Britain clamps down on fringe and profit share theatre.

Comprehensive as per usual Craig. It's a conundrum that I, and no doubt others, have often reduced our brain-cells over try to fathom.

I personally think that the ability to define an actor as professional or not is way to thin and may require shades of grey in the middle. More like predominately Professional. This reflects The flexibility that many actors enjoy.

However, defining a show is somewhat easier (I believe) and can reflect to type of funding, paid staff and other factors. While there are shades of grey here also, I think a clear line can be drawn to 'divide' the status of the production.

A production that has a clear funding source, pays it's actors and crew industry rates, no matter if it be a lavish set or seriously corner-cut design, no matter if the quality of the show was below that of the small town-hall production around the corner, then it is "professional" purely in the sense that people were paid appropriately.

Anything below that is technically Am or approaching Professional.

My point is, maybe were shouldn't try to define the actor as much as the production, just to save the brain cells.

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins
SN Profile
"ƃuıʇsǝɹǝʇuı ǝɟıן ƃuıʞɐɯ"