Equity

Theatre Directors in Equity

by Simon Dunmore

"Sometimes when you sit down with a group of actors and hear them talking about directors, it's like hearing the camp guards of Buchenwald being discussed and it's sort of terrifying." - Sir Richard Eyre in A Better Direction (edited by Kenneth Rea, Gulbenkian 1989).

Given this not unusual observation - reported by one of our own - why on earth should theatre directors be members of the same union as those who talk about (some) directors like this?

Only in the last 25 years has Equity represented Theatre Directors by negotiating their major contracts, offering welfare and benefits advice, free legal advice and campaigning for better conditions.

Many of us joined the union before we had done our first professional production, as ASMs, actors, and so forth; and simply kept up our memberships but with a different label to our names. But why stay on in a union dominated by performers - not just actors, but dancers, singers, variety artists, etc? Some people think of us as kind of management. We are party to the decisions of which of these performers and designers, choreographers, lighting designers, etc. to employ - but we don't usually negotiate their contracts. They, and we, are all employed by a management.

In each area of work Equity has drawn up separate agreements and rates of pay with the management bodies. The actor's terms and conditions, for instance, are inevitably different from those of directors - they have different responsibilities. But there are also similarities. Take subsistence for instance. This was invented over 20 years ago for actors away from home. Directors had similar extra costs so the idea was incorporated into directors' contracts. In short, each separate discipline can learn from each other.

From my point of view, there is a deeper reason for me to be in the same union as the performers, designers, choreographers, stage-management, etc: it is that theatre is such a closely co-operative craft. Not only could we not do the production without our fellow union members, but in doing it we all get very close to each other. We all bounce ideas between each other, debate and discuss. and the end result is the sum of our co-operative efforts. We are all in this together therefore we should all be in the same union, Equity.

I have no problem with theatre directors joining other specialist bodies, like the Directors' Guild, as well, but the idea of a theatre director becoming completely isolated from all other theatre workers through not being a member of Equity seems fundamentally counter-productive to creating good theatre. I suspect that such 'isolation' leads ultimately to comments like the one at the beginning of this article. It cannot be 'us' and 'them'. We may finally carry the can and perhaps have to make difficult decisions which some may not like, but the production will sink if all are not united by the time it comes to facing the public.

Theatre directors benefit from the work of an extremely active Theatre Directors' Committee. The Committee tackles issues such as training and contracts for directors in fringe work as well as the agreements we have across theatre. It is also a strong voice within the union as a whole - helping to make it a better place for all of us.