From the point of view of Barbara Isenberg's article, Ted Schmitt's position is laudatory; after all, who can fault his dedication to the theater for such a meager material return?
However, as an "artist" in my own right and a loyal theatergoer, I am forced to ask some questions:
Where has the press been with comparable front-page coverage of our struggling "little theater" in Los Angeles all these years?
And what was the real point of the article?
Was the Equity referendum requiring actors to be paid $5 to $14 really the issue? (Everyone else already gets paid.) Was the unreasonable union requirement to keep theaters clean and fire-safe really the issue? Or can the threatened egos of frustrated so-called artists sacrificing their lives to give the poor actor their only stage really be the issue?
Just questions. But please, dear editors, for the sake of your integrity, please give us the rest of the story.