would only be small safe productions. Actors would lose the venue they value for the refinement of their craft and for feeding their artistic needs.

AEA held a referendum, and just under 66% of those who voted were against the proposal. Did this stop AEA? No. They voted to impose the new rules anyway.

I’ll say that again: They ignored the wishes of the actors and their members, and eliminated the 99-seat plan.

In doing this, AEA showed disregard not only for their members, but for the audiences that pay the bills and for the other professionals and businesses that their decision impacts. Rosalyn Cohn, over in the private pro99 group on Facebook, posited the following for AEA’s rationale:
(posted with permission)

OMG. This is so obvious. Why didn’t I see this? This has been in the works. NYC has turned into corporate theatre, star vehicle driven like never before and non-union tours abound. Some pretty big Off-Bway houses have closed like the Promenade. LA has big bucks which is WHY AEA is making its presence more known. That’s why they now have their own building. They now want to try to make this the 2nd theatre capital – which we know it is. We 99 Seat Actors who don’t have name recognition, this is what it’s about. I lived it. I lived in NYC for 20 years. It’s now very hard to get a B’way gig if you aren’t a name. Says the Union, “Ummmm, we need dough. Ahhhh, let’s really be smart and stake our claim – you know actors aren’t great with business so they need to be taken care of, uuhhh, we’re in Power, uhhh, they’ll say we know what’s best. We’re the Adult. Uhhh, let’s go to where Film/TV is REALLY prominent. STARS sell TICKETS. Let’s DO AWAY with 99 Seat with no names. Let’s force them to Showcase Code where maybe they can get an agent, maybe a review. Let’s force the Companies who have bigger audiences to MERGE and force them to an AEA contract so we can make money. But, wait, that will cost those theatres most likely $100K+ to produce that show w/insurance bonds and all that. So, hey, aren’t we in the town where there’s lots of CELEBRITY CACHE?!!! I know! We’ll make it so that the STARS can work in Off-Broadway size houses and not have to leave LA. And those other actors with no name and not making us bank, well, they’ll work in those under 50 houses for only 16 shows.” That’s it my friends. You want this? THAT’S WHAT THIS IS.

I’ve said repeatedly: I’m not an actor, I’m a computer scientist. I envy the talents and abilities of actors, and wish that I had their skills to inhabit other personalities. I can, however, explore issues to their logical conclusion. Here are my thoughts on this matter:

• AEA is insisting that actors be employees. Labor law does not allow volunteers to work in a position for which employees are hired. The implication of this is that a non-profit theatre company cannot simultaneously have volunteer actors and actors on the payroll. Such a situation means that those volunteer actors must be bumped up to be employees, and covered by the same minimum wages rules. This kills 99 seat theatre. It may also be illegal, in the sense that not-for-profit companies have always be permitted to have professionals provide services pro-bono or at below market rates. There is simply no basis for treating the two groups of actors differently under the law. So, either 99 seat theatres are killed by requiring all actors to be employees, or AEA’s action is illegal and discriminatory.
• But it’s worse. Why should a particular class of work be mandated to be performed by employees in some non-profits, but not all. I posit that if the minimum wage rules apply to professional non-membership non-profits, it would apply to community theatre and other amateur theatre as well, if they charge for admission. This is a major impact, and certainly not what the law intended.
• But it’s even worse. Logically, if labor law requires actors to be employees, how can it permit an exemption for membership companies or self-produced. The job and the work is the same.

AEA, in my opinion, either no legal leg to stand upon, or has just killed all theatres with volunteers. I personally believe the former, and hope not the latter. I believe AEA completely misses the distinction between the for-profit and non-profit theatre.

Here is my prediction of what I believe will happen:

• Gentlemen and ladies, start your lawsuits. Except a protracted legal battle similar to the “Waiver Wars” of the 1980s, with actors suing their own union. It is going to be nasty nasty nasty, and will have repercussions for a long time (I know, to me, they have started — I’m seeing some of the pro-AEA actors in a show in early May, and I’m already afraid it will color my reaction to them). The only winners are going to be the lawyers (and the cockroaches, because they always win in the end).
• Existing membership companies will soldier on because they’ve been granted specific exemptions, but will be unable to partner with other production groups to do innovative work.
• Development of new work for the stage to be produced in Los Angeles will stop. This will impact not only actors but the film industry, as often such work feeds film work.
• Non-profit non-membership intimate companies will stop employing AEA actors (and additional union actors, depending on how the 4-As handle reciprocity rules). This has already started: Both REP East (where we subscribe) and Long Beach Playhouse have indicated that — for the duration — AEA actors need not apply.
• New companies, if they form, will not hire AEA actors. Combined with the previous point, this will mean less work for AEA actors.
• A significant number of Los Angeles based AEA actors will either drop union membership or go Fi-Core. This means you’ll only see New York Actors in NYC and on tours. Los Angeles will not only not incubate new works, it won’t incubate new actors. In the long run, it may result in the split of the union, with Los Angeles actors creating a union specifically for the Los Angeles theatre scene, and telling AEA not only where to shove it, but how far to stick it in.

As audience members, there’s not much we can do other than to bring out the popcorn and watch. The one thing we can do is to remind our local actors that we stand with them, and that we stand with our intimate theatre community. Do what you can. Go see a show.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

What is reality?

That’s an interesting question. We often think reality is what we see with our eyes, what eyewitnesses tell us. But is that reality? Is that the truth? Perhaps, as Harry Nillsson wrote in The Point, we “see what you want to see, and hear what you want to hear.” This was on my mind as I drove to last night’s show, especially as I was listening to a recent Quirks and Quarks on the subject of implanting false criminal memories. What was the show? Doubt, by John Patrick Shanley (FB), which is running at Rep East Playhouse (FB) in Newhall through April 4, 2015.

Now, I’ve seen Doubt before. In fact, I saw it almost exactly 10 years ago at the Pasadena Playhouse, in the West Coast premiere production starring Linda Hunt as Sister Aloysious  and Jonathan Cake as Father Flynn. I remember coming out of that production thinking that this was what theatre should be — drama that makes you think and question, and get insights you might not have seen before. I still think that. That production also seared an image of Doubt in my head: the tall and thin priest (Cake is 6’3″) against the small and feisty nun (Hunt is 4’9″). I’ll note I also saw that production of Doubt on the day John Paul II died, and when all the accusations against priests were in the news.  All these combined to lead me to the conclusion that ultimate guilt of the main characters was evenly divided — I couldn’t tell you if Father Flynn had done what was claimed.

Perhaps at this point I should tell you the story of Doubt. The following is an edited synopsis from what was on Wikipedia: The play is set in the fictional St. Nicholas Church School, in the Bronx, during the fall of 1964. It opens with a sermon by Father Flynn, a beloved and progressive parish priest, addressing the importance of uncertainty. The school’s principal, Sister Aloysius, a rigidly conservative nun insists upon constant vigilance. During a meeting with a younger nun, Sister James, it becomes clear that Aloysius harbors a deep mistrust toward her students, her fellow teachers, and society in general. Naïve and impressionable, James is easily upset by Aloysius’s severe manner and harsh criticism. Aloysius requests that James report to her any odd or suspicious interactions between Father Flynn and the students. Aloysius and Father Flynn are put into direct conflict when she learns from Sister James that the priest met one-on-one with Donald Muller, St. Nicholas’ first African-American student. After a one-on-one meeting with Muller in the rectory, Muller returned with an odd look on his face, an alcohol on his breath. Mysterious circumstances lead her to believe that sexual misconduct occurred. In a private meeting purportedly regarding the Christmas pageant, Aloysius, in the presence of Sister James, openly confronts Flynn with her suspicions. He angrily denies wrongdoing, insisting that he was disciplining Donald for drinking altar wine, claiming to have been protecting the boy from harsher punishment. James is relieved by his explanation. Flynn’s next sermon is on the evils of gossip. Aloysius, dissatisfied with Flynn’s story, meets with Donald’s mother, Mrs. Muller. Despite Aloysius’s attempts to shock her, Mrs. Muller says she supports her son’s relationship with Flynn. She ignores Aloysius’s accusations, noting she’ll look the other way on anything because they only need to make it to graduation in June. Before departing, she hints that Donald may be “that way”, and that Mr. Muller may be beating him consequently. Father Flynn eventually threatens to remove Aloysius from her position if she does not back down. Aloysius informs him that she previously phoned the last parish he was assigned to, discovering a history of past infringements. After declaring his innocence, the priest begins to plead with her, at which point she blackmails him and demands that he resign immediately, or else she will publicly disgrace him with his history. She then leaves the office, disgusted. Flynn calls the bishop to apply for a transfer, where, later, he receives a promotion and is instated as pastor of a nearby parochial school. Learning this, Aloysius reveals to Sister James that the decisive phone call was a fabrication. As a result of this, she is left with great doubt in herself and her faith. With no actual proof that Father Flynn is or is not innocent, the audience is left with its own doubt.

This time I came into the show in a very different state of mind. I’ve been deeply involved in the battle between AEA and Los Angeles actors. I had just been listening to the show on implanted false memories. The presentation dynamic was also different. The REP production starred Georgan George (FB) as Sister Aloysius and Jeff Johnson/FB as Father Flynn. In contrast to Hunt’s tiny powerhouse, George was tall and thin — but equally determined. Johnson wasn’t like Cake either; whereas Cake was tall and Irish, Johnson was… the word that comes to mind is “avuncular.” Rounder and friendlier and seemingly more accessible. This left me with the conclusion — much more so than 10 years ago — that Aloysius was on a witch hunt. She was out to get the man based on a first time impression and a dislike of the changes he was bringing to her church. Those changes took many forms — the Vatican II changes, the change in relationship between Fathers and Nuns, and the changes in society. She didn’t like them, and she didn’t like this man (e.g., “I say it is spinach, and I don’t like it”). Her determination was that of a Republican congressman against President Obama — that of a conspiracy theorist who has aligned the facts to fit their particular version of the story, and any other explanation is just a ruse created by the other side.

The fact that I came away — again — with this impression is a testament to the performance of George (FB) as Aloysius, Johnson/FB as Flynn, and Alli Kelly (FB) as Sister James. George believably gave off that aura of righteous conviction, of someone who truly believed that she was right and how she perceived what she saw to be the truth (which made her doubt at the end even more powerful). Johnson, as I noted before, gave off that avuncular vibe, which made his anger and capitulation at the end even more powerful. Kelly, who provided the innocence factor, truly gave off the joy she felt when teaching her students, and equally radiated pain when forced to do Aloysius’ dirty work and work against the students and Father Flynn. She just wanted to teach. Rounding out the cast was Cherrelle éLan (FB) as Mrs. Muller.  Although she only appeared in one scene, éLan (FB) left the impression of the modern (that is, 1960s) African-American woman in the Jackie Kennedy mode — she didn’t want to rock the boat; she wanted to integrate into her community and not make waves. Great performances, all. I’ll note you can see these actors in action in the trailer that REP produced, which is up on YouTube.

Doubt was directed by Mark Kaplan (FB). I was going to comment on the dissonance created by having a Jewish director create the world of a heavily Catholic school, but I didn’t see it. The way the actors portrayed the scenes felt realistic to me. But then again, what do I know — Mark and I come from the same backgrounds! I do wonder how much the director can adjust the portrayals in this show to lead the audience one way or the other — in a sense, implanting their own layer of false memory on top of the situation. It is an interesting question, but I don’t know how I would just. All I know is I enjoyed the show. Kaplan was assisted in his directoral duties by Kimbyrly M. Valis (FB).

On the technical side, there was the usual REP excellence. Scenic Design was by the REP’s artistic and executive directors, Mikee Schwinn/FB and Ovington Michael Owston (FB) and presented a realistic principal’s office and courtyard. Sound design was by REP resident designer Steven “Nanook” Burkholder/FB; I particularly noted the directionality of the bird sounds. Nice. Lighting was by REP resident designer Tim Christianson/FB and conveyed the mood well. Costume Design was by Janet McAnany (FB); my only question was whether the clerical vestments were correct — but not being Catholic, I have no way to judge. They were close enough for Government work, and I do Government work. J. T. Centonze (FB) was the stage manager.

“Doubt” continues at Rep East Playhouse (FB) in Newhall through April 4, 2015. The production I saw was only half-full — and this show deserves better. Everyone should come out and see this excellent story and this excellent cast. REP is offering half-price tickets through their Facebook page; there’s a half-price offer on their main page,  and tickets are up on Goldstar.  There’s no excuse to not go see this show — it is less expensive than a movie, and you get to see some really good people (and the people on stage aren’t half-bad either ). Call (661) 288-0000 or visit the REP website for tickets. P.S.: Note also that the next REP show has changed back to what was originally planned, as REP finally got the rights to “Dinner with Friends“, which will run May 8 through June 6. REP will also be holding a fundraiser, “Law & Order: REP”, on June 20.

If you’ve been reading my write-ups of late, you’ll know I’ve been tying each one to the battle between AEA and Los Angeles actors. Going in, I was going to write something about how REP is an example of what 99 seat theatre can be. But during the show — specifically, during the scene between Sister James and Father Flynn in the courtyard — I was struck with a realization. The story of Doubt is the story of this battle. Sister Aloysius is Actors Equity. They’ve heard a story — they’ve seen a thing or two — they’ve heard a rumor — and they have become deeply suspicious of the producers and actors in Los Angeles. They believe their view of the world is the only view of the world, and they will stop at nothing to get their way. They will slant the facts, they will implant misleading or false stories, they will create innuendo and gossip — all for the sole purpose of keeping the world they want it to be. The actor/producers and producers in Los Angeles are Father Flynn. Friendly and willing to work with everyone, out for the joy of making the world a better place. They are simply trying to do this, but keep having to rebut the false claims and mistrust of Sister A./AEA. The actors are Sister James.  They are in this for the joy of what they do, and they simply want to be able to do it. To be able to teach (act) and spread the joy that teaching (acting) brings to them to the world. The audience is Donald Muller — unseen on the stage, but impacted in so many ways by the witch-hunt of Sister A. (AEA). Now that I’ve presented this analogy, I urge you to go see Doubt at REP East, and I think you’ll agree. AEA is on an unfounded witch hunt.

I’ll wait while you see the show. […] Did you enjoy it?

So what can we do — the Donald Mullers of the world — against Sister Alyosius (AEA). We’re not being molested by the priest; there is a great working relationship between us, Sister James (the local actors), and the priest (producers). But the Sister (AEA) is on a witch hunt to bring us down. I’ll tell you what we can do: We can have a backbone, and stand up to the bullies! If you are free Monday afternoon, 3/23, go out and march with the actors on AEA headquarters. Encourage the AEA actors you know to vote “no” on this proposal. Learn about the situation through the information on Bitter Lemons, through the I Love 99 website, and the I Love 99 Facebook group. Don’t let AEA mislead you and distract you, and make you see something that isn’t there. We want change, but not this change (and a “yes” vote will bring the change we don’t want — it will get Father Flynn transferred).

Ob. Disclaimer: I am not a trained theatre critic; I am, however, a regular theatre audience. I’ve been attending live theatre in Los Angeles since 1972; I’ve been writing up my thoughts on theatre (and the shows I see) since 2004. I do not have theatre training (I’m a computer security specialist), but have learned a lot about theatre over my many years of attending theatre and talking to talented professionals. I pay for all my tickets unless otherwise noted. I believe in telling you about the shows I see to help you form your opinion; it is up to you to determine the weight you give my writeups.

Upcoming Shows: March concludes with “Newsies” at the Pantages (FB) on March 28, followed by Pesach and the Renaissance Faire on April 11 (I haven’t yet decided whether I’m going to a show on the weekend of Pesach, but unless something really calls to me, it is unlikely). The following weekend will see us back at a music store listening to a performance: this time, it is Noel Paul Stookey at McCabes Guitar Shop (FB). After that we’re in Vegas for a week — I haven’t yet determined the shows yet, but Menopause the Musical looks quite likely, possibly Don Rickles at the Orleans, and Penn & Teller are on Goldstar. We may also work in “After the Revolution” at the Chance Theatre (FB). May begins with “Loopholes: The Musical” at the Hudson Main Stage (FB) on May 2. This is followed by “Words By Ira Gershwin – A Musical Play” at The Colony Theatre (FB) on May 9 (and quite likely a visit to Alice – The Musical at Nobel Middle School).  The weekend of May 16 brings “Dinner with Friends” at REP East (FB). The weekend of May 23 brings Confirmation services at TAS, a visit to the Hollywood Bowl, and also has a hold for “Love Again“, a new musical by Doug Haverty and Adryan Russ, at the Lonny Chapman Group Rep (FB).  The last weekend of May currently has a hold for “Fancy Nancy” at the Chance Theatre (FB), “Waterfall“, the new Maltby/Shire musical at the Pasadena Playhouse (FB), and “Murder for Two” at the Geffen Playhouse (FB).  June is equally crazy, as we’ve got the Hollywood Fringe Festival (which should include a production of “Marry Me a Little” by Good People Theatre (FB)), a matinee of the movie Grease at The Colony Theatre (FB), a trip out to see the Lancaster Jethawks,  our annual drum corps show, and hopefully “Matilda” at the Ahmanson Theatre (FB). As always, I’m keeping my eyes open for interesting productions mentioned on sites such as Bitter-Lemons, and Musicals in LA, as well as productions I see on Goldstar, LA Stage Tix, Plays411.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

Over the last few weeks, my attention has been caught up in a brewing battle here in Los Angeles: the battle between Equity Actors and their union, AEA. Now I’m not an actor, but I am an audience; as such, I have a stake in this battle (although we audience members are oft forgotten and taken for granted… this is grating on me and I’m starting to think about what I’m going to do on that. More in a subsequent post.) The battle is a nasty one — and one that outsiders won’t understand.

The world of creatives is not the real world. Nowhere is this made clearer than in this battle, where you have the union fighting management for higher wages, and the “employees” fighting the union for the right to earn no salary, just a small stipend. When I present the subject that way, you’re probably thinking the union is on the right side. But you would be wrong, primarily because the creative world is not the normal world.

Consider the life of an actor in Los Angeles. If you are lucky, you earn your living in the TV or movie industry. If you are really lucky, you are acting in front of the camera, likely doing completely unchallenging work such as commercials or sitcoms. If you are ordinarily lucky, you are working behind the camera in an unsung role. If you are typically, you are paying the bills with a non-creative job — working in a traditional job in a traditional workplace. The point is that you are not expecting to earn a living wage on the live theatre stage — there just isn’t the audience in LA to support it.

But there are loads of theatres in LA, you say. Yup, there are. The big ones tend to bring in outside talent, not local actors. The small ones often exist not to make money, but to provide a place for actors to hone and exercise the acting muscle — just like you exercise at the gym. With more use it gets better and stronger.  An interesting aspect to that analogy: you pay the gym to work out; the gym doesn’t pay you.

Actors in 99 seat theatre haven’t been compensated through salary. They have been compensated through the work, and through the connections they have made in the industry. Often those are more valuable than the $300 that might be earned.

Actors Equity (AEA) wants to change that. They want to mandate that most non-profit theatres pay minimum wage to actors, treat them as employees (with all the employee overhead), and have formal contracts with AEA that include compensation to the union for their services. This would increase that cost of theatres already operating on a slim margin, and put many out of business. Yes, a theatre may raise a lot of money. Much of that goes to rent, insurance, equipment rental, operating costs, and outreach to the community. It doesn’t go to salaries — no one is becoming rich on 99 seat theatre.

The actors want to change the current 99 seat plan, but not this way. They want to work with producers, other creatives, and equity to create a realistic plan that will work, and is likely tiered. A plan that will permit 99-seaters to grow and become equity houses; one that does not impose by fiat.

What’s troublesome is the union tactics. There is intense misreprentation going on. The union says a yes vote is one for a proposal that can be changed, but they have also said the yes is just on this proposal as written. Further, the union has indicated privately that if this passes, they intend to bring the minimum wage fight to New York. The actors are for change, but not this change, and are urging other actors to vote “no”.

Why do I care? I’m an audience member. I can’t vote. I don’t run a theater.

I do, however, buy tickets. I do, however, enjoy the wide variety of shows in Los Angeles. I do, however, enjoy the theatre on the edge that is created here. I do, however, enjoy being able to see both Equity and future Equity actors on stage. I do, however, enjoy being able to critique and provide constructive criticism to them to make them better. I might lose all of that if this passes.

If you are an audience member like me, let your actors know you support them. If they are AEA, educate them and encourage them to vote this proposal down. Write Equity and let them know you don’t approve of their tactics, and that if they continue their tactics, you will be perfectly willing to support, attend, and encourage non-Equity productions in Southern California. Let them know the only party that this action will hurt is AEA — they will lose public support, they will lose members, and people will learn that non-Equity actors can be just as talented as Equity actors. Let them know that Southern California audiences support those who make and act in our 99-seat houses.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

When the urge gets in ‘em, actors just gotta act. I’m not an actor, but I am a blogger… and when the urge gets in me, I’ve got write a post*. This time the urge was triggered by two comments on Facebook on my last post: one said, “a business which cannot afford to pay its workers a decent wage doesn’t deserve to survive“; the other said “I actually heard from some folks this week making the argument that any kind of volunteer work should be illegal and require the payment of at least the minimum wage plus benefits.” Both of these are common arguments you might hear in response to the AEA proposal, but when you start thinking about them — really thinking about them — the problems surface and it become clear why this proposal must be opposed.

I’m an engineer and a logical thinker. So, in general, should people be able to volunteer their time? Why shouldn’t everyone be paid a decent wage for what they do? On the surface, that makes sense and seems ethical. But what about people who volunteer for your church or synagogue? Should the Sisterhood ladies be paid for setting up an Oneg? The Brotherhood for cooking at a barbeque? It is clear there are some organizations that should accept volunteers. It’s not just religious: consider other charities such as Doctors Without Borders. Their doctors are skilled — and require a certain skillset — and yet are often volunteers or are not paid what they would get on the market. Look at lawyers who volunteer their time for charities, or professional fundraisers who help charities. All of this volunteering is permitted — and in fact, encouraged by our tax code (remember, you can deduct charitable miles).

So, you say, to do this everyone in such an organization must be a volunteer. That’s not true. Consider your church or synagogue. They have paid clergy and paid staff as well as volunteers. Most charitable organizations have paid executive directors. You can have both paid staff and volunteers. So when should a volunteer become paid staff? That’s a great question — and I think the answer is fundamental. One might think the answer is hours: typically a volunteer is not full time. I would tend to think that volunteers should have a cap on the number of hours they may volunteer — but hours does not an employee make. There are many part-time employees. That’s why I’m discounting hours as the factor. I think the real time an employee become necessary is when you can not find a person with the appropriate skill willing to take on the job either unpaid or below market.  Looking at the theatre, there is clearly the law of supply and demand here. There are lots and lots of actors, and depending on the position and the role, you may be able to use a non-Equity volunteers to replace an Equity actor. However, if the role is unique, the answer might be different. Other creatives are not so plentiful, but even then you can often find volunteers willing to take on the task for the experience. Gee, that sounds like interning

Now you’re probably saying that this means any organization could get around the minimum wage. If you think that, you’re missing a clear distinction. All the organizations I’ve mentioned above are charitable — recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization. Their intent is not to make profit; any surplus is to be returned to the community through good work. So lets consider the example of an unpaid intern. There have been recent rulings that unpaid interns in commercial businesses — be they engineering or film and television — are not acceptable.  Yet volunteers are acceptable in charities (and I don’t think I’ve seen a ruling on interns at charities, but they seem analogous to volunteers).

The real factor that should come into play on whether volunteering is permitted should be: is the concern FOR-PROFIT or NON-PROFIT. Yet is it precisely this concern that is ignored by the AEA proposal. The proposal should be that the only companies that could accept volunteer or underpaid actors should be NON-PROFIT theatres. Commercial theatre ventures — even if under 99 seats — should have to pay minimum wage. Yet the proposal, as I understand it, prohibits non-profit theatres from accepting volunteers. That’s wrong, and that should be the main reason to vote “no” and oppose it — it goes against the definition of what a non-profit is.

Once the proposal in this form is disposed of, a new motion should be made to bring in a proper plan. We’ve seen a number out there; I’ve noted the 99 to HAT proposal at Bitter Lemons earlier. The thought experiment behind this post has led to a few additional things:

• First, the 99-to-HAT notion must be for non-profit theatres. What AEA is proposing may be reasonable for any intimate FOR-PROFITs out there — being FOR-PROFIT, they should have the ability to charge what they believe the market will bear, and have investors who will take the risk of that in exchange for the benefit of a profitable performance. NON-PROFIT and FOR-PROFIT are different beasts.
• Second, if AEA is truly concerned about the actor, they should have contracts with any theatre — NON-PROFIT or FOR-PROFIT — employing any AEA actor. These contracts shouldn’t be punitive to volunteers, but must protect the working conditions of the actor — breaks, facilities, safety, and other factors. Remember that unions came into being not just to raise wages, but because of incidents like Triangle Shirtwaist, which had dangerous working conditions.

To move to a proposal that can be win – win – win, and that balances the needs of the creatives, producers, and audience, the current proposal must be rejected. Those who have the ability (i.e., the actors and the producers) should then move to create a new committee that has representatives of all stakeholders to establish fair and equitable rules for all. Hopefully, the audience stakeholder can be remembered in this as well.

*: I’m also a programmer, and there the creative urge is the same. When I see a solution to a problem, well, coders gotta code, designers gotta design, and architects gotta architect. I’ve been doing a lot of that the last few months as I’ve been turning my multiyear analysis of NIST SP 800-53 and CNSSI No 1253 into a tool for Subject Matter Experts …. and boy has exercising that muscle felt good. I truly understand the actors, even if I can’t act.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

I discover the shows I go to in many ways. For the theatres to which I subscribe, they pick the shows for me; in fact, that’s one reason I subscribe — to discover shows I might not otherwise pick. But the vast majority of shows I see I pick. I learn about them through promotion by Goldstar and LA Stage Tix; I learn about them from emails from publicists (they seem to think I’m a critic — I may write up the shows I see, but I’m computer security guy and professional audience). I learn about them from ads in programs (such as Footlights). I often learn about new musicals from Ellen Dostal’s excellent blog Musicals in LA. [and I should plug that I monitor this stuff with an excellent RSS reader, Newsblur, which is a great way to keep on top of websites]. Ellen’s blog alerted me to the show we saw last night — the 20th Anniversary production of Inside Out (FB) at the Grove Theatre Center (FB).  I had been looking for a show for this weekend, and just didn’t find one that screamed “come and see me”. Chavez Ravine at the Kirk Douglas came closest, but I couldn’t find tickets. This show called to me for a number of reasons: (1) it was a musical; (2) I had heard good things about Adryan Russ (FB) and her music before; (3) Bruce Kimmel (FB) was involved,  and we’ve liked the shows he’s done in the past (one, two, three); and (4) the subject matter sounded interesting. The net result: the first of two weekends seeing shows in Burbank. The verdict: This one is worth going to see — great performance, great musical, and a grand time.

Inside Out (with book by Doug Haverty (FB), music by Adryan Russ (FB), and lyrics by Doug Haverty (FB) and Adryan Russ (FB)) tells the story of a girl group. But not that kind of girl group — this isn’t Baby It’s You or some other jukebox musical. Rather, this is the story of a woman’s therapy group in the 1980s. This provides the opportunities for the women to talk and work out their problems, which provides the authors the opportunity to comment on the issues women faced with careers, the balance of work and family, and relationships. It also provided the opportunity to comment on failure and the path of recovery from failure.  This could have been a sit-and-talkfest; the fact that the participants sing through their problems is just an unsaid given. It’s the norm of the universe established in the first song.

Given the nature of this musical and this universe, the plot isn’t your traditional “tell a story” plot that one might see in Oklahoma. Instead, the plot is more on the order of A Chorus Line — learning the back story of a bunch of characters and watching them grow and change as they tell their stories and interact. For this to succeed, the mix of characters has to be right. Luckily, the authors chose a good mix: a mom who is dealing with changing body image issues after having children; a successful business woman with a stay-at-home husband and teenagers; a flighty CYT (cute young thing) into numerology and such; and a lesbian banker with a rapping teen son. The impetus for the show is the addition of a new group member: a well-known pop musician who hasn’t published anything or performed in years. The group discussions (and the songs presenting those discussions) touch upon a number of “touchpoint” subjects: the desire to be thin, the desire for a good relationship, what women want from men, the growth and depth of relationships, facing one’s fears, and taking chances. That the show successfully does that was reflected in the reactions of the women audience members — and I’m not talking just about those that know the cast members, but those that paid to be there (such as my wife, who thoroughly enjoyed the show).

I’d venture to say that another reason for success was a directoral light touch. But in reality, I have no idea what the “touch” of the director, Bruce Kimmel (FB), was — and this is a good thing. I tend to believe that the sign of a good director — just like good sound and lights — is that they are transparent. You think everything is coming naturally from the actors. In this show, I couldn’t see obvious signs of overt direction — it all seemed that these were natural characters who loved being themselves. I guess that means there was good direction.

It didn’t hurt that the performances were top notch either. You can see most of the cast in two publicity photos I lifted from the Goldstar site, but note that we had the understudy in the role of Dena. All of the cast was excellent, so let’s talk about them (not behind their backs):

My favorite was Adrienne Visnic (FB) as Sage, the “freethinker”. She just radiated in the role — happiness, bemusement, joy, rapture. It was just a delight to watch her face — not only when she was upfront singing a song, but when she was in the background reacting to the other performers. She was very strong in her numbers, particularly “I Don’t Say Anything” and “Let It Go”. “I Don’t Say Anything” was a number that particularly hit home, as I could sense my wife thinking many of those thoughts about me :-).

Coming in a very very very close second was Stephanie Fredricks (FB) as Chlo, the lesbian banker. We’ve seen her before at REP in I Love You, You’re Perfect… and I loved her performance then. She was great here, in much the same way as Ms. Visnic — her background and interaction with the other characters was great. You just got the sense that these women actually liked each other and were friends from this interplay. I don’t believe that level of nuance can come from direction — this comes from the actresses. She was wonderful in her lead numbers such as “never Enough”, but I also enjoyed watching her in the background in numbers such as “Thin.”

“Thin” brings us to the next actress I really liked (OK, I’ll admit it, I liked them all): Dana Meller (FB) as Molly. Meller’s first number, “Thin”, did a perfect job of establishing her character and echoing with the audience (as it touched on body image issues); her major number in the second act, “The Passing of a Friend” was also a hit. Again: great singing, great reaction, great interplay with the other characters and a delight to watch. I’ll note we’ve seen Meller before in both Insanity and Pest Control at the No Ho Arts Center. I still fondly remember Pest Control, and wish it would be revived and have a cast album.

Sandy Bainum (FB) was  strong as Liz, the high powered corporate executive. I initially didn’t warm to her character — I’m not sure if it was her look or the attitude she gave off. However, by the second act when the character loosened up, I was sold. She was great in her “Do It At Home” number, and just watching the transformation of the character was great.

For Dena — the character who seemingly was the focus of the group — we didn’t have the main player, Leslie Stevens (FB). Rather, we had the understudy, Jill Marie Burke (FB). Burke had a very different look than the other characters, and as with Bainum’s character, I was initially cold. Yet again, however, the performance won me over — by the second act as the character warmed up to the environment and the group, she shone. Burke nailed it on the songs and did great on the lines (one or two hesitations, but hey, this was an understudy situation, so they were truly minor). All of her numbers were great, but I’ll particularly highlight her second act numbers, “All I Do Is Sing” and “Reaching Up”. Of course, if her character really wants to find a venue where she can sing again, she should look no further than LA’s vibrant 99 seat theatre scene. More on that in a minute.

Lastly, bringing all these women together was the group therapist, Grace (Cynthia Ferrer (FB)). I could have sworn we had seen Ferrer before, but her name doesn’t appear in any of my writeups. I’m guessing this is because her character exuded that comfort and familiarity. She shone in her Act Two opener, “Grace’s Nightmare”.

The musical numbers were staged by Bruce Kimmel (FB) and Leslie Stevens (FB). Music supervision was by Alby Potts (FB), who provided the offstage music with someone else whose name I didn’t write down and who doesn’t appear to be obvious in the program. The movement and dance worked well, particularly in Dana Meller’s numbers. Music was strong throughout. Music arrangements were by Ned Ginsberg (FB), with vocal arrangements by E. Suzan Ott.

This brings us to the technical side — and the only quibbles with the show. The set design was by Rei Yamamoto/FB, and was very simple — some colored panels, and some office chairs. As they say, no expense was spared :-), but then again, this show has no real locations that had to be created, and the lack of a fancier set allowed the focus to be on the women themselves. Costumes were by Natalya Shaninyan (FB) and provided the quibble from my wife. I’m a guy — I wouldn’t know 80s fashion from a hole in the ground. My wife noted that some of the costume decisions were clearly of the wrong era — in the 80s, there wouldn’t be bare legs, there would be hose and shapers. Similarly, there were some comments from her on blouses tucked vs. untucked. I enjoyed the costumes, but wives often see things that we don’t :-). The sound by Josh Benton was clear and worked well. The lighting by Maarten Cornelis (FB) mostly worked — there were points, in my opinion, where the stage was a little too dark and the actors couldn’t be seen (and they weren’t intentionally in shadow).  Remaining credits: Victoria Chediak (Stage Manager); Maggie Marks (Props / Production Stage Manager), Art + Soul Design (Graphic Design), Michael Sterling (Publicity), Joanna Erdos (FB) (Associate Producer), Kritzerland Entertainment and Play Works Music (Producers).

The 20th Anniversary production of Inside Out (FB) continues at the Grove Theatre Center (FB) in Burbank through March 22, 2015. Tickets are available through Plays411.  Discount tickets may be available through LA Stage Tix and Goldstar. It is well worth seeing.

During the production, one of the character longs for a place where she can revive her career — a place where she can get back on stage and sing, and get back to being comfortable with performing again. If she was in Los Angeles, she’d have such a place — the wide variety of 99 seat theatres. Alas, on the horizon is a proposal from AEA that might drastically change this scene. The proposal would force 99 seat and under theatres to either give up their non-profit status and only produce actor-mounted productions (unless they were a preexisting membership company), or pay their performers minimum wage for both rehearsals and performances (with a 3 hour minimum per performance). In fact, this very production of Inside Out might not exist under the new rules — it is not an actor produced show, and employs at least 5 AEA actors — meaning that ticket sales and discount sales would not provide enough to pay them. 99 seat theatres would be forced to eschew use of AEA (and possibly SAG/AFTRA actors), and this will hurt the LA scene. If you, like me, are an audience member, you need to get up in arms about this.  Producers have their venues to speak up — through groups like TPPLA. Actors have the standing to protest with Equity. Us audience members? We need to let people know what we think. Are we willing to pay much more for 99 and under seat theatre? Are we willing to see shows with non-equity actors? Learn about the situation, and express your opinion. #Pro99

Ob. Disclaimer: I am not a trained theatre critic; I am, however, a regular theatre audience. I’ve been attending live theatre in Los Angeles since 1972; I’ve been writing up my thoughts on theatre (and the shows I see) since 2004. I do not have theatre training (I’m a computer security specialist), but have learned a lot about theatre over my many years of attending theatre and talking to talented professionals. I pay for all my tickets unless otherwise noted. I believe in telling you about the shows I see to help you form your opinion; it is up to you to determine the weight you give my writeups.

Upcoming Shows: February concludes with a lot of theatre in Burbank. Next weekend bring two more Burbank performances: the Good People Theatre Co (FB)’s production of Maltby/Shire’s Closer Than Ever at Hollywood Piano in the afternoon, and “The Road to Appomattox” at The Colony Theatre (FB) on February 28. March is equally busy, with the MRJ Man of the Year dinner on March 7 (and a Purim Carnival at TAS the next day), “Carrie: The Musical” at La Mirada Theatre for the Performing Arts (FB) on March 14, a “Drowsy Chaperone” at CSUN on Friday March 20, “Doubt” at REP East (FB) on Saturday March 21, “Newsies” at the Pantages (FB) on March 28, followed by Pesach and the Renaissance Faire on April 11. Other than the Faire, April is pretty much open (as is May), but I expect that to start changing soon (for example, I just booked “Loopholes” for the first weekend in May). As always, I’m keeping my eyes open for interesting productions mentioned on sites such as Bitter-Lemons, and Musicals in LA, as well as productions I see on Goldstar, LA Stage Tix, Plays411.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)