It’s time to change demands to accommodate mental health challenges in theater

by Bridgette M. Redman, Guest Editorial

Every actor has heard it.

“Early is on time. On time is late. Late is fired.”

It’s a standard that few have challenged before now. But times are changing and theater artists are starting to recognize the need to accommodate people with disabilities, especially those with invisible ones.

In August, I interviewed Richard Costes, a director and disability advocate in Chicago, about how to make space in the rehearsal room and onstage for people with disabilities. He pointed out that there were visible and invisible disabilities and that accommodations needed to go beyond having an ASL interpreter or providing large-print scripts.

For the production of “Richard III” that he was directing with Babes with Blades, he asked everyone auditioning whether they wanted to identify themselves as having a disability, adding that many actors don’t because they are afraid they won’t be hired or that a theater won’t accommodate them. He then asked each applicant what sort of accommodations they might need.

Those accommodations, he said, might mean being flexible with start times because a person needs more time to get up and going. Another person might need to take a day off to deal with mental health issues. 

“We really did our best to let the actors lead the way in terms of what they needed,” Costes said. “Then we did our absolute best to make sure we could accommodate them.”

How game-changing is that?

As a person with a mental disability, I had never felt so seen in my life. It is the sort of accommodation I had always been afraid to ask for because I was taught it was “unprofessional.” And like every other person I have known who has struggled with depression, I believed that I was lazy or irresponsible because I had days where I could not function or could not make it to work on time.

Costes said actors are afraid to identify as having a mental disability or needing an accommodation involving flexible scheduling because they have been taught that theater companies aren’t willing to pay for and build in the longer rehearsal schedules necessary to make room for those sorts of accommodations. They have been told the standard is higher than it is possible for them to meet 100% of the time.

The fears aren’t unfounded. I’ve heard stories from actors who were told that they would never succeed in the business if they asked for accommodations, from actors who were fired for asking for schedule flexibility or even a single day off. I’ve talked to actors who were fired because the theater they were working for discovered they had a mental disability and they were considered too high-risk to keep on, especially when there were plenty of others who had auditioned and either didn’t have a disability or were willing to keep it hidden.

I suspect, though I have no data, that there are more theaters that will refuse accommodations for mental disabilities than those who take the philosophy that Costes has.

Actors aren’t unprofessional for needing to take care of their instruments—which includes both their mental and physical health.

Costes said that he appreciates actors who advocate for themselves. When he speaks on panels or consults with businesses, one thing he tells attendees is that if they think there is no one with a disability in a room full of people, they are wrong. It’s just that the person might not feel safe in revealing their disability.

“Invisible disabilities can take so many different forms,” Costes said. “We don’t know where people are on any given basis. We don’t know what their struggles are. We don’t know if it takes them an extra hour to get up in the morning just because of their emotional and mental health.”

He said in his room—in the play he directed for Babes with Blades—actors can advocate for themselves.

This was possible because Babes with Blades built time into the budget line from the very beginning. Costes said a lot of theaters would benefit from thinking about accessibility from day one. Accessibility is not, he said, deciding two days before opening to schedule an ASL interpreter or have a touch tour.

Another revolutionary aspect of this philosophy and this commitment—it shows trust in the artists. It clearly tells the actors that the company knows they aren’t going to take advantage, that they are going to be as committed to creating art as everyone else on the stage. It shows respect.

We have a younger generation who has not hesitated to call out toxic work environments. Theaters are not going to be exempt. They have a choice going forward. Are they going to hew to the traditional ways of doing things that demand an almost superhuman, fanatical commitment to the process? Or are they going to be willing to adapt—to make accommodations so that diverse artists can participate in telling more and fresher stories?

No one is asking theaters to lower their artistic standards—just to rethink how they arrive at that destination. Let’s be clear—it isn’t just the actors who benefit from these accommodations. Theater is about creating conversations, about showing situations that make people think and reflect, about raising questions without easy answers. To do this, you need a diversity of voices. 

There has been a lot of conversation about why we need more storytellers, especially those who have traditionally been underserved. This includes people with disabilities. They have stories to tell that they will depict in ways others cannot. 

An inclusive theater makes better art and starts more interesting conversations.

Is allowing a flexible start time—or any other accommodation—too high of a price to pay to achieve those goals? If it is, then theater will be missing out on a major opportunity to achieve greater relevance to current and future generations.