That is the worst idea I have heard this theatrical season. Nothing could drag the national reputation of the “Jeff Award” down more than to include non-professional theatres to share equal consideration with professional theatres. (Let the professional/non-professional argument start………now.)

There is nothing you can write that will convince me The Goodman Theatre efforts should be considered in the same playing field as (ex) Lifeline. I know, they will be separated by the Equity/Non-Equity preface but he non-pros will not list “Non-Equity” in their bios/resumes. The RESULTS will be confusing for anyone who does not understand the details. It will be deceptive and an unfair reduction of the distinction of the “Jeff” for those professionals to whom the award can be a defining addition to their resume.

Further, the Citations are a noncompetitive and frequently multiple award winning affair. That means, adding in the (usually) single Equity Award winner, there will be multiple Jeff Award “winning” productions floating around out there in a season. Bullshit.

They should have done the exact opposite-more to separate the professional and non-professional theatres in this city. Citation WAS the right term, a non competitive pat on the back to young theatre companies who are making their way toward becoming profession and Equity. This is as dumb as passing kids in school who really haven’t earned their grades lest we hurt their feelings and make them feel bad about themselves.

Shame on you Jeff Committee. You just disrespected the professional companies in this city and cheapened your prize.

We should probably note that the “brand audit” and the changes the Jeffs are making are based on interviews with managing and artistic directors of 20 theaters, from both the Equity and Non-Equity wings. In other words, Julie, this isn’t an arbitrary decision; it’s based on what the theaters themselves, on both sides of the divide, said they wanted.

I think some people who get hung up on this idea that non-Equity companies are somehow “non-professional” are too focused on actors. Don’t forget there are directors and designers, some of whom work at companies of both designations. Also remember that many of your “professional” companies work under contracts like the CAT-N, allowing them to cast just a single Equity actor in a cast of 16 (in the case of one show I saw recently). Happily, the distinctions in Chicago theater aren’t as black-and-white as you’d like them to be, and I think this name change reflects that.

Julie, for your reference, here’s a link for you: http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/aap/.

Wow. Julie. What did we do to fail you? I’d love to hear about some of your specific experiences with both “professional” and “non-professional” theaters in Chicago, because either you haven’t given either a fare shake, or with programming as diverse as we have in a typlcal Chicago season, maybe you’ve tasted a couple bad apples that ruined the bushel.

But as someone who works in both Equity and Non-Equity houses and I’m sure other voices in the industry and in the audience will back me up: the Jeff distinction of professional versus non-professional work doesn’t mean what you think it means. Like many non-union theater artists, Theater is still all I do. I’m a professional no matter where I’m working. The Equity / non-Equity distinction is not necessarily a difference in quality, it’s a difference in budget and lifestyle. But if you care about the health of the arts, you should support both.

As far as nomenclature, who cares. “Citation” is the word we have for speeding tickets, and if I work that hard for one, I don’t want to feel like I have to pay for it down at the Secretary of State’s office. Rewarding good work is rewarding good work, no matter who is making it. Want to compromise? Call the non-Eq version a “Joseph Jefferson Nice Show Good Job Way to Go Prize.”

The Jeffs are trying to make it easier for good work to be recognized by a larger audience, and that’s their mission. If you want someone to protect you from productions with small budgets, well, start your own organization, and god bless. Seriously, we need to know where you got this idea so that we can address it as an industry and as a community. Maybe our first step is to get you some tickets to non-Equity shows that will rock your world.

“Julie”,

There are plenty of non-Equity actors that should be considered “professionals”, as well as many Equity actors that could be considered amateurs. The lack of an Equity (or any other union) contract does not imply lack of professionalism (just possibly less money). There are many non-union professionals in theatre: actors, designers, directors, and stagehands.

Quite frankly, many non-Equity shows I have worked on or attended have been better than Equity shows that I have worked on or attended, and most non-Equity shows I have attended have been at least as good as the Equity shows. Many of us work for or attend both. To imply that all non-Equity productions are sub-par insults the entire Chicago theatre community.

The Jeffs are intended to highlight the best work of the year. Regardless of the non-Equity awards potentially going to multiple shows, they are still going to the best shows that year, not to every show.

As for the “non-pros”, (as you call them) not listing an award as non-Equity in a bio/resume: don’t you think that their union affiliation, or lack thereof, would already be noted in their resume? Equity requires that members have their affiliation noted in programs. In addition, what respectable theatre would not know which other companies are Equity and which are not?

Were theatres that only recently started Equity contracts just doing crap before? Were all Equity actors bad actors before joining Equity? Using your logic, the Goodman must always have better productions than Steppenwolf because the Goodman crews are IATSE, thereby Steppenwolf’s must be “non-professional” since they are non-union.

Professionalism is demonstrated by the work, not by any union contract (as any union or non-union person would agree).

I have to say that I am surprised by Julie’s response to this news. As someone who has been working in the Chicago theatrical community, in both Equity and non-Equity theatres, for 19 years, I welcome the dropping of the word “citation.” I have been nominated for both awards and citations, and have won some of those nominations as well as After Dark Awards.

The recognition is the point, not the value of their status.

Let’s not forget here that the delineation of these two different awards is solely whether or not the theatre company is a member of the union - and only Equity actually. I am a member of USA-829, which is part of IATSE, and have been a member of the union for only 1 out of my 19 years of work here.

As a member of Lifeline Theatre (non-Equity), Rivendell Theatre (Equity), and an artistic associate at The Next (Equity). I would never call myself, or those I work with, un-professional based on what affiliation they had with a union. That’s a personal choice.

And there have been many shows I have seen, or been a part of, that have either received rave reviews or were panned on both sides of the Jeff aisle.

I’m just so glad I don’t have to say “citation” anymore to non-Chicago people. You have to explain too much to say you won an award.

Julie is completely correct. The example she chose (Goodman/Lifeline) is based on sound judgement and is unarguable. The Jeff Committee has made a terrible mistake in changing the nomenclature of the Jeff Citations. There must remain a clear and unmitigated difference between the two wings of the Jeff’s, as there is (whether you like it or not) a clear difference in products. Those of you arguing differently are living in a non-eq fantasy, and have clearly not experienced the exponential difference between the two wings. OR you understand the obvious chasm, and are hoping to grab a few of these “Awards” before the Jeff committee comes to their senses.

Funny how Charles and Julie lack surnames. I wonder how Sting will approach this issue.

“Julie” and “Charles”

To use better examples: How are Timeline, The Hypocrites or Lifeline clear and unmitigatedly, unarguably different from The Gift Theatre, Theatre Wit, or The Artistic Home?

Have you clearly experienced the exponential difference between the two wings?

The assertion that the Jeff Award will lose some of its value as a resume listing makes the assumption that the person reading your resume can’t move one column over to determine if the theatre listed next to the accolade is, in fact, an Equity theatre.

Also, the assertion that the Goodman does superior work when compared to Lifeline is flawed due to its basis on the assumption that more seats and more money means a higher quality production.

I agree that Equity and non-Equity productions should have a line drawn between them because they are contractually different. It doesn’t make the work done by either any less valid.

So, in short, quit bitching and get back to work.

I think the Jeff Committee has made a poor move here and this blog reflects what is one of the foundational peculiarities of this theatre town. Unlike NY (and Rob, you can stop the rude attacks to bloggers like Julie who are simply stating their opinion) Chicago has healthy Union and non-union factions. There is both wonderful and mediocre work being done in both arenas. But there are two arenas, and they are not interchangeable. Simply talking about actors, the majority of non-union work is being done by players in the formative stages of their careers or by part-timers who do it for the love of the craft, not expecting much if any compensation beside the joy of the doing. The Union actor has made a commitment to the craft as a profession, and in doing so, expects to be held to a higher standard of judgment in his efforts both critically and in the acquiring of gainful employment by his efforts. Many Union members, for whom acting is their only form of income, have far more at risk than the layman, who dabbles on a part-time basis. The same can be said comparing Theatres, directors, designers, etc. In effect, the non-union member, by choice, is an amateur. The Union member is a professional. Does his union card make him a better actor? Not any more that a union card makes someone a better ditch-digger. It is up to the individual to be what he can be. That said, the idea of the Jeff committee giving a citation (Def: A mention of a praiseworthy act.) at a noncompetitive ceremony to non-union theatres is correct. To not change the fact that it is noncompetitive and (in many cases) multi-recipient but to now call it an “award” is erroneous. For the past 40 years, the Jeff award has been a nationally recognized award by professionals in the theatre arts. To now include amateurs within those ranks serves to diminish the prestige of the honor and instead of encouraging and raising those non-union performers toward the goal of becoming professional, it conversely lowers the respect of the “Jeff” for those for whom the award was created. Certainly, the non-union players in this city should receive accolades for their efforts when they are deserved, however, to pretend there isn’t a healthy divide in this city is naïve and detrimental to those non-union players who aren’t quite ready to swim in the deep end.

Here’s my question. If the non-union theatres are the same as the union theatres, why doesn’t the Goodman, Chicago Shakes, Steppenwolf and the rest just go non-union? Why would they want to pay the higher costs for salaries, pension, health, bonds and the rest? Clearly there is something in the Union artist (and I’m talking Designers, Musicians, Directors, Choreographers, Stage Hands and Actors) that is preferable to these theatres from the non-union artist. They don’t have to be union, they choose to be. Pegasus Players for years has resisted being organized. Bully for them. Are they one of our top theatres? In my opinion no. Because their work continues to be amateurish. I’m sure they are trying as hard as they can, but you can only expect to produce amateurish work when you are working with amateurs. To me, the non-union group sounds like a bunch of bratty kids who are pissed off because they can’t eat at the adult table and stay up late. And now, crazy uncle “Jeff” just handed them the keys to the Bentley.

It seems that what many commenter’s here are forgetting is that the awards will still be separate. Its not as though Eclipse is going to be going head to head with the Chicago Shakespeare for any single award. While both will be called “Awards” instead of one of them being called a “Citation,” there will still be a designation that one is for Equity productions, and one will be for non-Equity productions. They will probably still be given at different times.

Why is it so horrible that the word “Citation” is no longer going to be used? If the member theatre’s don’t like it, why not drop it in favor of a different term? Do some of the commenter’s prefer the “traffic ticket” connotation associated with the term? Does it serve, in your eyes, to keep the “amateurs” in their place?

And Barb, while I won’t get into the union/non-union argument again here, I do want to point out that some of us in the “non-union” group are, in fact, union members, and/or are working on productions in both Equity and non-Equity theatres.

What’s up with Susan Haimes and the Jeff bunch? The last couple of Jeff Awards seem to have been making some great strides at restoring a bit of the dignity to the whole ceremony while the Citations have always felt, at least to me, like a big collective party. There seemed to be a certain pride in the citation, that is was not the Equity thing-a bunch of scrappers doing art for art’s sake with the occasional and exciting breakout company that crosses over into the Equity big league (Lookingglass anyone?). Even that creative bunch saw they had to go Equity to do the high quality of work they are now doing. A couple of years ago, Porchlight joined the union. This year Timeline will. Why are they doing this? Why don’t they just stay non-union? The answer is simple, in order to grow, you must grow up. And that means letting go of doing it, after your day job, for kicks and the post show party at four moons. The citation is something to be proud of. Enjoy it while you can. Susan, don’t fuck that up. Keep the Citation.

Patrick,
What you and other supporters of the “non-union Jeff Award” are missing here is that having two things called the “Jeff Award” distinguished only by the tag on “Equity Wing/Non-Equity Wing” only serves to deepen the problem that the Jeff Committee is allegedly endeavoring to eliminate. Supposedly there is a substantial number of people, apparently Christopher Piatt included, who can’t seem to distinguish the difference between the Jeff Citation and the Jeff Award. Frankly, it seems rather easy to me. What I suspect is going on here is that a sizable number of non-equity theatres have evolved from being appreciative of the qualified recognition once afforded them by being acknowledged by the Jeff Committee and have come to the conclusion that they should now receive equal while separate consideration alongside the Union theatres. Additionally, I suspect, that the Jeff Committee received a rather luke-warm response from the Union theatres in regard to their survey, not surprisingly since the committee continually neglects numerous major productions from The Goodman, Steppenwolf, Second City and Chicago Shakespeare (productions which frequently get great critical applauds both locally and nationally) while giving their top prize to the likes of Porchlight. The results would indicate that there is ground swell support for a non-union “award” and apathy from Union theatres in regard to the matter. Did the committee ever actually speak with the Equity board about their survey?
It is clear that the Union and non-union Jeffs will remain separate. What is understandably offensive to the pro Union faction on this blog is that the term “Award,” raises the non-union theatres to a comparative level with the Union theatres. I doubt the non-union “Jeff Award” recipients will be diligent to specify that they received the award in the “Non-union wing” and instead let there be a certain vagary to what “Award” they actually received in their advertising of it. Heck, they even do it now by simply saying the got a “Jeff” while leaving out the specification that it was a Citation not an Award. If the non-union folks should get an “Award” then the rules for their division should also be revamped to be competitive and end the multiple recipients and if that were to happen then you might as well let them compete against the big theatres and then see how things shake out. Goodman vs. TUTA. Northlight vs. Bohemian Theatre Ensemble. Now that would be interesting.
Actors Equity has been fighting since 1913 for the dignity of the profession. They deserve respect for that. They alone should receive the “Award.”

Mr. Dwight, I didn’t realize that providing a link to a website constituted a “rude attack.” My apologies. But, I ask you, what of the playwrights and directors who work at these non-equity theaters? Are they amateurs too? Is Rick Snyder a professional actor at Steppenwolf and an amateur director at Strawdog? Is Brett Neveu a professional playwright at American Theater Company and an amateur playwright at Strawdog? Is everything quite that black and white? Those of you who have been throwing around the word “amateur” with more than a dollop of condescension and, frankly, contempt, have seen fit to ignore Mr. Vire’s rather salient point above about the large gray area that has developed over the years.

There are a lot of strange and erroneous perceptions floating around here that I often find sad.

The idea that by pursuing the buck, first and foremost, is the act of a “grown up” but to pursue the art for its own sake is the act of a child. Thus equating the move from non-Equity to Equity to an evolutionary progression. What a bunch of horseshit. One can just as easily equate chasing the dollar as a sign of greed and those who make the move have become Republicans (which is also a load of crap).

We’re all prostitutes, giving out handjobs for a couple of bucks. And all prostitutes, regardless of who their pimp is, are called “pros.”

The perception that a nod from an organization filled with a highly conservative (read: old as God) membership is somehow an achievement of anything other than creating highly conservative theater is ridiculous.

If you dig the safe and “designed for mass appeal” qualities of Equity theater, rock your socks off on yet another parody of Broadway hits and be amazed at the cool sets and comfortable chairs. Sometimes the stone seems better when the setting is more expensive. That doesn’t make it better but, hey, you gotta spend your $300.00 of monthly expendable income on something, right?

The perception that changing the name of the award makes ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL is the funniest - both from the Jeff organization and those who dig on that stuff.

Okay…I get it…some of you won’t consider me professional until I get my Equity card. Here’s what I need you to remember though…I can’t just roll out of bed tomorrow and walk down to the AEA office and get my card. I’ve got to work for it. I can earn my 50 points and pay my $1100 bucks or I can win the Chicago actor’s version of Powerball and have a theatre company offer me an Equity contact. Until that time, I’m non-equity. Not by choice…but by circumstance. Unfortunately, when that magical day arrives, I won’t automatically be any more talented that I was. I’ll still be the same moderately-talented hack I was before. At least I can take solace in knowing that people who don’t know any better will automatically assume I’m better than I was.
I also need you to remember that this is a debate that stretches beyond actors to include designers. A show running on a non-equity budget is going to have less money to go around for design elements. So to have separate awards — which the Jeffs will STILL be, remember — allows us to recognize the artistry of designers who can work their magic on a shoestring.
To somehow claim that I’m less professional because I don’t get paid and I only get a break every 3 hours is at best disingenuous and at worst worthy of getting punched in the taint. Okay…you got me…THAT was unprofessional of me.

“To me, the non-union group sounds like a bunch of bratty kids who are pissed off because they can’t eat at the adult table and stay up late. And now, crazy uncle “Jeff” just handed them the keys to the Bentley.”

That’s funny, because to me the union-only group sounds like the same sort of people who used to insist that allowing in “those people” would spoil the country club and make it imPOSSIBLE for me to enjoy my lunch.

Oh, and this:

“The Union actor has made a commitment to the craft as a profession, and in doing so, expects to be held to a higher standard of judgment in his efforts both critically and in the acquiring of gainful employment by his efforts. Many Union members, for whom acting is their only form of income, have far more at risk than the layman, who dabbles on a part-time basis.”

These “dabblers” you talk about would often like nothing more than to toss away their day jobs and have more time to commit to their artistic labors. It’s not a question of commitment, talent, or courage; it’s a question of being able to eat and pay rent. An Equity actor who hasn’t worked in awhile will take that office temp job to pay bills–are they suddenly not as committed as they were before?

It’s the economy, stupid.

“The perception that a nod from an organization filled with a highly conservative (read: old as God) membership is somehow an achievement of anything other than creating highly conservative theater is ridiculous.”

What membership are you referring to, Don? Equity members or Jeff Members?! Ha!

Even you can’t avoid delineating the Equity as the “adults” and non-union as “kids” (with the petulant “don’t trust anyone over thirty” nonsense.) This argument will never be resolved any more than a parent can explain to a child why they won’t their child the keys to the family car. But that’s not the point of this blog. It’s the Jeff committee who are now in over their heads with too many theatres to judge. My God, can one more theatre open in this town? Not that there can be too much theatre but the Jeff organization clearly needs some new ideas to wrestle the numerous theatres, in their numerous levels of development, to be able to sort them into categories to judge them fairly with others in their category.

I don’t think that calling all of them Jeff “Award” winners is the solution. I think each level needs it’s own name and frankly what was wrong with “Citation?” The definition is: “any award or commendation, as for outstanding service, hard work, or devotion to duty, esp. a formal letter or statement recounting a person’s achievements.”

That seems to capture it perfectly. Leave it be.

Hmm . . . How does that work for actors (and there are many) that are a member of SAG, but choose to remain non-equity? Are the only professional when in front of a camera? Or Designers who are in USA but working at a non-equity house, Writers who are in the Dramatists Guild but beign produced by a non-equity company.

I asked earlier: “How are Timeline, The Hypocrites or Lifeline clear and unmitigatedly, unarguably different from The Gift Theatre, Theatre Wit, or The Artistic Home?”

Hint: the first group are non-equity and the second group is equity.

For those seemingly bent on bashing all work that is created with a company that has less than a ten-million dollar annual budget, the lines are far more gray than you may think.

And yes you find non-equity actors on stage at the big houses as well.

… all this fuss over “equity vs non-equity”, “professional vs. amateur”,….

funny…. isn’t the reason Chicago’s theatre scene was put on the map was because a small band of college grads in the 70’s decided to do some ground-breaking theatre in a church basement?????

and haven’t THEY (over TIME) become one of the most respected theatres in the country??

Where’s the respect for ARTISTIC GROWTH???

Not all theatre companies and artists START at the top - most, (like F.C., above) have to work at it.

And to use a word like “dabbles” for the non-equity artists out there is insulting to amazing amount of work they accomplish.

BD,
If you are an actor and are looking to make more money than you do now, to have health benefits, to earn a pension, to work in conditions that guarantee your safety and salary, I have a simple solution for you – Join Actors Equity.

I’m currently a non-union actor who has worked in a number of the non-union houses (In a variety of roles large and small) an occasionally worked in the union houses (usually as an understudy, once in a small speaking role). I am recently out of college and both my siblings are in Equity but each lives on either coast. For two summers, I worked at The Barn Theatre in Michigan-my goal; get experience and my union card.

I think this conversation has gone way off kilter. The Jeff Committee did not say that Non-equity and Equity were the same. What they are trying to do is find a way to honor each faction while continuing to differentiate them from one another. Dianna, you mentioned the growth that happened with Steppenwolf. Yes, they were non-union, then as they developed they naturally joined the union. I don’t know why so many non-union supporters (at least on this blog) have a problem with that. I don’t see any Steppenwolf folks looking to give up their card and go back to working in that church basement because it was just the same as it is now. I hope to become Equity one day. I am working hard toward that goal. I am studying my craft; working in theatres where I can get experiences and one day I want to move up to working at Goodman & Steppenwolf. Would you begrudge me that?

I know where I am in my career as a young actor. I am going to get better and I am better than I was when I was in high school. But I don’t what to go back to high school, I want to move forward. I am in AFTRA and I am near to getting my SAG card. I am very proud of that. I don’t think anyone should judge anyone else simply because they are or are not in the union, but I do think that it does say something about your place in your profession if you are in Actors Equity.

I think the Citation title should remain. And one day I hope to win a Jeff Award.

Dave - I appreciate your calm demeanor and I agree that there’s nothing wrong with working towards getting to Equity. The conflict here is with those who insist that until you actually achieve that Equity status, you are a hobbyist, an amateur, incapable of the work you will no doubt do when you’re Equity, as if the union card switches on newfound talent or charisma. There’s acknowledgment of achieving a certain level in your career and then there’s just blind snobbishness. You seem to understand the difference.

I was okay with Citation. I am okay with Award. Semantical firestorms are silly.

“There seemed to be a certain pride in the citation, that is was not the Equity thing-a bunch of scrappers doing art for art’s sake with the occasional and exciting breakout company that crosses over into the Equity big league”

Mae Ford, with the pro-citation argument that seems to have made any sense.

The problem with the pro/non-pro debate is that the ‘non-pros’ wanting to be called ‘pros’ is so easy to equate with non-equity wanting to be equity. But this isn’t non-Eq crashing Eq’s party; at least not from my perspective. Equity can keep the ‘awards’ if they’re so damn precious.

As an artist, I don’t look to the Goodman or Chicago Shakes to see the quality of work I aspire to do. I look to them to see the quality of work that I will surpass — not when I get my card (because I refuse), not when I get a ten million dollar budget (because I won’t), but every time I put on a show. Because what I see on stage is beyond salary, benefits, resumes and, yes, even ‘awards’. If those are the things you buy your tickets for, keep throwing your cash at the big guns that already have it. The rest of you can consider yourself comped to the next Per Diem show. Just ask for Paul.

Dave -

I don’t think anyone begrudges anyone else the choice to become Equity or, for that matter, the choice a theater makes to become Equity. What rankles is the spin that by making that choice, you and the theater have “grown up” or have “more talent and experience” or “do better work” which is far from a universal truth.

I’ve been an Equity actor and chose to leave because the kind of work I am interested in isn’t being done by Equity theaters (for the most part). Sure, I’d love to be cast in a Peter Brook-directed piece but I’m unwilling to perform a sixteenth version of “The Music Man” and wait for eight months to do a staged reading just to have insurance.

And anyone who believes that most Equity actors make their living performing live theater has never been an Equity actor or known one very well.

Ultimately, whether the Jeff Committee changes the name of the awards or not, it makes little difference to the little guys who, upon being recommended, are then required to comp a chunk of their audience in order to have them sleep in the front effing row and bitch about the bathrooms.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m hungry. Who wants to order pizza?

Sweet lord. I’m sure most people lucky enough to get a Jeff Award are too grateful, busy or classy to even engage in this argument.

I was just telling a newcomer about the supportiveness of the Chicago theater community. I hope he doesn’t read this thread. Embarrassing, really.

“Up there with my awards, I have a great big statue of Groucho Marx, just to put everything in perspective.”
John Lithgow

If you worry this much about awards and their worth, I humbly suggest you’re in theater for the wrong reasons.

Merrie
SAG member

Merrie,
As a SAG member, certainly you know that an Academy Award win makes your price go up the next morning. Accolades, whether good reviews or awards are valuable to the professional actor looking to be upwardly mobile in their profession. Who are you to question why an actor works in theatre? Clearly it’s important to Equity members to stay distinguished from non-union members. Then just keep it the way it is Equity=award, Non-equity=citation.

I am not in Equity. But it seems to me that many of the pro non-union arguments on this site repeatedly make the pro-union argument. They’re just working for the art, they don’t make enough, if any, money at it. The union has never claimed to represent better actors than non-union members (I’m not talking about the occasional Equity member who feels this way, I’m talking about the official Equity viewpoint). The union is there to serve people for whom acting is their vocation in life and who insist on a fair wage and protection for their efforts.

Don, if you won’t audition for “The Music Man” (A brilliant piece of musical theatre) that is your choice. If you choose to not pursue Acting as your sole means of employment, so be it. It’s moronic and insulting of you to suggest that those who do are selling out. I assume that you also tell your boss at your day job what you will and won’t do at your whim.

Rob, unless that pizza is prepared and delivered by union personnel, I’m not interested!

James,

Where have I called anyone a sell-out? As I stated before - I’ll even use quotes here -

“I don’t think anyone begrudges anyone else the choice to become Equity or, for that matter, the choice a theater makes to become Equity.”

Those who choose to be Equity do it for one reason - a sense of security in their chosen field of work. Those who do not choose that path are no more or no less talented or committed to their art. Anyone who believes they are is a friggin’ boob.

As for “The Music Man,” I think it’s a fine piece. I happened to consistently get cast in it, over and freaking over, when I was Equity. My experience was pretty mundane and I left.

And no - I’m not so archly principled in my workplace - it’s a job. I do it well and I enjoy it very much. But turning my artistic inspiration into a job just isn’t my thing anymore. I prefer the freedom that not aligning myself with an esoteric organization provides.

If others prefer to make it their job, awesome. I have no beef with it. I just don’t see that any difference is made, AT ALL, by changing the name of a self congratulatory piece of paper or plaque.

And isn’t that the article we’re commenting on? The Jeff Citations becoming the Jeff Non-Equity Awards?

Um, I’m going to just comment on the article. And maybe the Wrath of Julie, because that made me laugh. Dear Wrath of Julie: I have seen some wonderful art happen at equity houses, but I have also seen some Holy-God-Leave-at-Intermission-Who-Cares-How-Expensive-the-Ticket-Was-or-Who-Gave-Me-the-Comp BILGE at equity houses. I can say the same about non-equity houses as well. I guess that kind of screws your Standards By Label theory. Equity does not equal Good. Neither does Non-Equity (although it may equal Stay Away From Julie Before She Steals Your Jeff Citation Non-Equity Award And Burns It With Her Books).
Anyway, I like the change. It looks better on my resume. Thanks, Jeff Brand Audit.

Um, Rob you are HILARIOUS. I agree. Get her out of here.

Rob Kozlowski wins for the pizza idea and the link to Craigslist.
Merrie Greenfield wins for Most Indignant, But Sweet.
Don Hall totally wins for Most Hot-Headed and probably right. But some of the stuff he says is just ridiculous.
Nick Keenan wins for being calm and fair and also right.
Non-Equity: We called it “semi-professional” in the ’80s. Or some of us did. We were non-Equity when we said it, and it cracked us up.
Someone in my office says this the best blog ever.

This is a really stupid argument. You could give me a Tony and call it fannypants and I would love it and cherish it…the same with a Jeff. In a business where there is much rejection, little thanks and even less money. It is nice to be recognized for your efforts. We all work so hard. Put away the snobbery and pride on both sides. The Jeffs (both of them) should be a joyous occasion. It’s a ceremony where for a brief time you can forget that houses are light, the reviews weren’t what you would like or your money troubles. For that brief time you can celebrate great theater and great performances. Who cares where they come from or what the recognition is called.

“Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere.”

-Peter O’toole
(as Anton Ego in Disney’s Ratatoille)

I think the Jeff Committee should leave it alone. I don’t recall any huge clamor around town to blur the distinction between the two. The multi-winner/single winner formats are key. We tried a few years back to introduce multi-winners at Equity Jeffs and that was about as successful as Uncle Broadway at the Royal George. Let it be. The Citations are a fun and raucous night…The Jeff Awards, more staid and business like, sometimes fun, even. This years show was slick and fast, too.
And another thing… a lot of people are going call whatever they win a Jeff Award. Citation or not.

Hand ‘em out and let’s go home.

I agree with Harmony. The Jeffs are about recognizing people who are doing good work. Lets just focus on that.

As far as professional vs. non-professional, I fully believe that the one thing that divides the two is your work ethic. Professionals are those who give 110%, whether there is a full house, or four people. If you carry yourself in a professional manner, that is all that is required. A union card is great, but its purpose is to protect you so you have a few less things to think about while trying to do your job. It is not awarded based on your level of professionalism, or talent for that matter.

Yikes. I feel like I’m just sitting down to lunch at a table in the cafeteria of my high school. Which is not a good thing.

Don’t be so afraid! It’s all going to work out just fine. I’m trying really hard to hold back on the catty comments I have for several of you, especially since I am not an equity member and therefore would sound more like a “bratty kid” than a woman voicing her opinion.

That being said……Ms.Mae Ford…..have you gone back and read what you posted? I hope you’re somewhat embarrassed, because I’m embarrassed for you. “Doing it after your day job, for kicks and the post show party at four moons,” you say? “Grow up,” you say? I didn’t realize that by working a 40 hour week at a day job so that I can afford some nice New Balance “kicks” to wear while I drink a vodka tonic at Four Moons meant that I was not a grown up. I thought that devoting so, so much of myself (meaning my time, I suppose to you) to something that doesn’t award me monetarily but in much more lasting ways, meant that I was, indeed, grown up. Doing it for the money? Now that is just childish.

oy.

Julie - Wow. If there were more people with all of your insight, we’d still be painting like the old masters. Thanks for making me laugh for about 20 minutes. Only Don Rickles can usually do that.

Additionally - Goldblum still looks great, doesnt he?

This has been an argument I’ve “heard” and participated in quite often. I’ll start off by saying I give a good goramn if the Jeff’s change the name or not. As long as I get the free deli wraps when I’m lucky enough to be in a nominated show, I’m happy.

First of all, it rankles the fur on the back of my neck when Equity actors condescend to call the non-eq’s “unprofessional” or “amateur”. I can only say that it would probably rankle your hair if non-eq actors called equity folks “establishment”. There was a time, probably not too long ago, when the “professionals” in the AEA were “amateurs” just like us. And they did exactly what I’m doing now: Work 40 hours a week at work. And work another 40 hours a week at what I love. (And only get paid for one set of 40). Was their ascension into the hallowed halls of the AEA a credit to their talent? Sure. was it also a little bit of luck? Yes. Was it also a conscious decision to perhaps compromise the type of work they wanted to do with being able to be a full time performer? I can imagine that it was. There are good, quality, talented people in both union and non-union work, many of whom have chosen one career path over another for different reasons. (I don’t do it for love, I do it for booze).

There’s a lot of theatre going on in this town, and because there are so many factors working against live theatre, it is more important than ever to foster the growth of the audience. And frankly, we can only do that by working together, across union/non-union lines, across types, across genres. Over 200 companies compete for the same 10,000 audience members. Does that make any sense, logically?

Folks who are willing to sacrifice non-union theatre in this city as “unprofessional” and “amateur” are what I find wrong with the Union structure as we know it. It’s built to protect longevity (good), but not built to foster solidarity with potential union members (bad). Perhaps if we didn’t have to jump through 3 rings of fire and find the golden fleece, only to have the amount of work we get to do decrease by 75%, more of us would join AEA. The structure now, however, puts us in a situation where yes, I could get my card holding a spear at the Lyric. But I’ll never work again. and frankly, I like work.

Perhaps if we didn’t have to jump through 3 rings of fire and find the golden fleece, only to have the amount of work we get to do decrease by 75%, more of us would join AEA. The structure now, however, puts us in a situation where yes, I could get my card holding a spear at the Lyric. But I’ll never work again. and frankly, I like work.

A-freaking-men.

I just want to point out a couple of things:

1. The definition of “citation” may be recognition for a good thing, but common usage and connotation associate it more with recognition for a bad thing, like a traffic violation. Regardless of whether the re-naming it an “award” blurs the distinction between the two wings, it was time for that name to change.

2. Who on earth would the non-Equity theatres/actors possibly hope to hoodwink by listing “Award” on their resumes or in their bios? Anyone who cares about the distinction would be able to discern which it was by looking at the theatre on the resume, or by looking for that lovely little asterisk in the program. And to those who don’t know or don’t care about the distinction, they can say “Oh, she got an award. That’s nice.” instead of “What’s a citation?”

The fact that there is so much vitriol in some of these comments can only mean that a lot of us are really passionate and committed to what we do. At least that is my hope.

Last Monday night over at Davenport’s, Cassie Wooley, one of the best in an amazing group of young musical theater actors in this town, did her farewell cabaret performance before she moves to New York. I highly suspect that she would not be making this move if she had not turned Equity 18 months ago. As non-Equity, she was working regularly and a company member of the late Uma. Since she turned Equity, she’s only done “Fiorello!” (which she committed to before she went union), kids shows at Marriott and a couple of things at Peninsula Players up in Wisconsin–and this is almost criminal for a talent as gifted as she is.

I’ve joked that an Equity card sometimes means you just wait tables in better restaurants. I now wonder if it’s more truth than joke.

I find it interesting the amount of venom used in Chris Chaney’s response about Porchlight receiving accolades at this year’s Equity Jeff Awards.

Am I getting this right, sir, that even Union companies shouldn’t receive Jeff Awards because they haven’t been around as long as Steppenwolf or Goodman?

You’re also completely wrong. Steppenwolf won numerous Equity Jeff Awards for August: Osage County. I don’t recall them having a musical this year to even be up against Porchlight…hmmm…

So essentially you and the others who called me, a 12 year veteran in Chicago Theatre, a bratty kid, I believe…are equating the status of the Equity contact as stature? That’s ridiculous.

Are you suggesting that I, as a non-equity actress who won an Equity Jeff Award, snuck in there and stole the award from those that are so much more deserving as I am because they are “professional” and I’m just a lowly non-equity actor who drinks all my money away at the Four Moon?

You’re also suggesting that any Citation received for completely unique and innovative work on the Fringe/Storefront level is less than a schlocky big budgeted bru-ha-ha downtown?

ANY actor recognized for their work regardless of their union status is something to be celebrated not bitched about. Cause we ain’t in it for the money, that’s for sure!

Any designer, director, choreographer, ENSEMBLE, company, recognized is a moment of celebration.

There are numerous issues that go along with any type of ‘voting’ system as it’s base is biased, but please…to focus on what the hell the name of the award is really is childish.

And, quite frankly, there is something completely refreshing about Equity companies that actually USE talent from this city instead of flying in Equity actors from all over the country to fill their contracts. To compare Equity houses against each other is not only dangerous but completely irrelevant to the work we are all trying to achieve in our productions.

We’re not New York. Not one person with half a brain would fail to recognize the difference between stating Non-Equity Jeff Award and Equity Jeff Award.

Once again, the non-equity brethren make the solution to this argument perfectly clear:

KEEP the non-union “CITATION.”

I’ve been hearing about this discussion all day - wow. Before I say my peace: Go Sara! You rock. Okay, now… I just wanted to throw this out there for those ignorant to the plight of us non-Equity actors in Chicago: I have been doing this for ten years and I work constantly. I have won and been nominated for awards. I have been given heaps of praise and crudely knocked flat on my ass (as in this week’s issue of TOC!). But first and foremost - in my mind at least - I am an artist. I think that people (including some actors, apparently) forget that actors are ARTISTS rather than some desperate commodity willing to do anything for a dollar (excepting the film/commercial industry which is a completely different story and not my area of expertise). A true artist must create art or he/she should no longer consider him/herself an artist. I happen to have appeared in five Equity productions now, and NEVER once have I earned a single Equity point. Therefore, I obviously cannot join the union. Theoretically I would LOVE to, but not at the expense of being able to practice my artistry. For someone in my position to join the union (which is NOT something you can just “do”, it has to “happen” to you) is a HUGE risk. You may never or rarely get to practice your artistry. You are disqualified from most auditions and half or so of the jobs you can go out for aren’t even in the city. And how do you pay the bills with no known income? For most people I know, joining the union means one of four things: They can no longer justify working for little to no money and are willing to quit their day job and just “go for it”; they accept a role in an Equity production which requires them to join and they don’t want to refuse the opportunity (usually a kids’ show at Chicago Shakes or the Marriott); they are independently wealthy; or they plan to move to New York, where an Equity card is as essential as a headshot. Once you join Equity (if you can even afford the entrance fee), especially if you are young and want to stay in Chicago, you are pretty much screwed unless you are very well-connected/well-known and can get called in to the main theatres (or you are bad-ass enough to believe it will happen for you). But it does not just happen magically by joining the union! I have friends who have joined the union and deeply regret it. I also know actors who manipulate the Equity system to stay out of it simply in order to practice their craft. Others lose their health insurance if they cannot score a certain number of work weeks per year. The prospect of joining seems a mess to me. Actors want to act, not necessarily just play walk-on roles or be in the choruses of musicals so that they can justify their time with a non-insulting paycheck (not that there is anything wrong with that). This issue is not just about unions, professionalism, and status - it’s also about artists protecting their craft. The real solution, in my mind, is for the non-Union companies to find ways of paying their actors more. Some well-established, award-winning, grant-guzzling companies still do not pay even a stipend to their actors (meanwhile paying their designers handsomely), which personally I find insulting and disrespectful. There are artists I admire who I will not work with simply because I will actually LOSE money by working with them. You’ve got to at least pay for my fucking coffee, people! It’s up to each actor to determine his/her standards. You can’t do that once you’re in the union. You have to follow the money. Right?

As for the Jeffs, I don’t think it matters much what the delineation is. I think the intention of the Committee is to show respect to the non-Equity faction because quite frankly, it is frickin’ AMAZING what we do with little to no money. In that sense, I like the name change. But honestly, overall I prefer “Citation.” The Citations are WAY more fun than the Awards, and the sense of community and celebration comes across far more at the Citations. I will miss the label, but ultimately it just doesn’t matter. The issue here really is understanding the plight of non-Equity actors and not insulting us the way Julie did here. The awards/citations issue seems unimportant in comparison.

I love it when Don Hall gets all het up and writes in italics.

You go Jeremy.
And here we come full circle and the truth will out.

You have put it all very well. Recently, when Actors Equity was searching for a new Executive Director, they pursued one of the top dogs in the Coal Miner’s Union as a possible candidate. After some consideration he declined the offer stating that, basically, he could not understand how Actors thought. He never met a miner who for one minute would consider working for no money (TRUE STORY).

I’ve read these brouhahas between the union and non-union factions on C. Jones’ blog and, even though the subject of this blog is “should the Jeffs change the name of the citation,” the union/non-union discussion is infiltrated here and must have its day.

No, artists shouldn’t work for unfair pay (Talk to the stagehands and musicians who rightly shut down Broadway to that end.). No, actors shouldn’t be paid disproportionately from designers or any other artist working on the play and yes, the producers should buy you a Goddamn cup of coffee.

Jeremy, the fire in your words is the same fire your fellow artists felt since 1913 when they said “hell no” and organized. Do you honestly think Chicago Shakes would voluntarily pay a living wage if they weren’t forced to? Do you think Criss Hendeson would take that $600 he spends on custom made imported Italian shoes for “Malvolio” and pass the savings on to you? Ask Jay Whittaker to weigh in on that question! Why doesn’t Timeline and Lifeline and Griffin and the rest pay the non-union actors a better portion of that grant money? How about the House folks and all that Broadway in Chicago cash? Do you think their actors are now being paid a living wage and maybe a health payment or some pension? Somebody has to fight for you. And if all non-equity actors banded together and said Raven and Signal and Redmoon we’re doing the same work as Equity actors, we care as much as Equity actors, we’re ARTISTS just like Equity actors, buy us a Goddamn cup of coffee or we don’t work! If you did that, if you forced them pay you what you’re worth–you’d have…a union.

But you know what, there are actors out there already fighting that fight. Yes, they worked at all the non-Equity theatres and at Steppenwolf and Lookingglass and Shattered Globe before they were Union houses. They are not your enemy. They felt they same way you do now and they said hell no. Pay me what I’m worth.

It fascinates me that the non-union actors think the other actors, the ones that they say are their artistic equals, are somehow their enemies when this issue comes up that they are paid a better wage. Believe me, it’s not that much, but it better than the crappy wage you get from, say, Circle.

This issue Jeremy, and Sara and Marsha (and even you creepy Mark Jeffries), is that the efforts toward excellence made by the non-union actor is no less than that of the union actor. However the “producer” you are working for at those non-union theatres is fucking you over like the sweat-shop-owners of old. They offer you lousy money and you take it, which just proves their point and so the bar has been set.

If they want to be a ‘professional” theatre, pay a professional wage. No it is not enough to say, “If I even get paid one dollar, I am getting paid and therefore I am a professional.” Nonsense. Do a “Norma Ray” on their asses and you’ll start getting the results you are looking for. Any of you who think the union is against you, doesn’t want you, thinks you are less of an artist is utterly and completely wrong. The union is reaching out to you. The union needs you to be strong. Grab that lifeline and you grab a bit of what you deserve for all your hard work, and classes and coaching and BFAs. When you were in college, did you really imagine yourself working at places like Halcyon Theatre?

Those of you who say, “well, I’d like to be paid, but, I didn’t get cast at the Goodman so…I just want to act so I’ll work at Dream Theatre for no pay…but I acting” need to seriously consider the implications of that choice. You continue to empower and enable these places to continue their practices. If you believe you are better than working for practically free then just don’t do it. When those places are left with the folks at the local park district to choose from in their next “Glengarry Glen Ross,” they’ll either step up to the plate or drop out of the race.

No Chicago is not New York. It sure as hell isn’t LA. But there is a very good reason why Nora Dunn’s colleagues have been asking her “What the hell she’s doing going back to Chicago?”

VERY well put, Julie. Thanks.

Here, here Julie.
And back to the point, keep the non-union CITATION.

Julie (latest post),
You do make some valid points. Sometimes I do feel like I am a sweat shop worker. It is unfortunately not that cut and dried. I feel like we have beaten this argument to death…so I will say this last thing and be done with it.
I will not work for free. I won’t and many non-eq actors won’t. But, what does that mean? At best it means a $200 stipend at the end of the show or $20 a performance with rehearsal not compensated for. This is non-equity pay even at some of those equity houses you’ve mentioned.
I would adore to have a living wage, health insurance, and a support system. The problem is my fairy godmother is not going to come wave her magic wand and make me equity. It, like anything else, is a process. Unless you luck out and have “exactly what they are looking for,” you have to work your way up. You HAVE to work at the non-equity houses. You HAVE to become better known to the directors and casting directors in the city. You HAVE to market yourself. If we boycott all the non-equity theaters we won’t be seen by anyone. If we aren’t seen by anyone chances are it will take us much longer to go equity- if we ever go at all.
I wish you were right. In a perfect world we would go on “strike.” Unfortunately, in this world I went to a school where there were 700 acting students. 700! Only a handful of us are working, and even less are actually getting paid for it. If I boycott non-equity theater they won’t have any problem finding someone to replace me.
With a few exceptions, none of us think that equity is “against us.” I absolutely plan on going equity when the opportunity presents itself and the time is right. However, I am not equity yet. I can only make the best of the situation that I’m actually in. I work extremely hard and I AM paid for it. I love what I do. I will be doing it for the rest of my life. I am a professional. Don’t try to take that away from me. The end.

Respectfully,
Harmony

Julie - while I agree with you wholeheartedly on actors deserving a fair and living wage, the truth of the matter is that it’s a very steep uphill battle for many of these small to mid-size non-equity theatres to pay that “living wage” otherwise, yes, they would all be equity. As someone who runs one of these non-equity theatres, I can tell you that the intentions of all the small to mid-size theatres is to pay our artists well. It’s in our best interest to pay the artists well because as you already know, the Chicago theatre community is a tight one and word of mouth trumps anything else. If there is an actor who is out line and not great to work with, the word will spread. On the flip side, if there is a theatre out there that doesn’t pay or is not worth the time to work with, the word does spread as well. I can’t for the life of me think that theatres such as Timeline, Lifeline, Griffin, Eclipse, Hypocrites, House, and on and on do not want to pay their actors. They do! But, coming from the perspective of running a non-equity theatre, you have to consider the whole bag - it ain’t cheap to do what we do and unfortunately, building a solid infrastructure and a theatre that can pay its artists well takes a lot of organization, skill, negotiation, a solid board, and dare i say it, luck. If what you preached came true as far as every theatre in this city paying a fair living wage, then the Chicago theatre scene would be equivalent to that of Lincoln, Nebraska. You know, there is a reason that actors flock to Chicago - Chicago is legendary for the amount of non-equity theatres that take a chance and say, you know what, I’m going to take a risk and try this and let’s see what happens. At the end of the day, it’s all about risk and expressing your art. Everything else is crap. Also, let me tell you - if all of us actors did it for the money, then we’re in the wrong biz honey. And that includes the equity actors as well. The only theatre in this town that pays well is the goodman, that’s it. Large institutions like chicago shakes and steppenwolf should be ashamed of themselves because they do rake in a lot of money and the artists are always at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to dispersing those funds. Small to mid-size (which comprises mostly the non-equity scene here in Chicago) don’t have that kind of pull in terms of foundation support, donor support, and ticket sales to generate enough income to trickle down to their artists. So, Julie - i praise your intentions, but the reality is that being an actor is a tough job and unless you’re a movie star, it’s tough to make a living at it. This is from the bureau of labor statistics “Some well-known actors—stars—earn well above the minimum; their salaries are many times the figures cited, creating the false impression that all actors are highly paid. For example, of the nearly 100,000 SAG members, only about 50 might be considered stars. The average income that SAG members earn from acting—less than $5,000 a year—is low because employment is sporadic. Therefore, most actors must supplement their incomes by holding jobs in other occupations.”

Well, I’ve changed my tune and I don’t hate Julie anymore. You made some good points, albeit they were a bit heavy handed and you sound like Non Equity Theatre has been responsible for the deaths of several of your family members. You and Jeremy seem like a match made in heaven! I just feel like it’s such an “attack” on Non-Equity theatres! Jeremy, yes there are many grants going around and a lot of tax-deductible donations being taken but no one is intentionally “screwing” the actors out of money. I ran a small non equity company for 2 years and saw first hand what a money guzzler this industry (having NOTHING to say of actors) is. And my company was T I N Y. A bare bones production with a standard run cost me over $20,000. And I didn’t pay my actors squat. You have NO idea of the intricate costs associated with production non equity theatre. It’s absurd. And I’m really only saying this because I want to defend the NonEqs, because (except for maybe one or two exceptions) I don’t think they are out to “get” us. They’re trying to make good art just like we are. It IS a bit ridiculous, though, that I was able to get actors to volunteer for nothing but couldn’t hire a single musician for less than $35-50/show + rehearsal stipend (which is CHEAP for a freelance musician), and that rate is almost DOUBLE the actor’s paycheck of the highest paying NonEq theatre that I know of. And I’m not going to even go INTO marketing costs. (Jeremy, you know a little about that).

It’s crazy. And for the companies that DO get enough grant money to pay the higher ups, they NEED it. Running a non equity theatre company as an Artistic Director or Managing Director is a 24/7 job. I’m talking about MORE than 40 hours a week. ESPECIALLY for smaller companies that can’t afford to pay or find a full staff. In those cases the AD/MDs NEED to be paid well enough to support themselves, because there is NO time for them to even work a day job. We, at least, can go work 9 - 5 and go to rehearsal and be tired. We can’t very well ask them to give up their paychecks and have no income in order to pay us a larger stipend (and not all of them get paid! I’m just talking about SOME of them!).

I know how it looks from the Frustrated Actor POV. I just also know how it IS from the Management/Administrative side of things. It’s not easy for them, either.

I’m not attacking anyone, I just wanted to present that side of things. And also, I support Kris Vire’s early post about the blurred distinction that the “Award” title creates mirroring the state of the theatrical community. Very well put.

I got this off of dictionary.com: ci·ta·tion /saɪˈteɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-tey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Military. mention of a soldier or a unit in orders, usually for gallantry: Presidential citation.
2. any award or commendation, as for outstanding service, hard work, or devotion to duty, esp. a formal letter or statement recounting a person’s achievements.
3. a summons, esp. to appear in court.
4. a document containing such a summons.
5. the act of citing or quoting a reference to an authority or a precedent.
6. a passage cited; quotation.
7. a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context.
8. mention or enumeration.

Julie, from your most recent post, I have this image of you standing outside of a 30 seat storefront theatre, screaming “SCAB!” at the actors you seem to think are preventing the theatre from joining Equity. But I digress…

You write in your newest post:
“It fascinates me that the non-union actors think the other actors, the ones that they say are their artistic equals, are somehow their enemies when this issue comes up that they are paid a better wage.”

I can’t imagine where they might get that idea, considering what you wrote in your first post:
“Nothing could drag the national reputation of the “Jeff Award” down more than to include non-professional theatres to share equal consideration with professional theatres.”

and:
“This is as dumb as passing kids in school who really haven’t earned their grades lest we hurt their feelings and make them feel bad about themselves.”

Regardless of your argument for unions, your original post (which was the basis for the majority of the responses here) made the claim that non-Equity actors, and the union or non-union designers and directors that worked on their shows, were unprofessional. Attacking the theatres themselves is one thing (and I personally think that you have very little understanding of how the majority of the smaller theatres operate, due to your Dickensian generalizations about them), but you attacked the artists themselves. Oddly enough, people don’t like to be told that they aren’t as good as those that make more money, especially when it comes out of discussion of a simple name change for an existing award recognizing their achievements. Calling someone that does not have a union card unprofessional is just as childish as calling a union member lazy. The card does not make the person. The contract does not make the company.

The post was about the name change for the non-Equity Jeff’s. Even the Jeff’s consider the non-Equity companies “professional.” You, however, first attack the artists doing the work, and then try to claim that you really meant the theatres. But then you still tell those working non-Equity jobs to start doing work that pays well or they are not professional.

“If you believe you are better than working for practically free then just don’t do it. When those places are left with the folks at the local park district to choose from in their next “Glengarry Glen Ross,” they’ll either step up to the plate or drop out of the race.”

Ok, so the majority of the theatre companies need to start turning a profit so they can pay LORT level wages? If they can’t pay everyone involved in the productions the same level as the Goodman then they should fold? Gee, that would remove 70% of the theatre’s in town! MAYBE all the money from the closed theatres would be directed to the remaining ones, but that still reduces the number of available shows to work on by 70%.

Nearly every theatre in town would love to have the ticket sales, seating capacity, and grants/donations to have a budget that would allow for high, or even decent, paying jobs for every person involved in their productions. But that simply isn’t possible. All theatre companies exist to create art. (Broadway companies exist as investment opportunies. Art sometimes results as a by-product.)

If you want to rail against the for-profit groups that treat their artists like chattel, be my guest. If you want to attack the large non-profits that don’t pay in proportion to their budget, feel free. But the majority of theatres in Chicago are non-profit and low budget, and like the big ones, they exist on the simple hope that they can produce art.

The reason Nora Dunn is in Chicago is to create art.

If you are merely doing whatever work pays, and claiming that is the only way to be a “professional,” then you might as well call yourself a prostitute. For those that try to enjoy the work (would they merely be sluts?), the pay is the bonus, the art is the fulfillment. Why do you think so many film and television stars still do theatre? It sure isn’t for the money….

Heck, I vow that the day I start doing theatre strictly for the money, that is the day I tell everyone to call me “Whore.”

I do appreciate Julie’s clarified remarks, although now she’s making it sound like Signal and Raven and whoever else non-Equity are these evil, money-hoarding vampires that don’t pay actors because they’re ethically challenged.

I worked a wonderful show last winter for no pay at all. I also work an open-ended show for a decent wage (albeit not a living wage) about thirty-to-forty weeks a year.

Funny thing is, I don’t remember the money and I don’t remember the not-money. I remember the shows.

I have no desire to “stick it” to small, non-Equity companies if it means we won’t get to watch Signal’s “The Weir” or Steep’s “Dealer’s Choice” or any number of wonderful non-Equity shows I’ve seen in this city.

Julie, your post is very well-thought out. I want to buy into it so badly, but it’s easy to identify as utopian. Actors are always replaceable. Suggesting that non-Equity actors strike is absurd - mainly because of the financial situation the non-union companies are in. If non-union actors went on strike, the non-union companies would simply cease to exist. We’d be a union town with six theatres. We wouldn’t be Chicago.

Eric, you know full well that I understand the financial situations of non-eq companies (which vary of course but could mostly all be considered precarious at best). What I love about the company I belong to is that despite not knowing whether we’ll break even or not, we ALWAYS pay the actors (at least the typical stipend) no matter what. If a company cannot commit to that, that is FINE. I did many shows for free for years. There comes a point when an actor has to decide where to draw the line (since no pay actually means a financial loss for the actor when you consider transportation, meals on the run, sometimes taking off other jobs, and of course, COFFEE!). If a company such as yours is brand new, I think there is a built-in understanding that they won’t be paying for awhile. And I never said that theatres were intentionally “screwing” actors out of pay - they simply choose not to prioritize paying actors (even a small stipend) because they know actors will always be available and willing to work for them. They don’t HAVE to pay actors, but they damn sure have to pay designers and we know full WELL they have to pay musicians, har har! I suppose in a way this means I agree with Julie (!) about the fact that in a utopian world we could all go on strike and within weeks we’d all have health insurance and get paid for - gulp - rehearsals! But it simply isn’t a real-world viewpoint. There are like seven musicians in Chicago and about 10,000 actors. If we went on strike, we would “never work in this town again!” And what would the end result of a non-Equity strike be? $400 stipends? Woo-hoo. Every theatre company would be doing Zoo Story starring their Artistic and Managing Directors.

I think the wonderful thing about Chicago, which is recognized on a national level, is that you can jump into the scene working for fledgling companies and getting paid nothing while gaining experience and making connections. You can then transition into following whatever standards you determine are right for you (usually a mix of money-connections-quality of role-venue, etc.).
You can then, if the right opportunities come along, go Equity and start all over again. THEN you can move on to New York if things go well and you want to start over yet again! Of course some lucky actors seem to skip several of these steps, which is lovely. For the rest of us, I think the system works and benefits the entire city… excepting the hiring of NY actors here which is nice once in awhile but seems excessive in my experience so far.

Does this blog have a self destruct button?

Jeremy you rock too :)

To theorize about what is fair and what is realistic isn’t the point, Julie. Being an actor is just like any other job and you have to work extremely hard to work your way up the ladder. You take shows that help your craft, in order to be hired again; to be seen, to market, to grow. You start in the mail room in order to move your way into getting the executive bathroom key - if that is the path you are trying to achieve.

It’s really not rocket science the way the world works, but what is important is that your original rant showed the true feeling that a lot of people have, which is skewed and honestly unfair. There are many who stay non-equity because they work more, plain and simple. They work with Equity houses in one of the non-Equity contracts, make a stipend to help minimally with their income, and WORK. They try to gain points but mostly don’t get them, and still continue to try, or they join theatre companies that they feel most connected with and as an ensemble attempt to produce fantastic work.

You don’t stay in theatre over ten years because you like to party. It’s way too tiring keeping a full time job, rehearsing full time on top of that, getting a stipend of hopefully over $100, MAYBE getting some praise for your work, and hopefully getting to do it again with another company JUST TO PARTY.

And stop bashing the Four Moon. Their brunch is friggin fantastic, and quite frankly I think it’s brilliant that there are places - especially when you’re first starting out - where you have a chance to MEET your community of actors. A lot of our job is marketing, whether we like it or not, and there is no better way that meeting as many people as you can within the community.

What’s the real issue here? Honestly why do you care so much? Are you an Equity actor who feels slighted? Are you feeling others nipping at your heels? Will your award hold less value now that a plaque shares PART of the same name?

I’ve been lucky enough to win both, once as a part of an ensemble winning a Jeff Citation, and the other already mentioned at the Equity Jeff’s last year. They are BOTH equal, because each production deserved the honor of even being nominated. That’s what we all try to achieve. That is the only thing that is truly important. Not the awards, but the production as a whole. Having patrons come see us work and being so damned proud of what you’ve achieved. Creating an ensemble. Coming into work every day and never wanting the production to end because you are having so much fun knowing that what everyone is doing is the best they bring to the table. The rest is semantics.

Both are separate events, each special to the community they serve, and I’m still trying to figure out how anyone with intelligence wouldn’t be able to tell them apart?

If you’re an actor that would lie on your resume to bulk it up by just stating Jeff Award, then you’ll be found out and never work again. Simple. This theatrical community is way too small to ever let something like that go unnoticed.

One medium stuffed spinach, one large thin-crust veggie, one extra large pepperoni. How’s that?

The discussion should be about the theatres, not artists. Theatres that do not pay their actors a living wage (or at least nearing it or showing progress toward doing so) should not be acknowledged in the same league as theatres that do. The awards should sound nothing alike, because the theatres are nothing alike.

If the theatre does not pay actors, but sells tickets, accepts grant money, enjoys city-sponsored theatre space, and pays administrative salaries, the products of these theatres should not be considered professional, because the organization does not behave professionally in regards to paying employees. The only way these organizations can maintain operations is on the backs on unpaid and unprotected actors. It’s legal (I’m not sure why), but the theatre should not be respected with similar-sounding awards or anything that makes them sound like theatres that find a way to pay actors. Theatres that pay actors should be treated with a greater respect because they treat thier employees with greater respect - BY PAYING THEM. I don’t care how much the artistic director wants to keep the theatre alive or the ensemble members want to act in every play, or the ideas are so not-mainstream that it’s more important to do it for nothing than to not do it at all. Fine, enjoy the clubhouse, but don’t have the gall to accept awards that sound just like the awards that theatres who pay thier actors get. There is one, singularly quantifiable way to prove professionalism: PAY YOUR ACTORS.

I’m a proud AEA member and Jeff Award winner and I’m not ashamed to take pay and benefits to do so. While I love the community for supporting companies and artists emerging, I have dwindling patience for theater “companies” that don’t pay (in some cases for more than 20 years!) and then want awards that sound like the awards given to people who work at theatres who do. It’s one more way of saying it doesn’t really make a difference if actors are paid or not. It should matter - to every actor, equity or not, and every Chicagoan. We should be trying to be a city that is proud of paying our artists, rather than giving sound-alike-awards to theatres that don’t, can’t, won’t or never will.
I include any company that has remained Teir N or Teir 1 for more than 3 years. They either don’t have the will or business chops to make it happen.

I would create a larger distance between awards: Jeff Awards for Theatres that are Tier 3 and over, and The Non-professional and Emerging Companies Award for everybody else.

Equity Actor,

Man. You turned me completely around here.

After all this time, I realize that art is actually ALL ABOUT MONEY. And those companies that are financed well enough to pay their actors are better than those that do not. Because it is ALL ABOUT MONEY.

Oh. But I knew that, didn’t I?

Let’s see - I think I’ll pay double for my $150.00 ticket to a BiC show because if I pay more money, it’ll be a better, more professional show.

“I’m a proud AEA member and Jeff Award winner and I’m not ashamed to take pay and benefits to do so.” - - Equity Actor.

If you are so proud, why not give your name? Sara, Jeremy, Eric, Harmony, Rob ect… have all posted under their true names. Anonymous comments have little to no weight because there are no repercussions to what you say. It is the coward’s way to debate.

Here’s my stance, I don’t give a damn what the award or citation or pat-on-the-back is called. If I win one, GREAT! If not, fine. At the end of the day, if you feel that you are doing satisfying work that helps you grow as an artist and a person, then that is all that matters. In a hundred years is anyone REALLY going to remember who won the Jeff for supporting actor this year? Is anyone going to remember who won in three years?

So, take a deep breath, count to ten and get back to what it is that you love doing, making theatre that inspires people, leaves them feeling entertained, fulfilled or what ever.

-John Zuiker

Wow. Interesting debate.
Its funny how this turned into to Non-Eq versus Equity discussion when, in reality, there has been very little difference between the lifestyles and social circles of either ’set’ of actors. At some points, I was wondering what city these people were talking about.

Anyway, I actually don’t think they should change the naming from Citation to Award. I don’t see the ‘traffic ticket’ problem that existed and yeah, if a show I’m in ‘wins a Jeff’, then that show has ‘won a Jeff’ and no one outside of the theatre community knows or cares which ‘wing’ that came from.

But, all this crazy talk about ‘dabbling’ and nonsense about professionalism is just that.

With this discussion in mind a friend sent me this article about the situation of ‘Pros’ in Seattle.
I thought it was interesting, considering whats been said here on this blog.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=503829

It’s apparent to me that those arguing against including non-union professionals are themselves dues-paying Equity members. They are terrified of a bitter truth: having an equity card does not make you a better actor.
And while every card-carrying actors is a professional, the fact is that not every professional carries a union card.

The only requirement necessary to consider any artist a professional is that someone, somewhere, is willing to pay that artist for their work. That’s it. No equity cards, no SAG minimums - that’s all trappings, not substance.

For years, South Florida’s Carbonell Awards exercised that prejudice, as did most of the area theatre critics. But as more non-union professional theatres were formed, the critics realized that these smaller companies were producing edgier, riskier works that by their nature had greater artistic merit than the retreaded comedies and musicals being churned out by the larger and more conservative regional theatres. And that many of the actors in these productions were at least equal in talent to their AEA brethren. And finally, in most cases, these non-union professionals eventually join the union as they mature in their craft.

If the awards in question are being run by Equity, then your criticisms have merit. But if their charter is to award the best performances and performers, then the awards MUST be given on the strengths of the merit of the performance and the performer, without regard to union affiliation.

Consider; the more recognition, the more awards, the more desirable that performer becomes to the eyes of the producers of AEA theater. Eventually, that performer WILL joing the union.

Changing the name of the Jeff Citation doesn’t change the fact that it is a bogus award. Those of you who are comparing Chicago to New York should remember that the theaters eligible for a Tony Award aren’t distinguished by their Equity status, they’re distinguished by their budget size and geographic location.

The great thing about Chicago is that you can see great theater or really bad theater at any house on any night. Why not just put us all in the pot to fight for the same competitive awards? I would venture to say that the Chicago Tribune has a broader reach than the Jeff Committee, and Chris Jones, et al, holds us all to the same (relatively) standards.

Your assumption would be wrong.
Chris Jones considers non-union theatre as what it is: non-professional and Equity theatre as professional.

Don’t fool yourself.

And if the Jeffs aren’t noteworthy, why are they so often mentioned in the NY Times articles about “August” and “Adding Machine?”

Stop trying to drag everyone else down just because you aren’t succeeding.

The best theater production is the best theater production. The audience doesn’t nor should, care.

Equity went the way of the big fat unions long ago. Self-important and out of touch.

Many actors stay unrestricted to avoid all this crap.

No wonder theaters across the country are stagnant. Give the public what it wants and stop trying to tell yourselves how important you are. You might actually do some good and make some decent theater that attracts new ticket buyers.

Just a side note on the professional vs. amateur thing.

From Webster’s Dictionary:

Professional: Participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs.

Amateur: One who engages in a pursuit, study, sciece or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession.

Those are the official definitions. Sounds like people working for free are amateurs. Talented amateurs, possibly. Dedicated amateurs, no doubt. Respectable amateurs, very likely. But amateurs nevertheless.

Thanks for the response, James.

You pretty much proved my point about awards’ worth by invoking the Oscars. Hilarious!

“Who are you to question why an actor works in theatre?”
Didn’t you know? I’m possessed by the ghost of Joseph Jefferson.

He says he’d like more sacrifices. I don’t know what he meant by that.

Rereading this thread is cracking me up. It bothered me in January, but on a second read, it’s just pretty funny.

Meh. If that’s what you really, really want, here’s hoping you win a whole storage unit filled with Jeffs.

Sweetly indignant,
Merrie