Your actor friends need to take a deep breath and chant "Ohmmmm".
It may be because more people in England actually do make a
living acting (and play writing: the stats I've heard sound
as if 10 times as many writers make at least 50% of their income
from royalties and commissions as is the case in the USA, and
some of those people are Americans "over there"-- but 10 times
as many is still a few hundred out of thousands) that English
actors think of a production of a non-brand-name-play as an
economic opportunity. Ha! Unsubsidized professional productions
lose money. Even most "hits" lose money! (Re: the recent NY
Times article on Off Broadway) If no subsidized company
has offered to do your play, why should you let it gather dust
on the off chance that some day one will? And employ your friends?
If they were Real friends, wouldn't they drop out of the union
and do your play for free??? (just kidding, but it is the turn-about,
isn't it?)
Once when I was helping Eliza Wyatt audition actors by reading
opposite them in the audition scenes, I felt these incredible
waves of hostility-- somehow Eliza had introduced me in a way
that gave the English actors the impression that I was living
and working as an actor on Their Territory. Once it became clear
that I was merely a playwright, and Just Visiting, they became
warm and friendly. This hostility struck me as ungenerous: there's
an abundance of English and Irish actors in Boston, "taking
our work", and I've never heard anyone over here voice resentment.
There are so few paid roles and so many talented actors that
it seems pointless to resent anybody in particular.
I have heard male playwrights express resentment re: script
contests specifically for women writers--- as if wiping out
the entire 7%-15% of productions that go to women writers, specifically
or through blind selection, would significantly alter any particular
guy's chances of having his particular play produced! They'd
still be about the same as winning the Megabucks Lottery.
by 
