I think it would behoove us to think of this in terms of what makes things *so* difficult for young artists trying to work that the Flea’s opportunities remained attractive to them for so long. How can theater *ethically* provide for the needs the Flea claimed to provide for?

The Flea didn’t invent the idea that theater artists should work for free and be treated without a lot of regard, but it sure did take advantage of that low expectation to create opportunities that, on paper, can easily seem way, way better than the prospect of going it alone https://twitter.com/officialmaggiel/status/1335348907262554117

I was only a really active Bat for about a year, but I don’t know where I’d be if I wasn’t able to call so many former Flea resident artists friends and collaborators. Many of the most talented, exciting young theater artists in the city have gone through those programs.

It’s possibly some of them were just starry eyed and naive, but I know that I had acted in a bunch of shows in out-of-the-way NYC spaces for free already and been taken advantage of by an abusive pay-to-play “theater company” already and found the idea of a small, closed pool

of auditioners, many of whom went on to exciting projects, working on brand new plays with exciting new writers and directors that regularly were reviewed by the Times and attended by celebrities and industry professionals compelling. Of course, the reality was disappointing.

I became less active because the rehearsal and audition expectations made it difficulty to hold down the job that *was* paying me. That experience was instrumental in me stepping away from acting altogether.

I don’t mean to defend the Flea or to deny the catharsis of dunking on it all weekend, but I hope the conversation we’re really having here is about reforming how we welcome young artists into the field, so that there aren’t more stories like this in the future.

A great thread about this. https://twitter.com/liliatherubin/status/1335347885819441152