Screen Guilds Magazine (November 1935)

An Axe to Cut Actors’ Salaries?? I N the past few weeks, a great govern¬ ment project has taken form, and in its ramifications threatens the existence of the very things the acting profession has fought for and won after years of struggle. We’re referring to the Fed¬ eral Theatre Projects under the W.P.A. (Works Progress Administration.) We readily admit that the theatre has fallen to a low state, and it does not require a great deal of intelligence to realize that the screen and motion pictures have suffered from this con¬ dition. Pictures need the stage. In the past, plays have been the greatest source of screen story material. But last year, to quote an analysis recently made by the Motion Picture Herald, only 13 percent of motion picture story properties purchased were plays. The stage, too, has been the primary source of supply of new acting talent. But now, with few plays running longer than three weeks in New York, this source for new talent is disappearing. In addition, the stage has been the place to test new trends in dramatic exposi¬ tion. Consequently, we feel that the Fed¬ eral Theatre Projects are important to our readers—so important that we have devoted the next four pages to discus¬ sions of the various phases of the plans. A rough picture of the general pano¬ rama is presented by Mrs. Hallie Flan¬ agan, the director of all the projects, in her letter to Herbert Kline which is reprinted here with the permission of the New Theatre. Mr. Kline’s answer, which also is a reprint from that publi¬ cation, presents the views of a group in Equity known as The Forum. The plans for the various projects in New York are contained in James H. S. Moynahan’s interview with Elmer Rice, the regional director there. And Sam L. Kreider’s interview with Gilmor Brown presents the picture of the pro¬ jects to be attempted in the six western states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. With the exception of the letter from Mr. Kline, the above four articles man¬ age to disregard the controversial as¬ pect of the subjects. And there are many bases for controversy. T HE Federal Theatre Project was established to spend a large amount of money to put back to work needy professionals connected with the The¬ atre, in all its branches. In practically every announcement from W. P. A., the statement “not relief but WORK” is pointed up. Nevertheless, most discus¬ sions of the subject steer clear of men¬ tion of the wage scale for actors: $30.00 to $94.00 (maximum) per month, or the wage scale for playwrights. (It is not clear that the latter are to be paid at all!) Why should W. P. A. publicity omit mentioning the wages it will pay ac¬ tors? And why is the status of play¬ wrights under the plans not explained? Other than the possibility W. P. A. hopes to eliminate controversy by not mentioning these two facts, we cannot venture even a guess as to the explan¬ ation of this attitude. Mention is made also, that the pro¬ jects will attempt to find a permanent place in the general scheme of the The¬ atre. “It is hoped that organization, training and supplemental planning,” a statement in the interview with Mr. Brown reads, “will make the individual units self-supporting and successful both artistically and economically.” And Mr. Rice hopes that “These pro¬ jects will be able to continue on their own momentum after the Federal pro¬ gram, is completed.” Hidden in the latter statements, and the one concerning remuneration, we feel, may be an axe to slice actors’ wages, unless—and this is important— theatrical unions such as the Screen Ac¬ tors’ Guild are represented on the Pro¬ jects’ Board of directors, and on the other Boards throughout the country. Under the plan, the country is di¬ vided into twelve regions each hav¬ ing the same boundaries as those of the Music, Art and Writing projects. El¬ mer Rice, famous dramatist, is director of the New York district. Thomas Wood Stevens, who was head of the Drama department at Carneige Tech before managing the Goodman Theatre in Chicago and more recently the “Globe Theatre” at the Chicago and San Diego Expositions, will direct the projects emanating out of Chicago. Frederic McConnell, head of the semi- professional group which runs the Cleveland Playhouse, is in charge of the Cleveland region. And, as previously mentioned, Gilmor Brown heads the California projects. Why is it that managers of profes¬ sional theatre groups are conspicuous by their absence from the above list? As far as we can find out, the great majority of the directors are not from professional ranks. Yet the projects are to be planned for giving “work” to professionals. T HERE is an apparent danger here. There is the possibility that these projects may call upon needy amateurs rather than needy professionals. The directors have been connected with am¬ ateurs and many of their plans are con¬ structed along the lines of the Little Theatre. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that this danger exists? Of course, an amateur can become as hungry as a professional actor. But the Theatre as a profession owes no re¬ sponsibility to the beginner. It is by his own initiative in climbing the bumpy, jagged road to success that the amateur becomes a trouper and assumes the real value and responsibility of a professional acting career. The projects will attempt to bring back to the theatre the younger genera¬ tion which, it is felt, is growing up without knowledge of the existence of flesh and blood entertainment. If they manage to do this and develop a new market for the profession, well and good. Theoretically, the plans are admir¬ able. Where they diverge from theory, and attempt long-scale, permanent planning, they fall down miserably. Here in California, upwards of 2,000 actors will be employed, and of this amount, ten percent need not be on re¬ lief. If, when the projects are com¬ pleted on June 30, 1936, another cate¬ gory of alphabtical symbols material¬ izes or the country returns to what is laughingly called “Prosperity”, some 2,000 actors who were anxious and will¬ ing to work for $23.50 (top scale) and were non-union actors, would be clam¬ oring at the studio doors. Or if the projects are successful in their attempt to become self-sustaining, these 2,000, adapted to living on such a low wage scale, will be thrown into direct competition with actors then em¬ ployed in standard wage positions. One needs not be an economist to realize it would not be long before actors’ wages in all branches would come tumbling down. These projects must be supported since they enable a great number (Continued on Page 21) 5 • November, 1935