Britain clamps down on fringe and profit share theatre.
Fri, 3 July 2009, 09:48 amgrantwatson34 posts in thread
Britain clamps down on fringe and profit share theatre.
Fri, 3 July 2009, 09:48 amThere's a bit of a ruckus in the UK at the moment, due to Equity campaigning to force a national minimum wage for actors onto all fringe and profit share theatre productions. They argue any companies or performance groups who can't afford the thousands of pounds per week in wages most shows would require is to (a) magically source government funding and sponsorship, or (b) become amateur companies.
More info here (assuming this link works better than the last one).
Fringe in the UK
Fri, 3 July 2009, 03:24 pmWalter Plinge
Without knowledge of how the 'Fringe' theatre scene operates in the UK I suppose it is difficult to fully comprehend how these NMW proposals may affect individuals or companies. Perhaps there is a greater level of patronage and profits for companies in the UK Fringe scene and maybe this wage proposal by Equity is intended to try and distribute some of those profits amongst the actors (as well as the people who are running the companies). I just don't know.
However, on the surface, the idea that fringe work could be wiped out by this is pretty depressing. In Australia at least, there is a vast difference between the kind of work that amateur companies produce and the artistic MO of fringe and independant theatre. Co-ops and profit share endeavours are so important to retain. They help actors and directors to remain active within the industry and to strive and create beyond the boundaries of typical amateur work.
Another tricky issue about amateur status with regards to fringe work is company structure and financial accountability. Many Fringe productions occur as one off collaborations between a group of people. All profits and liabilities are discharged at the end of the show and everyone walks away. True amateur status requires that no-one personally profits from a show. After bills are paid all profits are re-invested into the company to fund it's continuance. Fine if the company is an established, ongoing concern with a management committee, constitution, insurances and legal taxation status. Winding up an amatuer company and deciding on the disbursement of remaining properties and funds is fraught enough. Where would this leave Fringe performers who find themselves at the end of a run with money left over and, by 'amateur' definition, no right to keep it, but no ongoing company to leave it to?
Let's just hope that our fellow performers in the UK come out of this one OK. I don't think our MEAA would propose anything quite as controversial or discouraging as this.
Tulipa.
- ···
- ···