Hi all, I just received a Facebook invite to this and it had the full cast list on so i thought i would share it with you.

CAST LIST:
Rachel Bingham - Baker's Wife
Dominic Brewer - Baker
Susan Kyd - Witch
Daniel Summers - Jack
John Rogerson - Steward
Lauren Appleby - Little Red
Holly Aisbitt - Jacks Mum
Alexander Bradford - C Prince
Shimi Goodman - R Prince/Wolf
Emma Odell - Cinderella
Kate Rawson - Rapunzel

Has anyone seen anything at this venue before? I love Into The Woods, so I am definately going!
It says it starts 20th December - Tll 1st Feb, Upstairs At The Gatehouse.

great cast it would seem, shame that they wont be paid for this. and john rogerson? wasn't he is pirates.... if so he is shockingly bad. really wouldn't have expected him to get in this, still it is fringe isn't it.

Isn't that quite harsh? I agree the cast seem very good (just on google now), and it is a shame that professionals do not get paid. I do not know John but think maybe let's wait to see him in this before we judge him for it.

Yes: even though I live in Wales,
I've seen about half a dozen shows Upstairs at the Gatehouse - & enjoyed them all.

It's one of my favourite Fringe venues, where I've seen some of my favourite fringe shows.

Inexpensive, & accessible (I go by Northern Line to Archway, then by bus up the hill) -
& has lots of 'feelgood' shows, musical Revues, &c.

(Cheap ice creams too!)

Whenever I'm planning a trip to London & can choose what shows to see,
I look what's on Upstairs at the Gatehouse.

I agree - the Steward is a very small role, anyway, and anyone can be miscast or put in a bad performance in one show for some reason. I don't know any of the cast but I'll definitely be going - love Into the Woods!

I also wonder if the original poster's implicit criticism of the venue in saying that it's a shame they don't get paid is quite harsh - it's a tiny theatre and a huge cast, and it's not like Upstairs at the Gatehouse is making any money out of the show or the performers. In fact, I'll bet now that it's the people directing and producing the show who will be left most out of pocket. No one has to do 'fringe' (a term that I hate anyway, when quite often the quality of the show and performers is much better than in the West End) and I think it's important to remember that there might be many reasons for people doing this show - showcasing their talents, doing much better roles than most that are around in the West End at the moment, doing it in the hope that it could transfer etc.

As long as it's all on a profit share basis, I think it's acceptable to some extent that professionals don't always get paid - actors are self employed and take risks like most self employed people or small businesses by doing unpaid things to ultimately put themselves in a better position. Of course I agree it's a shame there isn't enough money in theatre to pay such talented people (and/or that there aren't enough rich audience members willing to pay the £50 - £60 a ticket it would take to make a small venue commercially viable!) but I think you have to be very careful in implicitly criticising the production for that, when as far as I know the people who run Upstairs at the Gatehouse work ridiculously hard themselves for no money.

And, no, I'm not involved in this production in any way, and don't even know the producers of this show except as an audience member of the venue. I don't mean this to be controversial - I just wanted to remind people that everyone involved in this show is working hard and it's not just the performers taking a risk.

The problem is now that:

a) It's becoming "normal" for actors to work for free/people to expect actors to work for free and this is not right. In the States this is illegal if you are an Equity member (I am aware of the substantially different laws between the US and UK). Never mind the fact that Equity minimum on Broadway is $1250 a week. And that's for a chorus dancer in e.g. The Lion King.

High profile actors with a lot of credits to their name, years of experience and who are well-known within the industry - find themselves being offered parts for no pay at all. This is equally - wrong, as clearly they have proved themselves countless times and deserve a salary. They shouldn't need to do a production for free for exposure of "to play good roles they otherwise cannot get". Fringe used to be for those starting out, to gather experience, etc. This has now completely changed and competition for a fringe show (working for free) is now comparable to the application turn out for a paid production.

Yes, you can blame the actors - turn it down, don't do it if you don't want to. Blame the agents for putting them up for the job in the first place. On the other hand, most of them don't have a choice. Rather than do nothing for a year they will do a few weeks here and there not get paid for it but at least be "seen working" and of course - if they say no, there will be 50 others behind them to take the job. But it's ultimately demoralising and degrading. Even the street cleaner gets paid and most London bus drivers earn more (no offense to bus drivers). And being an actor is a much more specialised craft and talent and contrary to popular belief - most people CAN'T do it well or to the point where it's "special". It's a sign of the times of mass-overcrowding where most drama school grads barely get a look in because most casting directors can just about keep up with seeing the people they already know. It used to be 2 songs and a little chat with the panel for your first round auditioning for a musical - now it's 16 bars/the end of one song. In and out. Audition times are actually specified as - 10:27am. Yes, this means at 10:30am - someone else is being seen, you literally have 3 minutes. The industry has changed dramatically.

I am not blaming the Gatehouse the above is a general statement. That said, there are producers out there who make good profit from show and still don't pay the actors. At all.

When I said "isn't that a bit harsh?" I was referring to the criticism of John, I was appauled that someone would write something like that...
In terms of actors being paid or not paid in this case I do wish things were different, but I also understand that everyone involved has their own reasons for doing it. There hasn't been that much going on in the audition world recently so it is a case of do you work in a mundane job over Christmas or do a show... I think it is that simple. Looking through the cast all of them are trained professional performers with West End or Uk Tour credits...

Well, I would certainly agree with you that that is completely wrong! In my opinion, no producer should get a penny from a show until they have paid the actors at least the minimum wage (or equity minimum if it's larger theatres).

However, I would also say that actually I know quite a few well-known actors at an established stage of their careers who really enjoy doing smaller scale shows. They know the terrible money (or no money) involved, and know that the directors are usually working even harder for less money (or even putting their own money into it) but genuinely choose to do the projects and can find them the most rewarding jobs they've done for a long time. Some actors also choose to produce their own shows so they have roles to do - it's just the nature of this business that there are always more actors than jobs. Also, quite often established actors have just as valid reasons as younger actors for doing unpaid work - they may want to prove that they can do a different type of role that they're not getting offered commercially, for example, or just take on a terrific part in a play that will never be commercial enough to work without funding, and that the arts council will never be interested in.

Sadly, the nature of acting is that there just isn't enough money there for all the productions and all the talented people, and I think actors need to understand that if they choose to come into this business. Of course no one should have to work for free - it should always be their choice, and no agent or producer or casting director should ever push someone into it - but I think there has always been a lot of great work done for no money, and that's just one type of acting that you can choose to do at some points in your career. It's like someone running their own business - sometimes they decide to work for free on new projects to get them started.

But I do agree with the spirit of your post. Personally, I feel the problem is that the arts council isn't interested enough in supporting professionals at the moment - particularly young actors and directors just starting out. It's crazy that so many good fringe shows should find it this hard to get funding, when just £20,000 for Into the Woods, for example, would pay decent salaries for the very talented people involved. The problem is, it's only going to get harder at the moment to get money for shows - and the alternative is just not putting them on and actors not working at all.

I agree with all of the above points - and again, this is NOT directed at The Gatehouse, which, like other great fringe venues such as The Union, simply don't have the investment from outside to pay their actors the going rate - but actors will always work for free if they are desperate enough for the exposure. As a fairly recent graduate, several of my colleagues and I have done mostly unpaid/profit-share work to boost our CVs, and it does seem expected now that you will have to work for nothing at some point. This may be do-able if it's just a run of a week or two - you can get a bar job for the evenings during rehearsals, and maybe office work etc during the run itself, but Into The Woods runs for 6 weeks all over Xmas!!

I actually know a couple of people in it and God knows how they are affording it, but they obviously can and good luck to them - I'm looking forward to seeing it and i think it's going to be a great show, ditto Sweeney at the Union. I chose not to audition for them because I knew I couldnt afford it (so this isn't a big 'boo hoo, I'm a poor actor' post about working for free - people do it of their own choice and no-one made me go to Drama School), and I may not even have got an audition -I know people who couldn't even get SEEN for Sweeney Tood at the Union because the competition was so hot.

Not quite sure what my point is here , just that it seems that a huge amount of people have no idea that productions at Fringe theatres are usually profit share or less. I also don't think the earlier statement on this thread that "it's a shame the actors won't get paid" was a direct attack on the Gatehouse or any other fringe venue - it was just a statement of the truth, it IS a shame! It would be great if some money could be pumped into fringe venues but unless they start charging £60 a ticket (and i think we all know what would happen then ) or the credit crunch miraculously un-crunches itself, I can't see it happening.....

Sorry for any confusion - I was only referring to the original post, not yours. I thought all your points were well made and very valid, and I didn't mean to imply that you were being "harsh" about people not being paid...

Really good post Dragonfly, I completely agree. I also agree with Ems. I have done fringe shows where you perform in the evening and have a job paying for it during the day. It's exhausting and at some point your performance does suffer from sheer tiredness!

Surely this is actually indicative of the quality of fringe theatre that exists now more so than previously, rather than of the desperation of some actors?

There is only a finite amount of money available in this industry. If people are prepared to work for very little/nothing in order to enable productions that wouldn't otherwise see the light of day then I am grateful to them, not critical!

Yes but the problem is when this becomes the norm and it is "expected" of people. Back in the "old days" actors never used to work completely for free. This is a new phenomenon.

[quote name='Guest' date='Nov 21 2008, 01:00 PM' post='53711']

But it's ultimately demoralising and degrading. Even the street cleaner gets paid and most London bus drivers earn more (no offense to bus drivers).

I've never heard such crap as that comment in my life! As a fringe actor working on a profit share production i can catagorically say that i feel neither demoralised or degraded! I have the chance to play an amazing role (which great friends of mine, who have worked or are working on west-end and touring contracts, being paid a mint, would die to be playing!), i'm working with a wonderfully talented company and creative/production team on a great production of a fantastic show! You tell me how many actors you know that can say that and mean it! For that matter, tell me how many street cleaners or bus drivers you know that can say the say that either! I rest my case!

Who are you, guest?

Obviously a bus driver is unlikely to be able to say that she's working on a great production of a fantastic show.

The fact that you reacted so strongly to the comment implies to me that, yes, you are, deep down, slightly demoralised and degraded. You can't carry on doing this sort of work for the rest of your life and be able to feed and clothe yourself. Either you are relying on handouts from the state or some personal patron, or you are earning some money doing another job. Or perhaps you won the lottery.

I'd be interested to know how much you consider "a mint" is.

Well, actually, the west-end and touring contracts that i've done prior to my current show have meant that i'm lucky enough to be able, with out "handouts from the state or some personal patron", to work on a fabulous show that otherwise i wouldn't be able to! So i'm not saying everyone should be working on profit share productions all the time, but descrbing it as demoralising or degrading is down right rude! My strong reaction was forced out of anger against a comment that a truly believe to be completely wrong! And certainly not because of any deep personal torment!

Oh, and i believe a mint to be what would work out as an annual salary that would probably equal triple that of a hard working nurse doing 12 hour shifts! I do appreciate that this isn't true of everyone, but i wasn't refering to everyone, just to a handful of people i know on a personal level.

"So i'm not saying everyone should be working on profit share productions all the time, but descrbing it as demoralising or degrading is down right rude!"

You completely missed my point. As an actor with fringe experience myself (who also loved the productions I did and would do them again tomorrow without getting paid) - I am saying - actors (and other creatives who work for free) are worth more than being paid - nothing. We need to keep a standard that doesn't make it seem like just anyone can be a professional actor. If you keep working for free, you will keep being offered work for free because "we know that actor doesn't mind not getting paid, we can ask them to do it". I have seen it time and time again with friends. There are people known in the industry to be open to free fringe work - and there are those that are not. There are those who receive high salaries as their agent won't let producers get away with it - and there are those who are underpaid for their efforts according to their experience, others in the production, etc. I KNOW it's not about the money (nobody becomes an actor to buy a plasma TV) but it IS about valuing people properly. I realise sometimes we don't have a choice (keeping the CV beefed up etc) and if I don't take the next fringe job there will be 50 others behind me who will jump at the chance. So - what's ultimately wrong here - is the SYSTEM. Which I am aiming my criticism at. Yes, we all love to act and no, we don't do it for the money. But we still need to eat and ultimately the money we get paid DOES reflect what others think we are "worth" in investment terms and more importantly - what your work is worth to people. Artistic reward is one thing but an actor also needs to be his or her own business. Talent is great but if you don't have the business acumen to back it up and sell yourself appropriately (or someone else very reliable and dedicated doing it for you) - it's a problem. Those who do well are not just very talented (if even that sometimes) but have a great business team behind them or great business brains themselves. Those who don't -suffer for it. How many talented people are there that never "make it". That's why a lot of actors end up in the fringe pot and then don't get out of it because they love it too much to do without it so never say no. And end up with miles of great fringe credits but - no food on the table. And this should NOT be allowed to happen. We should be renumerated for our efforts in some shape or form. What I am always on about is PROTECTING the professionals in our industry because otherwise we have case scenarios where highly experienced professionals are asked to work for free while other (more household name type) members of the production - get paid a lot of money and the producers also make a profit. Don't you see where this is leading?

It's surprising that actors always feel themselves being attacked when I mention this. I am not attacking the actors, I am one of them!!

I heard that Paul Nicholas is playing the Narrator in this show? Is this true???

I believe so. He produced and directed the very recent A tale of two cities the musical at the Gatehouse, hence has an affiliation with the venue.

I love into the wood! my friend was in the student production of it when we were first in college