Actors Missing From the Taper Family Album

It was “ deja vu all over again.”

Some time back, Calendar had a cover and an article celebrating the Mark Taper Forum’s two decades-plus of theater. On the cover was “the Taper family,” an impressive collection of theater workers spread out against the Taper facade.

Letters of outrage and criticism poured in to The Times: Where were the black faces? Where were the Latino faces? Where were the Asian-American faces? How could this exclusively Anglo crowd be in charge of so powerful a theater empire in such a diverse town? How could so many important voices and faces go unrepresented?

What no one seemed to notice (or care about) was that in all that group--over a hundred strong if I recall--there wasn’t a single actor’s face. Not one.

More recently, there was an extensive article and commentary on Gordon Davidson’s (and the Taper’s) 25th year (“Tapering Off?,” Calendar, May 31) and again, amid all the quotes, surveys, critiques, reminiscences, interviews, not a single actor is mentioned or cited by name. The word actor, the word acting do not even appear.

There are a couple of slighting references that might be construed as alluding to actors. “Multiethnic casting” gets a (somewhat carping) mention. And the word company appears occasionally in passing.

What is fascinating is that major influences on Davidson’s career were in fact acting companies: The Group Theatre was largely a company of actors; the Theatre Group at UCLA was initially a company of actors; Davidson’s mentor John Houseman was the co-founder of at least two important American companies of actors (the Mercury Theatre and the Acting Company); and according to Davidson himself, the original charge given him at the Music Center called for the establishment of a resident company.

More recently, Davidson’s importation of the Renaissance Company from London galvanized (and partially outraged) local actors into forming, with his support, the Antaeus Company, which hopes to develop into a real resident company in Los Angeles.

Davidson actually likes and respects actors, and has provided employment and artistic opportunity to thousands of them, of all races and ethnic backgrounds. But nowhere in the article or commentary are actors mentioned or quoted. Directors, producers, administrators, playwrights, journalists, dramaturges, anonymous “staff members” all have their say, but the actor’s voice is silent.

“Artist” is treated as synonymous with “playwright,” and when Davidson is chided for not offering enough opportunities to minority or cutting-edge artists, no one thinks to mention how many actors are included in or excluded from this accounting.

Perhaps it is time to remind the theater world, and theater journalists in particular, that doing a major story on a theater and not once mentioning its actors is like doing a major story on the Dodgers and not once mentioning the players.

Theater is a collaborative art, and of all the collaborators, the actors are the only performers who every night stand in front of a live audience and do their art. They are the artists theaters patrons most identify with. Theater can’t be done without them, and the best theater can only be done by respecting their creativity and talent. Many great playwrights wrote their best works for great actors; many wrote specifically for companies of actors.

Stage actors are the lifeblood of the theater. It is time to start treating them as such and to stop treating them like some kind of roughage, a slightly distasteful but unfortunately necessary inconvenience, of no real value but to pass quickly through the system and smoothly and soundlessly out of it.