6-20-08
Theatre Town Chicago
A 3-part series looking at why people choose Chicago, why they leave,
and how the industry survives.
Part 3 - What survives?
This is the third article in a three-part series, looking at Chicago as the primary incubator of American theatre talent, and a city in which the performing arts not only thrive, but are an integral part of the community.
Part one discussed the many ways that Chicago can be the perfect launching point for a theatre career. From training with top-notch talent, to affordable housing, Chicago seems to have it all. Part two looked at the ways Chicago fails its working actors and where they go instead. Perceived limitations placed on Equity actors’ ability to work in smaller theatres, the low pay and the siren song of well-paying on-camera work in L.A. are just a few of the reasons actors leave.
So how does the industry survive? For one thing, people keep coming. Steve Merle of Act One Studios said he has seen the non-Equity talent pool grow considerably and that they are finding work. “More and more the talent drain is being replenished,” he said. He explained that because the non-union talent pool has grown, producers are doing less union work. Union industrials almost have disappeared, which used to be the bread and butter work for many actors.
Another thing is, those who do stay reap the benefits of attrition. As they become more experienced, and their competition moves away, they become the go-to actors for certain roles. Merle noted that there are “whole strata of actors who don’t run off, such as the Remy Bumppo folks. These actors get films as they come through, but they don’t run off.”
Which brings me to my final point: Actors who stay find ways to cobble together a living by working any acting gig they can. Voice-over, industrial, commercials, teaching—all of these can successfully supplement a theatre habit that you just can’t give up. These are some of the best actors around, and they stay.
On the institutional side, it can be tricky for those theatre companies left behind once their founders taste success elsewhere. The keys to success organizationally appear to be having a large enough ensemble to carry the workload, people committed to the mission who are willing to continue the work, and company members willing to share their success with those who helped launch them.
Martha Lavey, artistic director of Steppenwolf Theatre, put it in perspective. “An ensemble functions best when there’s a high density on the ground. It always serves us to have the ensemble members in town, not just on the stage, but to be available for press opportunities and interact with the staff.
“When they come back it creates wonderful energy because they’re our friends. We’re delighted to have them back. It enhances the visibility of the company. It’s not like we’re importing some person unknown to us but [who is] a star.”
One thing that Steppenwolf had going for it that seems to be missing for many younger companies is that they worked together for a long time before any of them became famous on a national scale. Those artists got to live in an ensemble culture, and it is sometimes unfortunate that as Chicago’s fame as a theatre city has grown, our actors get picked out more readily.
Not every company is so lucky. The Defiant Theatre had been around a few years when their company members started getting the L.A. bug and moving away. Although there were attempts to bring productions to L.A., they never materialized, and as Fraser Coffeen, former Defiant company member put it, “Those who went to L.A. weren’t exactly sending the love back to Chicago.” He did point out that some people tried to maintain the connection. “Andy Lehman sent back some amazing movie-quality props for our production of Titus Andronicus.”
At the time they decided to fold, Defiant was faced with bringing in new people, possibly changing the character and focus of the company, or going out with a Defiant-style bang. Linda Gillum, another former company member, said, “With new members our mission could change dramatically. We wanted to keep the Defiant that people remembered rather than to fizzle out.” So rather than risk diluting their artistic product, they closed the company with a production of A Clockwork Orange.
“There are a group of friends who start a theatre company, and then comes the time that you make that decision: do we want to continue to be a storefront theatre company and make no money or do we want to go Tier N/CAT 1?” said Gillum. Although Defiant did ask themselves that question, they found that it is very difficult to make that transition. Gillum believes that the beginning of the end came when members started turning Equity, which took them other places.
“You don’t make your living in the theatre, so you start asking, ‘What else can I do?’” she said. In the end, though, the company lasted 11 years total—a respectable lifetime for any storefront theatre in this city. They just didn’t have enough people to take on the work that needed to be done to keep going.
On the flip side of the coin sits Griffin Theatre. When Griffin transferred Riding the Dolphin to L.A. in 1996, about 85 percent of their ensemble decided to stay out there to pursue careers in film and television. Rick Barletta and Bill Massolia returned to Chicago and decided to keep making theatre.
“We streamlined our producing process,” said Massolia. They also took the time to rethink what kind of work they wanted to do. “We decided to venture into children’s programming and touring, and it has blossomed into another part of our organization. It opened up new opportunities when we got back to Chicago” Massolia said.
While they continued producing shows, they met new people excited about the new direction of the company, and rebuilt the ensemble. “We invited people into the company who shared the same goals we had, which was to be successful theatre artists here.”
Next year Griffin is touring Letters Home to 12 cities. When they did Riding the Dolphin, they produced it themselves. “Now people are saying, ‘We want your show at our venue’ and paying for it.’”
Massolia said it all comes down to how you define success for yourself.
“Some view success as ‘You gotta do that show in New York.’ Unfortunately it perpetuates why people make those mass exoduses to the coasts.” He acknowledged that it is difficult to make a living solely as a theatre artist in Chicago. But if you move to L.A. to be an actor, you run the risk of becoming a professional auditioner. “You may not get anything for two to three years, so how are you nurturing your heart? The drive to be a performing artist is in your soul, so how are you nurturing that?”
One thing for companies to keep in mind is the people who leave are going to leave anyway. Carmen Aiello, a Chicago casting director who recently moved to L.A., had a lot to say on the subject. One of his many pieces of advice targeted Chicago actors who move away from their small companies. For those who do decide to find success in another city, he said, “Make sure you’re leaving behind a group of people who are interested in continuing the company for more than just themselves starring in shows. If you want to manage a theatre company to be a star, you’re not going to make it.”
In the meantime, Lavey thought it was important that actors “relish what it is to be part of a company. It’s a blessed thing to do.” It is understandable that artists want and deserve to earn a living, but as she said, “I feel grateful that I was part of a time and a situation that there was a slower cooking time. You may never have so much fun again.”
I suppose that is the gist of this entire series—that no matter where you go later in life, nothing beats the experience we have here in Chicago theatre. Our access to the best teachers and talent in the nation is unparalleled. Our city is livable. Our commitment to creating the best work possible is renowned, making our talent more in demand than any others in the nation.
Heidi Kettenring is a local actress who is currently performing the role of Nessarose in Wicked. She has, as of now, found a way to work and live in Chicago. “I went on tour, but I never left with the idea that I would not come back. I would always go away to work, but this is home,” said Kettenring.
The extremely frustrating piece of this puzzle, though, is how difficult it is to make a living wage as an actor in Chicago. Yes, we may be replacing the talent drain as quickly as it slips away, but what does that do to our talent pipeline if all the top talent keeps moving away.
All of these things take money, though. Much more money than any of our close friends or family can generally scrape together to support our storefront habit. So in order to maintain our status as a world class cultural city, it requires significant investments from our corporate citizens as well. I’m not saying that each of the several hundred small theatre companies deserves funding on a Goodman Theatre level. But for those who clearly have earned it, corporate Chicago should make it a priority to help these artists earn a living wage. Otherwise, there goes that distinct cultural advantage that Chicago has over many other large metropolitan areas.
As Lavey said, “Why would I want to be anywhere else? I’m the most fortunate person. I love the people here. This is a culturally robust place.” Let’s keep it that way.