Here's a buzzy term I picked up the other day: Portfolio career.
Just because 88% of Equity members are unemployed at any given time, doesn't mean they're all standing in line at the local soup kitchen. Most artists, including actors, put together multiple part-time and contractual jobs to assemble full-time employment. So maybe they do an Equity show, they do some voice-over work through AFTRA, they do a couple of walk-on film roles through SAG, they teach a Meisner class twice a week at a friend's studio, etc, etc. They have a career, it just requires some assembly into a "portfolio."
In other words, if you consider Equity's statistics in isolation, it gives the impression that the life of a working actor is awfully grim. Not saying that it's all roses and sunshine, either; only that "unemployed with Equity" doesn't mean the same thing as "unemployed actor."
Comments (1)
Well, I guess the point is to what extent you are committed to working in the theatre, right? I mean, if acting is acting, then some voiceover work and a TV extra gig is all the same to you. However, if you are committed to working in theatre, then those other things are gap-fillers, and the Equity numbers are as grim as they seem. Most actors have the former attitude -- theatre, film, TV, commercials, industrials, whatever, if it pays and I am pretending to be somebody else, I don't complain. I guess I think that the skills needed to be a good theatre actor require focus and practice in front of a live audience, and those other forms are not substitutes. I suspect that makes me a purist, but I want primacy for the theatre, not theatre film and TV's minor league training ground. I'm not denying the practical necessity, I am arguing whether we should accept that situation as serving the art form.
Posted by Scott Walters | May 9, 2008 10:18 AM
Posted on May 9, 2008 10:18