Okay, I said I didn't want to get into this, but maybe if I just get it off my chest it will go away and I won't have to deal with feelings of avoidance.
Went to a SAG meeting Monday to meet the new union president, Alan Rosenberg, and Secretary/Treasurer, Connie Stevens. Afterwards, one friend called them "wrong-headed but not insane," and I think that about sums it up. Our union is filled with some of the most ridiculous ego-centric grandstanders, megalomaniacs, wheel re-inventors, and just plain head cases, and I respect that Alan and Connie have to create some order out of all this chaos. I also believe they're earnest and well-intentioned. What I didn't get, though, was a sense that we, in the Branches, know what we're talking about on certain issues, particularly Merger and the Commercials Contract.
I think there's a prevalent sense among members of the "Membership First" faction that the Branches are 1). pro-employer, 2). easily duped by all the previous administrations that have called for a merger between AFTRA and SAG, and 3). anti-Hollywood. In reality, I think most Branch members are none of that.
The idea that we are "pro-employer" seems to come from the fact that we voice serious concerns about going on strike over the Commercials contract in the near future, but that's mostly because we arguably bore a disproportional amount of the pain in 2000 — the Commercials contract accounts for more income in the branches than it does in Hollywood and, because we have fewer members than Hollywood, we had more work cut out for us in prosecuting the last strike. So we acknowledge the inherently adversarial position we're in versus our employers, but at the same time we're STRONGLY in favor of working out an equitable deal, because — at least at this point in time — getting even half of what you want is preferable to risking it all by going to war.
Regarding Merger: Again — the Branches have a disproportional amount of members who are necessarily members of both AFTRA and SAG, and many of us, including Yours Truly, have lost Pension and/or Health benefits because our income was split between two jurisdictions. (You have to make a certain amount each year to qualify for benefits under each union's plan, but if the qualifying level is, say, $15K, a $29K wage-earner is outta luck in both unions if his/her income was evenly split.) What Membership First does not seem to understand (or, at least, has never said that I remember) is that we in the branches are voting our pocketbooks. All the Pro & Con rhetoric is very entertaining, thank you, but in the end, we've done the math and decided that the best thing is to have just one benefits plan. And since we, by law, cannot exert a majority influence over both Benefit Plans (both are controlled 50% by our employers, who quite definitely do not want the two unions to merge), we've decided to exert control where we can — by merging the two unions anyway. Matter of fact, the adversarial stance that M.F. seems to chronically take with regard to our employers is strangely absent on this one issue, and it's an inconsistancy that breeds distrust in the Branches — it seems to indicate an agenda that is based more on intra-union factional power than on strengthening the power of the workers versus their employers.
And lastly, we're not anti-Hollywood — except when Hollywood adopts an anti-Branches stance. Seriously, although it was mentioned numerous times by Mr. Rosenberg during the meeting that we in the Branches "have no interest in DVD residuals" (a matter that is important to those working the Theatrical contract, i.e., mostly Hollywood Branch members), the fact is that most of us (I reckon) would defer to Hollywood if a majority of those members thought a strike over the issue was necessary. Conversely though, we think a certain amount of deference on Hollywood's part would be nice when it comes to the Commercials contract (which, again, disproportionately affects the membership in the [non-Hollywood] Branches).
It's also worth noting that, following the Strike of 2000, the very next issue put to the membership concerned re-apportioning the governance of the union so that it was proportional to the number of members in each Branch (which, of course, would give the Hollywood branch alone a 50%+ majority control in the boardroom). At the time, it was called "undemocratic" that no single branch had majority control, but — if the non-Hollywood branches voted together — they could override Hollywood. However, there's a reason our Founding Fathers created the U.S. Senate. It was so that those states with a disproportional amount of resources and/or wealth (say, for instance, New England) would not feel that those in the more populous states were always making all the decisions (e.g., Rhode Island doesn't stand a chance in the House of Representatives against California). And the reason that's a good thing in a union is that you may, someday, have to strike. And if the rest of the nation feels that Hollywood is making all the decisions — even when they run counter to what the rest of the nation tells Hollywood it wants — you're going to have serious problems the next time you want to have a nationwide strike.
I'm not saying that the new governance situation is "wrong," per se, but the timing of it, as well as the rhetoric that was bandied about at the time, was a serious slap in the face to the branches who had just prosecuted a nationwide strike that many felt had been instigated primarily by members in Hollywood. (I don't happen to hold that opinion — I still think it was necessary at that point in time — but the vehemence with which some very vocal Hollywood members went about pursuing the change in governance afterward only heightened the suspicion on the part of many in the Branches that they had been duped in 2000.)
There, I hope that does it. Seriously, I don't want this blog to degenerate into one of those partisan sites that seem to discuss only union issues, but to entirely ignore my feelings on these issues seemed wrong as well. Spleen vented, damage done. On to the next thing...
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Better... kind of.
Thanks to Story and Madie for their comments on my last post. Things are a little better, but I suspect it's largely because I'm choosing to ignore the pain. Caught a killer cold last weekend, and I'm only now getting down to the "egg yolk stage" (as a friend of mine delicately puts it). And, a couple of days ago, I walked in the front door of our new house to the sound of water cascading down the kitchen walls and into the basement, where it was about 6 inches deep at the point where it was splattering off the circuit breaker box. The good news is that half of it seeped through the kitchen walls to the outside, where it pooled around the 116-year-old foundation, no doubt cracking the mortar, stones, etc.
And, you know, past a certain point, you just have to laugh.
Things have gotten so wildly, outrageously beyond my control that I've ironically grown very calm. I'm just dealing with whatever's in front of me at the moment, and handling anything beyond that if time allows.
No on-camera auditions this week, but at least one voiceover audition per day. Given my cold, I guess I should be grateful there was only potential money on the line instead of real money.
And, you know, past a certain point, you just have to laugh.
Things have gotten so wildly, outrageously beyond my control that I've ironically grown very calm. I'm just dealing with whatever's in front of me at the moment, and handling anything beyond that if time allows.
No on-camera auditions this week, but at least one voiceover audition per day. Given my cold, I guess I should be grateful there was only potential money on the line instead of real money.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Breathing
Well, Cherokee finally got me to take a vacation for two weeks. I think I did pretty well at leaving most of my cares behind while we were gone, but the backlog of stuff when I returned has kept me so busy I honestly feel like I can't breathe at times. I already had a backlog of stuff to do before I left, and now I've got another two weeks' worth piled on top. Issues with the new house, issues with selling our old house, carrying two mortgages in the meantime, organizing and paying taxes on our business and our personal income, running our business in the meantime, etc. All this and auditions/jobs to boot. It's not stuff that I'll be glad I did when I'm on my deathbed (compared to, say, having had a close and loving mariage and family), but it's stuff that'll put you on your deathbed quickly if you don't do it. Even writing about it seems like a waste of time, and if I wasn't waiting for a file to upload to our server at the moment, I wouldn't even be writing this.
Had a job yesterday, thank heavens, and a surprise job today that I just found out about. Both are/were re-records of previous sessions for spots that didn't air because the client decided to change the script after it was in the can. No complaints, as it's badly needed money in my bank account.
Also had two on-camera auditions early this week. In both cases, the last take I did was good (both in my opinion and, I think, in the casting director's opinion) but that's actually disappointing to me because — unless you're one of the first ones on the audition tape/DVD — chances are pretty slim that the client is going to see the final take, since they quickly start to view only the first 15 seconds or so of each audition before speeding on to the next. Guess I'm a bit rusty from the slow flow of on-camera auditions lately.
Speaking of non-sequiturs, check out the SAGFireBird blog for a discussion of issues currently affecting (and afflicting) the Screen Actors Guild. Again, I don't want to get too deeply into them here, but it relates strongly to something I mentioned in one of my last couple of posts.
Had a job yesterday, thank heavens, and a surprise job today that I just found out about. Both are/were re-records of previous sessions for spots that didn't air because the client decided to change the script after it was in the can. No complaints, as it's badly needed money in my bank account.
Also had two on-camera auditions early this week. In both cases, the last take I did was good (both in my opinion and, I think, in the casting director's opinion) but that's actually disappointing to me because — unless you're one of the first ones on the audition tape/DVD — chances are pretty slim that the client is going to see the final take, since they quickly start to view only the first 15 seconds or so of each audition before speeding on to the next. Guess I'm a bit rusty from the slow flow of on-camera auditions lately.
Speaking of non-sequiturs, check out the SAGFireBird blog for a discussion of issues currently affecting (and afflicting) the Screen Actors Guild. Again, I don't want to get too deeply into them here, but it relates strongly to something I mentioned in one of my last couple of posts.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
New Year, Fresh Start
Well, it's a new year and so far so good. Cherokee & I have a new house, I've had a couple voiceover gigs already, StoryActor is back in fine fettle it appears, and perhaps we'll see more opportunities this year for employment.
I've been reading a book lately called "What's the Matter With Kansas?" and it's really been occupying my thoughts a lot lately. It's about the NeoCon revolution within the Republican party, and it's written by a Kansas native who sees in his home state a microcosm for what's been happening (and even what will happen) nationally. I don't really want to get into politics too much here, but I do see some parallels between what's been happening politically in our nation and what's been happening within the Screen Actors Guild. In both instances there is a very vocal minority that manages to effectively exert its will, often (it might be argued) to their own detriment and to the detriment of the body at large.
And so you get, for instance, Kansans who are losing their union jobs to union-busting efforts, free trade agreements, and shady corporate maneuvers, but they'll vote FOR a candidate who is anti-union, supports free trade agreements, etc. because that candidate takes a particular stance on a "moral issue" they agree with (e.g., Roe v. Wade). Similarly, in SAG you see some really angry, angry people who will fight tooth and nail to prevent consolidation with AFTRA, a renewal of the Agency Franchise Agreement, or any collective bargaining agreement that is not a total 100% victory for the Guild, and they (all of them, as near as I can tell) consider their efforts at undermining the majority as something of a moral obligation.
I'm not sure what, if anything, to say about this observation, but it's disturbing to me and it's been on my mind, so I thought I ought to write it down somewhere. Here, for instance.
I've been reading a book lately called "What's the Matter With Kansas?" and it's really been occupying my thoughts a lot lately. It's about the NeoCon revolution within the Republican party, and it's written by a Kansas native who sees in his home state a microcosm for what's been happening (and even what will happen) nationally. I don't really want to get into politics too much here, but I do see some parallels between what's been happening politically in our nation and what's been happening within the Screen Actors Guild. In both instances there is a very vocal minority that manages to effectively exert its will, often (it might be argued) to their own detriment and to the detriment of the body at large.
And so you get, for instance, Kansans who are losing their union jobs to union-busting efforts, free trade agreements, and shady corporate maneuvers, but they'll vote FOR a candidate who is anti-union, supports free trade agreements, etc. because that candidate takes a particular stance on a "moral issue" they agree with (e.g., Roe v. Wade). Similarly, in SAG you see some really angry, angry people who will fight tooth and nail to prevent consolidation with AFTRA, a renewal of the Agency Franchise Agreement, or any collective bargaining agreement that is not a total 100% victory for the Guild, and they (all of them, as near as I can tell) consider their efforts at undermining the majority as something of a moral obligation.
I'm not sure what, if anything, to say about this observation, but it's disturbing to me and it's been on my mind, so I thought I ought to write it down somewhere. Here, for instance.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Better'n Nothing, I Guess
Can't believe I haven't updated this in three weeks. It's actually been a busy time on a number of levels. First, Cherokee & I are in the process of moving. Second, my money job (for the first time ever) is in retail and I've gotten to experience firsthand the Christmas Rush. Third, I've been getting on-camera work. Sort of.
The gigs I've been getting are all jobs as background extras on commercial shoots. Three of them in about two weeks. I am, of course, the first to say that Chicago actors need to do any work that comes along (in order to qualify for health benefits, if nothing else), and I've mentioned earlier in this blog that actors in this market need to disabuse themselves of any notion that they are only fit for principal roles, but these gigs were particularly eye-opening.
The fact is that I've been in the minority in holding the opinions I just repeated above — most Chicago actors HAVE been accustomed to turning down extras/background work. Well, not any longer. Over the last three jobs, I saw long-established actors with tri-coastal careers, Second City mainstage actors, one casting director, and assorted other improvisers, voiceover talent, etc. working with me in the background. I swear, there was more talent employed as "atmosphere" on these shoots than the folks in the foreground.
The reason, of course, is the decline of the broadcast dollar. Less broadcast advertising means fewer spots being shot, meaning less work to go around. I'm hoping this trend ends up like the "technology bubble" of the 90s and that, sooner or later, advertisers realize that all the hype about product placements and Internet advertising just doesn't grab the same attention as their old reliable broadcast spots, but I'm not holding my breath.
And on that note, I'll invite everyone to take a hot bath, shake off these 2005 blues, and look forward to the hope of better things in 2006. Happy Holidays everyone!
The gigs I've been getting are all jobs as background extras on commercial shoots. Three of them in about two weeks. I am, of course, the first to say that Chicago actors need to do any work that comes along (in order to qualify for health benefits, if nothing else), and I've mentioned earlier in this blog that actors in this market need to disabuse themselves of any notion that they are only fit for principal roles, but these gigs were particularly eye-opening.
The fact is that I've been in the minority in holding the opinions I just repeated above — most Chicago actors HAVE been accustomed to turning down extras/background work. Well, not any longer. Over the last three jobs, I saw long-established actors with tri-coastal careers, Second City mainstage actors, one casting director, and assorted other improvisers, voiceover talent, etc. working with me in the background. I swear, there was more talent employed as "atmosphere" on these shoots than the folks in the foreground.
The reason, of course, is the decline of the broadcast dollar. Less broadcast advertising means fewer spots being shot, meaning less work to go around. I'm hoping this trend ends up like the "technology bubble" of the 90s and that, sooner or later, advertisers realize that all the hype about product placements and Internet advertising just doesn't grab the same attention as their old reliable broadcast spots, but I'm not holding my breath.
And on that note, I'll invite everyone to take a hot bath, shake off these 2005 blues, and look forward to the hope of better things in 2006. Happy Holidays everyone!
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Not a PSA
First, thanks to MagicKat for her comment on my last post. She's a Real Actor living in the Big Apple and writes a good blog (see the link in the right-hand navibar). I say "real actor" with tongue firmly planted in cheek, because the stereotype many ad agencies almost willfully enforce is that you cast in L.A. for beautiful people, go to Chicago for comedy, and go to New York for "real actors." No disrespect to my NYC brothers and sisters, of course, least of all MagicKat; it's just that all three locales have more than enough professional talent to cast nearly any 30-second opus, so advertisers should think more locally.
So glad to have an on-camera audition yesterday that was up my alley, so to speak. My "alley" happens to be one where I feel I can stand out because the casting specs allow — if not call for — a certain amount of creative latitude on my part. Combine that with a casting director who actually lets you play a little (instead of fixating on the "director" part of their title because, you know, actors are stupid and won't give their client a good performance unless they're forced to) and you've got a rewarding experience. Seriously — actually landing a gig is gravy, but if I didn't actually enjoy a good portion of my auditions I'd have to question whether it was all worth it.
It's rare that things in the non-acting world eclipse my Dream (life as a professional actor being the dream I pursue), but I've got a lot of non-acting stress happening at the moment. My last living grandparent died last week at the age of 99, Cherokee and I are in the middle of trying to buy a house, and an entrepreneurial retail venture I run is giving me massive headaches (it being the holiday season). Actually, I normally wouldn't even consider that last bit to be a major stressor since I actually derive enjoyment from running it, but MagicKat's experience with holiday shoppers (again, see her link to the right) reminded me that, "Hey, yeah! Holiday shoppers ARE the dark side of humanity incarnate!"
Speaking of which, I've gotta go deal with them now. Heaven forbid they not get instant gratification...
So glad to have an on-camera audition yesterday that was up my alley, so to speak. My "alley" happens to be one where I feel I can stand out because the casting specs allow — if not call for — a certain amount of creative latitude on my part. Combine that with a casting director who actually lets you play a little (instead of fixating on the "director" part of their title because, you know, actors are stupid and won't give their client a good performance unless they're forced to) and you've got a rewarding experience. Seriously — actually landing a gig is gravy, but if I didn't actually enjoy a good portion of my auditions I'd have to question whether it was all worth it.
It's rare that things in the non-acting world eclipse my Dream (life as a professional actor being the dream I pursue), but I've got a lot of non-acting stress happening at the moment. My last living grandparent died last week at the age of 99, Cherokee and I are in the middle of trying to buy a house, and an entrepreneurial retail venture I run is giving me massive headaches (it being the holiday season). Actually, I normally wouldn't even consider that last bit to be a major stressor since I actually derive enjoyment from running it, but MagicKat's experience with holiday shoppers (again, see her link to the right) reminded me that, "Hey, yeah! Holiday shoppers ARE the dark side of humanity incarnate!"
Speaking of which, I've gotta go deal with them now. Heaven forbid they not get instant gratification...
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Thanks
My thanks to Anonymous for the tip in their comment to my last post. Always good to have resources so we can do as much work as possible on our own careers. Kind of reminds me of something Cherokee says:
Y'know how every actor hears at some point the phrase, "Remember, your agent works for YOU, not the other way around"? I'm sure whoever said that originally meant to empower actors to take charge of their careers, but often what happens is exactly the opposite — actors cop an attitude with their agent and forget that there's a greater demand among actors for agents than agents looking for actors to rep. So the agent gets "unenthused" about the actor and s/he ends up going from agency to agency wondering why they can't get work. Kind of like a bitchy society matron complaining that "you can't find good help these days," all the while she's demanding not so much "help" as "demeaning servility" from her domestic employees.
Well, Cherokee's take on this is, "If I pay my employee 10% to find work for me, that means that 90% of the work is up to me." Sure, that may sound cute, but it helps with the attitude adjustment.
Y'know how every actor hears at some point the phrase, "Remember, your agent works for YOU, not the other way around"? I'm sure whoever said that originally meant to empower actors to take charge of their careers, but often what happens is exactly the opposite — actors cop an attitude with their agent and forget that there's a greater demand among actors for agents than agents looking for actors to rep. So the agent gets "unenthused" about the actor and s/he ends up going from agency to agency wondering why they can't get work. Kind of like a bitchy society matron complaining that "you can't find good help these days," all the while she's demanding not so much "help" as "demeaning servility" from her domestic employees.
Well, Cherokee's take on this is, "If I pay my employee 10% to find work for me, that means that 90% of the work is up to me." Sure, that may sound cute, but it helps with the attitude adjustment.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Picking Up a Bit
When it's slow, every little audition, gig, or other blip on your Actor Radar becomes a Big Deal, so I guess the fact that I've had three such Big Deals this week says more about how slow it's been than anything else. Still, worth noting in my diary here are:
1). I went to an orientation session for the Equity EMC program. I've actually already got 20 hours or so toward the requisite 25 for joining (for members of sister unions), but I remember how much I resented not having gotten an orientation when I joined my first 4A union 15 years ago, so I thought I should show up or else have only myself to blame for the next 15. Half the presentation was on "why unions are good" which, given my background, was like preaching to the choir, but the other half was new and informative. AEA is definitely different from SAG and AFTRA, and that's mostly a good thing.
2). I had an audition for a spokesperson type of thing for a national brand that really resonated with me on a number of levels. First, it was the sort of character that I used to get called in for quite a bit 'back in the day'. Not so much in the last five years. Second, it was one of those old-fashioned spokesperson searches that you just hardly see at all these days, complete with specs from the Breakdown Service and lavish talk about the "quintessential qualities" that will make this character stand out above all others (and which are of very little use to the actor when preparing for the audition). Lastly, fortunately or unfortunately, it reminded me of the time when I actually was a spokesperson for a national brand — lots of complex emotions over the experience, but a lasting impression of just how ephemeral recognition, fame, notoriety, etc. are (and why they're a ticket to a Bad Place mentally if they becomes one's goals rather than the work itself).
and,
3). Yesterday I had perhaps the quickest voiceover job I've ever had. I couldn't have been there more than 5 minutes. It took longer to fill out the paperwork after than to do the read. It was one of those spots where they cut together a dozen people saying the same speech, so they really only needed each voice to "not suck" for at least 3 seconds.
Being who I am, these events led (of course) to a certain amount of introspection, the result of which was my realizing something that I wish I'd adopted as a credo long ago:
"Keep sucking until you don't."
Seriously, it's a great formula for success, and it's more concise than all that blather I used to hear about being persistent, continuing to train and educate yourself, getting as much experience as possible, etc. No — just don't be afraid to suck, because (in all likelihood) you will. Then, rinse and repeat, making adjustments along the way of course, until things click and you're not so sucky.
Now if I could only convince those casting directors who saw me suck once-upon-a-time to forget their first impressions...
1). I went to an orientation session for the Equity EMC program. I've actually already got 20 hours or so toward the requisite 25 for joining (for members of sister unions), but I remember how much I resented not having gotten an orientation when I joined my first 4A union 15 years ago, so I thought I should show up or else have only myself to blame for the next 15. Half the presentation was on "why unions are good" which, given my background, was like preaching to the choir, but the other half was new and informative. AEA is definitely different from SAG and AFTRA, and that's mostly a good thing.
2). I had an audition for a spokesperson type of thing for a national brand that really resonated with me on a number of levels. First, it was the sort of character that I used to get called in for quite a bit 'back in the day'. Not so much in the last five years. Second, it was one of those old-fashioned spokesperson searches that you just hardly see at all these days, complete with specs from the Breakdown Service and lavish talk about the "quintessential qualities" that will make this character stand out above all others (and which are of very little use to the actor when preparing for the audition). Lastly, fortunately or unfortunately, it reminded me of the time when I actually was a spokesperson for a national brand — lots of complex emotions over the experience, but a lasting impression of just how ephemeral recognition, fame, notoriety, etc. are (and why they're a ticket to a Bad Place mentally if they becomes one's goals rather than the work itself).
and,
3). Yesterday I had perhaps the quickest voiceover job I've ever had. I couldn't have been there more than 5 minutes. It took longer to fill out the paperwork after than to do the read. It was one of those spots where they cut together a dozen people saying the same speech, so they really only needed each voice to "not suck" for at least 3 seconds.
Being who I am, these events led (of course) to a certain amount of introspection, the result of which was my realizing something that I wish I'd adopted as a credo long ago:
"Keep sucking until you don't."
Seriously, it's a great formula for success, and it's more concise than all that blather I used to hear about being persistent, continuing to train and educate yourself, getting as much experience as possible, etc. No — just don't be afraid to suck, because (in all likelihood) you will. Then, rinse and repeat, making adjustments along the way of course, until things click and you're not so sucky.
Now if I could only convince those casting directors who saw me suck once-upon-a-time to forget their first impressions...
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Slowness
Surprised to find it's been close to three weeks since my last post. I have to say it's been extremely slow. Auditioned for a couple of plays — I sucked at one, thought I had a decent shot at the other, but in the end didn't get either. Had a voiceover job on Monday for a packaged food, but that's been about it as far as jobs go.
I can't help remembering the argument that was raised during the Commercial Strike of 2000 to the effect that actors are overpaid. I can honestly say that I would have to quit commercial gigs entirely if I made any less than I do now. Sure, getting $200 for recording in a booth for an hour probably sounds excessive to some, but if folks are going to go by "hours worked" they should also include the 30+ auditions it took to land that gig, each of which costs me at least 2-1/2 hours of time (travel, waiting, recording, etc.)
And while I know some of the advertising suits don't think the time invested on auditions counts, the fact is that it's a prerequisite to having a viable talent pool to draw on. They want us to be investing all that time, whether they know it or not. I mean, if the only actors they could cast in their commercials were those that happened to be available for their audition because they had nothing better to do — those who, for instance, weren't taking off time from their temp job (and losing that income in the process) — their commercials would all suck. So fair's fair: if you want professional actors, don't dismiss the rather extreme amounts of uncompensated time they invest pursuing professional work.
Anyway, this just crosses my mind more at times like these, when it seems I'm auditioning endlessly with few rewards...
I can't help remembering the argument that was raised during the Commercial Strike of 2000 to the effect that actors are overpaid. I can honestly say that I would have to quit commercial gigs entirely if I made any less than I do now. Sure, getting $200 for recording in a booth for an hour probably sounds excessive to some, but if folks are going to go by "hours worked" they should also include the 30+ auditions it took to land that gig, each of which costs me at least 2-1/2 hours of time (travel, waiting, recording, etc.)
And while I know some of the advertising suits don't think the time invested on auditions counts, the fact is that it's a prerequisite to having a viable talent pool to draw on. They want us to be investing all that time, whether they know it or not. I mean, if the only actors they could cast in their commercials were those that happened to be available for their audition because they had nothing better to do — those who, for instance, weren't taking off time from their temp job (and losing that income in the process) — their commercials would all suck. So fair's fair: if you want professional actors, don't dismiss the rather extreme amounts of uncompensated time they invest pursuing professional work.
Anyway, this just crosses my mind more at times like these, when it seems I'm auditioning endlessly with few rewards...
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Up and Down
I've always said that one of the primary characteristics about Life as a Professional Actor is that "the highs are really really high, but the lows are really REALLY low". I'm kind of having both right now, along with a general milieu of dissatisfaction. (I usually try to have my milieu on the side as a sauce, but sometimes it just comes with the salad, know what I mean?)
On the upside, I've had a couple of voiceover jobs in the last couple of weeks. One was a demo that turned into two demos during the session — it went okay, but I'm not sure I caught on early enough that the client wanted two rather different attacks on the different scripts (and maybe they didn't know themselves either until they got deeper into the session). The other was a job for a bank in a major metropolitan area, but the bank is only in that one city (meaning little-to-no residuals). Still, it was a fun job calling for an extremely character-y read, so I'm not complaining.
On the downside, NOTHING has been happening in the on-camera department, so of course at times like this I'm inclined to wonder what I'm doing wrong. I'm pretty sure the truth of the matter is just that nothing really is happening — commercials are not being made, because advertisers are putting more of their spend into non-broadcast advertising (e.g., Internet, product placements, etc.).
Still, I have an on-camera audition later today that's kind of ticking me off. I don't know what it is about this particular casting director, but I always feel like they put me at a disadvantage before I even walk in the door. I'm usually scheduled late in the casting session, which usually puts me at the end of the tape/DVD the client receives, and the fact of the matter is that a certain percentage of auditions are just never seen at all because the client is overwhelmed after seeing the first 20-30 auditions. Secondly, I don't know whether this betrays an underlying contempt for actors or what, but I almost always feel as though the person running the session feels as though the talent is incapable of coming up with ideas on their own, so they try to "direct" the talent in a rather constrictive manner that stifles creativity (surely that must result in cookie-cutter auditions on the final tape, making THEM look bad, so why do they do it?) And lastly, I think they just don't know what my "type" is, so I fairly often end up being called in for something that's a stretch at best.
All of this has resulted in my having NEVER booked anything through this particular casting director's office in the 10 years or so I've been at this. Which, I'm sure only enforces their opinion of me as a non-starter. But, of course, hope springs eternal, so I never turn down an audition from them unless I have a product conflict or some other good reason. (Note to casting director: "Hello?! I have product conflicts! Doesn't that tell you something?!")
There... I got that off my chest. Time to put that back in my Shoebox of Bitterness and concentrate on just being brilliant in my audition.
Or, failing brilliance, "good enough" to land the job.
On the upside, I've had a couple of voiceover jobs in the last couple of weeks. One was a demo that turned into two demos during the session — it went okay, but I'm not sure I caught on early enough that the client wanted two rather different attacks on the different scripts (and maybe they didn't know themselves either until they got deeper into the session). The other was a job for a bank in a major metropolitan area, but the bank is only in that one city (meaning little-to-no residuals). Still, it was a fun job calling for an extremely character-y read, so I'm not complaining.
On the downside, NOTHING has been happening in the on-camera department, so of course at times like this I'm inclined to wonder what I'm doing wrong. I'm pretty sure the truth of the matter is just that nothing really is happening — commercials are not being made, because advertisers are putting more of their spend into non-broadcast advertising (e.g., Internet, product placements, etc.).
Still, I have an on-camera audition later today that's kind of ticking me off. I don't know what it is about this particular casting director, but I always feel like they put me at a disadvantage before I even walk in the door. I'm usually scheduled late in the casting session, which usually puts me at the end of the tape/DVD the client receives, and the fact of the matter is that a certain percentage of auditions are just never seen at all because the client is overwhelmed after seeing the first 20-30 auditions. Secondly, I don't know whether this betrays an underlying contempt for actors or what, but I almost always feel as though the person running the session feels as though the talent is incapable of coming up with ideas on their own, so they try to "direct" the talent in a rather constrictive manner that stifles creativity (surely that must result in cookie-cutter auditions on the final tape, making THEM look bad, so why do they do it?) And lastly, I think they just don't know what my "type" is, so I fairly often end up being called in for something that's a stretch at best.
All of this has resulted in my having NEVER booked anything through this particular casting director's office in the 10 years or so I've been at this. Which, I'm sure only enforces their opinion of me as a non-starter. But, of course, hope springs eternal, so I never turn down an audition from them unless I have a product conflict or some other good reason. (Note to casting director: "Hello?! I have product conflicts! Doesn't that tell you something?!")
There... I got that off my chest. Time to put that back in my Shoebox of Bitterness and concentrate on just being brilliant in my audition.
Or, failing brilliance, "good enough" to land the job.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Life
Just discovered that StoryActor has been hurt in a serious car accident. It's times like this that writing about one's career seems so pointless, or at the very least secondary.
Matter of fact, I think that sums up pretty well the primary cause of attrition in the ranks of professional actors — folks discover there are more important things in life. Or, at least, Life's events can be more important than whatever motivated you to be in the Biz in the first place. Those whose sole goal, for instance, is to be "famous" (whatever that may mean to them) often find it hard to reconcile their pursuit of that goal in the face of starting a family. I mean, really — what actor can argue that the World needs their talent more than their daughter needs her responsible, caring, and financially supportive father?
Sigh... best of luck to Story. I hope they recover well and quickly.
Matter of fact, I think that sums up pretty well the primary cause of attrition in the ranks of professional actors — folks discover there are more important things in life. Or, at least, Life's events can be more important than whatever motivated you to be in the Biz in the first place. Those whose sole goal, for instance, is to be "famous" (whatever that may mean to them) often find it hard to reconcile their pursuit of that goal in the face of starting a family. I mean, really — what actor can argue that the World needs their talent more than their daughter needs her responsible, caring, and financially supportive father?
Sigh... best of luck to Story. I hope they recover well and quickly.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Kinda Slow
Several voiceover auditions over the past week, but nothing to show for it as yet. I know I was requested for one of them, and the copy was right up my alley, so hope springs eternal...
Going up on the elevator to one of these auditions, I talked to one of my fellow clients (i.e., another actor repped by the same agency). This person is one of those people I would firmly place in the pantheon of "Extremely Well-Established Chicago Actors" — a former member of the Saturday Night Live cast from back in the day, ex-Second City Mainstage, movie credits, and ongoing accounts as The Voice of [insert well-known national products]. Anyway, they said it had been extremely slow for them, all things considered, so I guess it's not just me.
Received a script from a buddy yesterday, wanting me to be in a show he's directing. The guy doesn't do anything bad, and he's sort of a name in his own right (just got nominated for a Jeff award for the umpteenth time, as a matter of fact) so of course I'm considering it. The show's only going to have a very short run — more of a showcase than anything else. Normally, I'd take a pass on it but, given how slow it is in other arenas, I'm thinking of riding the horse the direction it's going.
Going up on the elevator to one of these auditions, I talked to one of my fellow clients (i.e., another actor repped by the same agency). This person is one of those people I would firmly place in the pantheon of "Extremely Well-Established Chicago Actors" — a former member of the Saturday Night Live cast from back in the day, ex-Second City Mainstage, movie credits, and ongoing accounts as The Voice of [insert well-known national products]. Anyway, they said it had been extremely slow for them, all things considered, so I guess it's not just me.
Received a script from a buddy yesterday, wanting me to be in a show he's directing. The guy doesn't do anything bad, and he's sort of a name in his own right (just got nominated for a Jeff award for the umpteenth time, as a matter of fact) so of course I'm considering it. The show's only going to have a very short run — more of a showcase than anything else. Normally, I'd take a pass on it but, given how slow it is in other arenas, I'm thinking of riding the horse the direction it's going.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
L.A.
Ran into an ex-castmate from a show I did in 2003 at an on-camera audition on Friday. She was preparing to go out to L.A. for pilot season for her second year running after stashing away as much cash as possible this summer in Chicago. We talked for a bit over coffee, during which I surprised myself by admitting that the idea of returning to L.A. sometime in the mid-future was beginning to buzz around in the back of my brain.
Funny thing that. I have SO many reasons not to go back to the West Coast, but the fact of the matter is that the minimums needed for both the union health plans and the pension plans keeps rising each year, and I'm in the uncomfortable position of not yet having enough steady gigs to qualify for both on an ongoing basis. Last year, I barely squeaked by to qualify for health coverage and, for the first time in 6 years, I fell short — by just $400 in earnings — from earning a pension credit. Given that I can expect commercial job opportunities to decrease in Chicago becasue of an increasingly fractured advertising spend (the number of national spots cast out of Chicago has dropped dramatically in the last year), not to mention my age, I can't help but wonder if it's not a smart idea to look to the SAG Theatrical contract to complete my 10-years worth of vesting. Which, of course, means returning to L.A.
Just thinking about it at the moment.
Funny thing that. I have SO many reasons not to go back to the West Coast, but the fact of the matter is that the minimums needed for both the union health plans and the pension plans keeps rising each year, and I'm in the uncomfortable position of not yet having enough steady gigs to qualify for both on an ongoing basis. Last year, I barely squeaked by to qualify for health coverage and, for the first time in 6 years, I fell short — by just $400 in earnings — from earning a pension credit. Given that I can expect commercial job opportunities to decrease in Chicago becasue of an increasingly fractured advertising spend (the number of national spots cast out of Chicago has dropped dramatically in the last year), not to mention my age, I can't help but wonder if it's not a smart idea to look to the SAG Theatrical contract to complete my 10-years worth of vesting. Which, of course, means returning to L.A.
Just thinking about it at the moment.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
After
The show had a fine closing out-of-state, and now the production is in a limbo of sorts. I know the writer/director has already started work on his second opus, so this may be as far as this particular train runs. Still, the producers have been left with a turnkey production that could be mounted nearly anywhere on short notice, so there may be some life in it yet. Not holding my breath, though. Whatever else may happen, at least I was paid fairly well, and I ended up with an additional 3 hours toward my Equity candidacy.
I had another voiceover gig on Monday, two radio spots for an extremely limited run in one of the tiniest markets in the country. (Not complaining, just mentioning it as a preface to what follows.) It was a patch session, meaning I was in a booth here in Chicago while everyone else — the client, director, agency people, and primary engineer — was in a studio hundreds of miles away. Doing patches almost involves a different skill set, because it's easy for things to get confused if you don't keep your communication concise and limited. And heaven forbid the engineer opens his mike while you're talking, because you end up hearing yourself echoing in a room on the other side of the country about a half-second behind yourself. Much worse than using an ear prompter, and it invariably causes you to stammer like a fool. So you end up being like Joe Friday, giving the facts, just the facts, and only when spoken to.
Anyway, on this occasion the director drops a heavy hint to me that he'd like me to do this session "off card", meaning without a union contract, which — giving him the benefit of the doubt — either shows him to be a novice or else indicates that he was under some sort of ridiculous pressure from the agency or the advertiser to keep the costs down. I say "ridiculous" because union scale for what I was doing was only about $200, and probably with no usage to follow, which is waaaay less than they were already spending just for an hour of dual studio time. If I were to think along more sinister lines, I would suspect that what they actually wanted to do was run the hell out of the spots ad infinitum, or wanted to deliberately fill a stable of off-card actors (for various reasons, none of them good for the membership of SAG or AFTRA).
Unfortunately, this second, sinister suspicion was underscored after my session when the sound engineer made a comment to me regarding the amount of work he could get me if I went FiCore. For those who don't know, "Financial Core" is a sort of classification that a person working in non-Right-to-Work states can claim. There's a loooong history to FC, which I may go into later, but the gist of the thing is that people who claim FC status are technically not a member of the union, but are paying dues to the union anyway. Why would someone do this? So they could work both sides of the fence, doing both union AND non-union jobs. There are strong feelings on both sides of the FC issue and, depending who you talk to, it's either touted as a nifty loophole for actors or The End of Unionism As We Know It. I've got my own opinion, but here, to me, is what it all boils down to, regardless of who you're listening to:
If you work FiCore on a commercial job, you are potentially giving yourself a product conflict for life.
"Product conflicts" are why you don't see The Guy From The Pepsi Commercial also doing a Coca-Cola commercial. When you do an on-camera spot, the advertiser wants you to be exclusive to their product — they don't want consumers to see you pitching for their competitors and identifying you with the wrong product. In return for this exclusivity, advertisers pay actors a holding fee every 13 weeks (up to 21 months) until the spot stops running and/or they decide to release the actors (some savvy advertisers will stop running their spots, but hold the actors for an additional cycle to ensure there's a lag before the actors audition for competing products). In case you doubt that this happens very often, I can only tell you that my own experience is that exactly the opposite is true — success breeds success, and casting directors will audition actors from their own mental "pool" of those who have been cast before. It has, in fact, been a serious problem at various times for both me and some of my friends because being in a really memorable commercial will prevent you from being cast even in non-competing product categories since, for instance, no staid financial services company is going to want The Goofy Guy From The Budweiser Commercial in their own spot, no matter how calm and serious he's able to be.
Unfortunately, the problem with doing non-union spots is that the employer is not obligated to put any limit on how long they will run their spots. Typically, they pay a one-time buyout fee (often larger than union scale for the day), but then own the right to air that spot in perpetuity. And the problem with that is that — IF the actor subsequently does a spot for a competitor, and the two spots air around the same time — the competitor can legally sue the actor for having ruined their commercial, and force the actor to pay for a re-shoot (with a different actor, of course), the cost of which is EASILY in the six figures. So, if you do a non-union Subway commercial today, you've effectively eliminated yourself from doing any other fast food commercial ever, for the rest of your life.
This, to me, is the single biggest reason actors should not go FiCore. Whatever else may be said in favor of it (and, believe it or not, I can think of circumstances where it is indeed warranted and even know one actor whose decision to go FiCore I respect), the one incontrovertible fact that proponents of it cannot brush aside is that actors are legally liable for six-figure reshoot fees if they ever work for a competing advertiser.
Of course, those familiar with the subject will point out to me that there is no exclusivity for AFTRA radio spots — actors can, and do, work for competitors without fear of legal reprisals. And, after all, this is how the entire subject came up Monday: it was ostensibly with regard to radio spots. The point, however (at least to me), is that it's a line — cross it and you've got a reputation as an off-card and/or FiCore actor. Most likely it also closes a door behind you, since the unions take a dim view of it. If you work off-card, they can (and most likely will) bring you up on disciplinary charges for violating Rule One. Try to dodge the disciplinary hearings by going FiCore, and you've effectively withdrawn from the union, and they have no obligation to take you back.
And, in an industry that relies so heavily on reputation (what is "fame" after all?), why in heaven's name would I want to go down a path that, to many, casts a pall on my reputation, even if it's technically legal?
I had another voiceover gig on Monday, two radio spots for an extremely limited run in one of the tiniest markets in the country. (Not complaining, just mentioning it as a preface to what follows.) It was a patch session, meaning I was in a booth here in Chicago while everyone else — the client, director, agency people, and primary engineer — was in a studio hundreds of miles away. Doing patches almost involves a different skill set, because it's easy for things to get confused if you don't keep your communication concise and limited. And heaven forbid the engineer opens his mike while you're talking, because you end up hearing yourself echoing in a room on the other side of the country about a half-second behind yourself. Much worse than using an ear prompter, and it invariably causes you to stammer like a fool. So you end up being like Joe Friday, giving the facts, just the facts, and only when spoken to.
Anyway, on this occasion the director drops a heavy hint to me that he'd like me to do this session "off card", meaning without a union contract, which — giving him the benefit of the doubt — either shows him to be a novice or else indicates that he was under some sort of ridiculous pressure from the agency or the advertiser to keep the costs down. I say "ridiculous" because union scale for what I was doing was only about $200, and probably with no usage to follow, which is waaaay less than they were already spending just for an hour of dual studio time. If I were to think along more sinister lines, I would suspect that what they actually wanted to do was run the hell out of the spots ad infinitum, or wanted to deliberately fill a stable of off-card actors (for various reasons, none of them good for the membership of SAG or AFTRA).
Unfortunately, this second, sinister suspicion was underscored after my session when the sound engineer made a comment to me regarding the amount of work he could get me if I went FiCore. For those who don't know, "Financial Core" is a sort of classification that a person working in non-Right-to-Work states can claim. There's a loooong history to FC, which I may go into later, but the gist of the thing is that people who claim FC status are technically not a member of the union, but are paying dues to the union anyway. Why would someone do this? So they could work both sides of the fence, doing both union AND non-union jobs. There are strong feelings on both sides of the FC issue and, depending who you talk to, it's either touted as a nifty loophole for actors or The End of Unionism As We Know It. I've got my own opinion, but here, to me, is what it all boils down to, regardless of who you're listening to:
If you work FiCore on a commercial job, you are potentially giving yourself a product conflict for life.
"Product conflicts" are why you don't see The Guy From The Pepsi Commercial also doing a Coca-Cola commercial. When you do an on-camera spot, the advertiser wants you to be exclusive to their product — they don't want consumers to see you pitching for their competitors and identifying you with the wrong product. In return for this exclusivity, advertisers pay actors a holding fee every 13 weeks (up to 21 months) until the spot stops running and/or they decide to release the actors (some savvy advertisers will stop running their spots, but hold the actors for an additional cycle to ensure there's a lag before the actors audition for competing products). In case you doubt that this happens very often, I can only tell you that my own experience is that exactly the opposite is true — success breeds success, and casting directors will audition actors from their own mental "pool" of those who have been cast before. It has, in fact, been a serious problem at various times for both me and some of my friends because being in a really memorable commercial will prevent you from being cast even in non-competing product categories since, for instance, no staid financial services company is going to want The Goofy Guy From The Budweiser Commercial in their own spot, no matter how calm and serious he's able to be.
Unfortunately, the problem with doing non-union spots is that the employer is not obligated to put any limit on how long they will run their spots. Typically, they pay a one-time buyout fee (often larger than union scale for the day), but then own the right to air that spot in perpetuity. And the problem with that is that — IF the actor subsequently does a spot for a competitor, and the two spots air around the same time — the competitor can legally sue the actor for having ruined their commercial, and force the actor to pay for a re-shoot (with a different actor, of course), the cost of which is EASILY in the six figures. So, if you do a non-union Subway commercial today, you've effectively eliminated yourself from doing any other fast food commercial ever, for the rest of your life.
This, to me, is the single biggest reason actors should not go FiCore. Whatever else may be said in favor of it (and, believe it or not, I can think of circumstances where it is indeed warranted and even know one actor whose decision to go FiCore I respect), the one incontrovertible fact that proponents of it cannot brush aside is that actors are legally liable for six-figure reshoot fees if they ever work for a competing advertiser.
Of course, those familiar with the subject will point out to me that there is no exclusivity for AFTRA radio spots — actors can, and do, work for competitors without fear of legal reprisals. And, after all, this is how the entire subject came up Monday: it was ostensibly with regard to radio spots. The point, however (at least to me), is that it's a line — cross it and you've got a reputation as an off-card and/or FiCore actor. Most likely it also closes a door behind you, since the unions take a dim view of it. If you work off-card, they can (and most likely will) bring you up on disciplinary charges for violating Rule One. Try to dodge the disciplinary hearings by going FiCore, and you've effectively withdrawn from the union, and they have no obligation to take you back.
And, in an industry that relies so heavily on reputation (what is "fame" after all?), why in heaven's name would I want to go down a path that, to many, casts a pall on my reputation, even if it's technically legal?
Thursday, August 25, 2005
During 2...
Writing this from a hotel room on the road. First time I've had WiFi access in one of these rooms, and I have to say it's pretty nice typing this in bed, in a state of near undress, without being tethered to a wall. Guess I'm easily amused.
Extra job happened with no upgrade, but it was fun anyway. Drove 6 hours to get here today and did a show, and that was fun too. No complaints...
Extra job happened with no upgrade, but it was fun anyway. Drove 6 hours to get here today and did a show, and that was fun too. No complaints...
Monday, August 22, 2005
During...
Back in Chicago after our first weekend out of state. We slayed 'em, and had full houses to boot.
Theoretically, I'm spending a day tomorrow as an extra on the set of a beer commercial; I've already turned down a voiceover audition because it conflicts, so I hope it happens. I remember auditioning for a principal role in this spot, and I'm actually glad to be picking up extra work on it for a couple of reasons. First, it's one of those "see how popular we are?" commercials that features a couple dozen slice-of-life glimpses of Americans at play, and often they cast the bulk of those spots using extras and then just upgrade them on the set. Even if that's not the case though, I personally think no Chicago actor should ever be too proud to accept extra work, especially with the minimums for health insurance and pension credits getting higher every year. It would be different if there were a true celebrity machine here (i.e., where you actually have to worry about taking work that represents a step backward for fear that it will hurt your "quote"), but there isn't, so we need to be true citizens of the City That Works.
Story asked about my representation in a comment on my previous post. For what it's worth, I'm represented exclusively by two agencies — one for on-camera work and one for voiceover. That may seem a little odd to actors in L.A. or N.Y., where agencies represent actors by contract (e.g., Commercial, Theatrical, etc.) rather than the type of work done under each contract (e.g., voiceover, on-camera, etc.), but it's par for the course in Chicago. More could be said here about SAG's inability to renew the expired Franchise Agency Agreemet, but I'll spare you.
For Chicago actors, I cannot recommend at this particular point in time that they go exclusive with any particular agency, except under certain limited circumstances. Unless an actor is extremely well established (and I wouldn't even necessarily put myself in that category), there is too much work to be had by being multi-listed to make exclusivity with any particular agency worthwhile. The reason, of course, is that each agency has — to varying degrees — a certain amount of work coming through their doors that does not go through casting directors. Much of it is print work, industrials, trade shows, low-budget films and other lower-profile work but, hey, it's WORK, and any type of work is hard to come by for most people these days.
So why am I exclusive? My particular situation pre-dates the Commercial Strike of 2000, and it works well enough for me that I don't wish to change my very specific arrangement, but I do recognize it as being outside the norm and, therefore, I don't recommend it to hardly anyone else.
Theoretically, I'm spending a day tomorrow as an extra on the set of a beer commercial; I've already turned down a voiceover audition because it conflicts, so I hope it happens. I remember auditioning for a principal role in this spot, and I'm actually glad to be picking up extra work on it for a couple of reasons. First, it's one of those "see how popular we are?" commercials that features a couple dozen slice-of-life glimpses of Americans at play, and often they cast the bulk of those spots using extras and then just upgrade them on the set. Even if that's not the case though, I personally think no Chicago actor should ever be too proud to accept extra work, especially with the minimums for health insurance and pension credits getting higher every year. It would be different if there were a true celebrity machine here (i.e., where you actually have to worry about taking work that represents a step backward for fear that it will hurt your "quote"), but there isn't, so we need to be true citizens of the City That Works.
Story asked about my representation in a comment on my previous post. For what it's worth, I'm represented exclusively by two agencies — one for on-camera work and one for voiceover. That may seem a little odd to actors in L.A. or N.Y., where agencies represent actors by contract (e.g., Commercial, Theatrical, etc.) rather than the type of work done under each contract (e.g., voiceover, on-camera, etc.), but it's par for the course in Chicago. More could be said here about SAG's inability to renew the expired Franchise Agency Agreemet, but I'll spare you.
For Chicago actors, I cannot recommend at this particular point in time that they go exclusive with any particular agency, except under certain limited circumstances. Unless an actor is extremely well established (and I wouldn't even necessarily put myself in that category), there is too much work to be had by being multi-listed to make exclusivity with any particular agency worthwhile. The reason, of course, is that each agency has — to varying degrees — a certain amount of work coming through their doors that does not go through casting directors. Much of it is print work, industrials, trade shows, low-budget films and other lower-profile work but, hey, it's WORK, and any type of work is hard to come by for most people these days.
So why am I exclusive? My particular situation pre-dates the Commercial Strike of 2000, and it works well enough for me that I don't wish to change my very specific arrangement, but I do recognize it as being outside the norm and, therefore, I don't recommend it to hardly anyone else.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Before the Storm
Went to a funeral tonight for one of my agents. Very sad, but uplifting in an odd way. Can't delve into it too much; I'm still processing through it...
This is probably one of the last calm days I'll have for a while. Two auditions tomorrow, one voiceover and one on-camera, followed by a rehearsal for the stage show which departs Wednesday for a two-week stint out of state. Nice to feel busy again, but in the lull I've really valued the time I've spent with Cherokee, so I'm already missing her.
Kind of sweetly blue at the moment...
This is probably one of the last calm days I'll have for a while. Two auditions tomorrow, one voiceover and one on-camera, followed by a rehearsal for the stage show which departs Wednesday for a two-week stint out of state. Nice to feel busy again, but in the lull I've really valued the time I've spent with Cherokee, so I'm already missing her.
Kind of sweetly blue at the moment...
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Back on the Boards
After a week off, I'm going back into rehearsals today for the same show I closed in July. Reason is that the show, as expected, is touring out-of-state for at least a couple of weeks, and the producers took this opportunity to change the script a little, and change the cast a lot.
I remember Michael J. Fox and Justine Bateman giving an interview once, near the end of their long-running sitcom "Family Ties". (That was the name, wasn't it? The one where Meredith Baxter played their mother?) Anyway, the interviewer was asking the inevitable questions about whether they knew at the beginning that their sitcom was going to be a hit, and how they initially adjusted to their new status as celebrities, and Fox and Bateman answered by way of recounting a story. It seems there was originally a different girl cast in the part eventually taken by Tina Yothers. Everyone was excited during pre-production and rehearsals, and the kids had started bonding somewhat when, the Thursday before their first Friday taping, the original actor was yanked out and Tina Yothers stepped in.
And Michael & Justine just looked at each other, realizing the same thing could happen to them.
So no, neither Michael J. Fox nor Justine Bateman were giddy with delight, or happy to be celebs, or any of that. Instead, they took a pass on the sports cars, saved their money, and didn't really relax into their roles until after their first contract renegotiation.
All of which is my exceptionally roundabout way of saying that I suppose I should feel flattered that I'm just about the only member of the original cast to be continuing on with my show, but I feel instead that it only underscores my last rant about placing more value on being a good co-worker/friend than on your talent. The other members of my original cast didn't bow out voluntarily, but I don't think it was because they were bad in their roles — they were just, um... indiscreet with some of their opinions, and occasionally openly adversarial with the director, so the producers honored their contracts with them and then moved on without them.
I suppose I sound like a dinner guest in the Damocles household, but the fact is that one gets used to it. Every actor knows the transitory nature of our business, and you either have the stomach for it or you don't. Still, I've been on the other side of the equation before (including one colossal, spectacular incident which I'll probably purge my brain of soon in this venue), and I can't help but feel that some "damage" could be better controlled and more doors opened if actors would place less emphasis on marketing and landing a gig, and more emphasis on favorably impressing those involved with any gig they do happen to land.
Yeah, I'll have to fess up to my Spectacular Failure soon, lest anyone reading the above think I'm lecturing anyone other than myself.
I remember Michael J. Fox and Justine Bateman giving an interview once, near the end of their long-running sitcom "Family Ties". (That was the name, wasn't it? The one where Meredith Baxter played their mother?) Anyway, the interviewer was asking the inevitable questions about whether they knew at the beginning that their sitcom was going to be a hit, and how they initially adjusted to their new status as celebrities, and Fox and Bateman answered by way of recounting a story. It seems there was originally a different girl cast in the part eventually taken by Tina Yothers. Everyone was excited during pre-production and rehearsals, and the kids had started bonding somewhat when, the Thursday before their first Friday taping, the original actor was yanked out and Tina Yothers stepped in.
And Michael & Justine just looked at each other, realizing the same thing could happen to them.
So no, neither Michael J. Fox nor Justine Bateman were giddy with delight, or happy to be celebs, or any of that. Instead, they took a pass on the sports cars, saved their money, and didn't really relax into their roles until after their first contract renegotiation.
All of which is my exceptionally roundabout way of saying that I suppose I should feel flattered that I'm just about the only member of the original cast to be continuing on with my show, but I feel instead that it only underscores my last rant about placing more value on being a good co-worker/friend than on your talent. The other members of my original cast didn't bow out voluntarily, but I don't think it was because they were bad in their roles — they were just, um... indiscreet with some of their opinions, and occasionally openly adversarial with the director, so the producers honored their contracts with them and then moved on without them.
I suppose I sound like a dinner guest in the Damocles household, but the fact is that one gets used to it. Every actor knows the transitory nature of our business, and you either have the stomach for it or you don't. Still, I've been on the other side of the equation before (including one colossal, spectacular incident which I'll probably purge my brain of soon in this venue), and I can't help but feel that some "damage" could be better controlled and more doors opened if actors would place less emphasis on marketing and landing a gig, and more emphasis on favorably impressing those involved with any gig they do happen to land.
Yeah, I'll have to fess up to my Spectacular Failure soon, lest anyone reading the above think I'm lecturing anyone other than myself.
Monday, August 08, 2005
My Hypocrisy
Been meaning to write this for a while, but it seems like there's always something more important to be done. I've noticed, when I feel this way about something over an extended period, it's either truly not important and I've got to take it off my To Do list, or else I've got some fear or dislike surrounding the matter. In this case, I think it's the latter, so I'll just jump in and write, and damn the torpedoes.
I've felt like a hypocrite for a long while about keeping this blog, primarily because my mantra in acting is "It's not about you; even when you think it's about you, it probably isn't." If that's true, how do I reconcile the fact that I'm keeping a blog that's to a large degree all about me, me, me?
I guess the answer for me has to do with longevity, attrition, and having a career in this biz. One reason I think agents, producers, casting directors and the like surround themselves with layers of protection is that actors make lousy dogs. Bear with me on my tortured metaphor here:
It's not that actors aren't "likable" or "friendly" or even fun to have around. But how many people really want to have an actor as a friend? Better yet, how many actors truly know what it is to be a friend, or know how to treat people outside their circle of friends as if those people were themselves potential friends? In my experience, most people would rather have a dog for a friend than an actor, at least for the long haul. Why? Because most actors seem to be a great deal more needy than dogs. Sure, a dog needs to be fed and walked, but the other 90% of his/her interaction with you is defined largely by you. They want to know what YOU are doing, they want to know what YOU are feeling, they want to have fun with YOU and, hard as it is to believe, they actually put themselves second to whatever YOU want to do. And, if you think about it, those are some of the same hallmarks that people look for in choosing their own friends.
Now, I'm stopping way short of saying that friends need to be doormats, and the percentage of time spent with friends that should most appropriately be centered on them is probably closer to 50% on average, but hey, 50% is a LOT more than I see many actors give to the people around them.
I hate to sound like a shame-based, self-hating actor here (I really don't think that's the case, and I'm usually the first to defend actors as Real People and acting as a Real Profession), but my pet peeve about people listing their resumes out loud in the waiting room for an audition didn't come out of nowhere — it happened just last Wednesday, as a matter of fact. I wonder if D.G. (Wednesday's blatherer) has grown cynical yet about the popularly held belief that who you know in this biz potentially advances your career as much as your talent. I swear that at least half of the people complaining about the theatre community being a "closed clique", or about casting directors "forgetting" them don't realize that they themselves are making the experience of being around them unpleasant. I know, for myself, that I would never hire D.G. for a job — regardless of his talent — and I am occasionally in a position to do this now (which is itself neither a boast nor a threat, but rather an illustration that everyone an actor talks to in this biz — from the agency receptionist, to the P.A., to the fellow actor in the waiting room — may someday be in a position to either help or hurt their career).
Okay, I just went to the bathroom, thought about it a bit, and here's what I mean to say:
Just as most sane people realize that talking about raw sewage around the dinner table is inappropriate, the fact is that, in this business — ironic as it may seem to be — attempting to focus other people's attention on you as an actor, outside of certain rare instances, is also inappropriate. Do it a lot and I guarantee that Dr. Phil will one day be asking you "How's that working for ya?" Drawing appropriate focus to your character on stage or on camera: good. Responding to direct questions from an agent or casting director about your last job: okay. Listing your resume, bitching about craft services, dropping names, or saying anything particularly negative about anyone else in the biz: way, waaaay bad.
And, precisely because it IS so vitally, critically important to be a real human being to those you meet — someone who is fun to work with, who doesn't complain, who doesn't talk much about themselves, who seems, in fact, to be good "friend" material — that I think there ought to be a Safe Place where actors can blow off steam. For some people, that Safe Place might be at home with their family. Dad may fuss and fume over the dinner table about the idiots at work and his overbearing boss, but 10-to-1 when he's actually at work he's pleasant and respectful as much as possible. Is that hypocrisy? Maybe, some might say. Personally, though, I think it's more of a coping mechanism that allows Dad to be human without destroying his hopes for career advancement (which, of course, benefits those that depend on him as well).
So, long story short, go ahead and call me a hypocrite. I'm keeping a blog. I keep it because it is my Safe Place to fuss and fume about the idiots in my business. I keep it because I occasionally want to talk about work-related issues without worrying that I'm hurting the feelings of other actors around me or, conversely, that some Buyer of Talent will think I'm a horrible braggart. I keep it because I'm not worthy of being a dog, but very much want to be.
I've felt like a hypocrite for a long while about keeping this blog, primarily because my mantra in acting is "It's not about you; even when you think it's about you, it probably isn't." If that's true, how do I reconcile the fact that I'm keeping a blog that's to a large degree all about me, me, me?
I guess the answer for me has to do with longevity, attrition, and having a career in this biz. One reason I think agents, producers, casting directors and the like surround themselves with layers of protection is that actors make lousy dogs. Bear with me on my tortured metaphor here:
It's not that actors aren't "likable" or "friendly" or even fun to have around. But how many people really want to have an actor as a friend? Better yet, how many actors truly know what it is to be a friend, or know how to treat people outside their circle of friends as if those people were themselves potential friends? In my experience, most people would rather have a dog for a friend than an actor, at least for the long haul. Why? Because most actors seem to be a great deal more needy than dogs. Sure, a dog needs to be fed and walked, but the other 90% of his/her interaction with you is defined largely by you. They want to know what YOU are doing, they want to know what YOU are feeling, they want to have fun with YOU and, hard as it is to believe, they actually put themselves second to whatever YOU want to do. And, if you think about it, those are some of the same hallmarks that people look for in choosing their own friends.
Now, I'm stopping way short of saying that friends need to be doormats, and the percentage of time spent with friends that should most appropriately be centered on them is probably closer to 50% on average, but hey, 50% is a LOT more than I see many actors give to the people around them.
I hate to sound like a shame-based, self-hating actor here (I really don't think that's the case, and I'm usually the first to defend actors as Real People and acting as a Real Profession), but my pet peeve about people listing their resumes out loud in the waiting room for an audition didn't come out of nowhere — it happened just last Wednesday, as a matter of fact. I wonder if D.G. (Wednesday's blatherer) has grown cynical yet about the popularly held belief that who you know in this biz potentially advances your career as much as your talent. I swear that at least half of the people complaining about the theatre community being a "closed clique", or about casting directors "forgetting" them don't realize that they themselves are making the experience of being around them unpleasant. I know, for myself, that I would never hire D.G. for a job — regardless of his talent — and I am occasionally in a position to do this now (which is itself neither a boast nor a threat, but rather an illustration that everyone an actor talks to in this biz — from the agency receptionist, to the P.A., to the fellow actor in the waiting room — may someday be in a position to either help or hurt their career).
Okay, I just went to the bathroom, thought about it a bit, and here's what I mean to say:
Just as most sane people realize that talking about raw sewage around the dinner table is inappropriate, the fact is that, in this business — ironic as it may seem to be — attempting to focus other people's attention on you as an actor, outside of certain rare instances, is also inappropriate. Do it a lot and I guarantee that Dr. Phil will one day be asking you "How's that working for ya?" Drawing appropriate focus to your character on stage or on camera: good. Responding to direct questions from an agent or casting director about your last job: okay. Listing your resume, bitching about craft services, dropping names, or saying anything particularly negative about anyone else in the biz: way, waaaay bad.
And, precisely because it IS so vitally, critically important to be a real human being to those you meet — someone who is fun to work with, who doesn't complain, who doesn't talk much about themselves, who seems, in fact, to be good "friend" material — that I think there ought to be a Safe Place where actors can blow off steam. For some people, that Safe Place might be at home with their family. Dad may fuss and fume over the dinner table about the idiots at work and his overbearing boss, but 10-to-1 when he's actually at work he's pleasant and respectful as much as possible. Is that hypocrisy? Maybe, some might say. Personally, though, I think it's more of a coping mechanism that allows Dad to be human without destroying his hopes for career advancement (which, of course, benefits those that depend on him as well).
So, long story short, go ahead and call me a hypocrite. I'm keeping a blog. I keep it because it is my Safe Place to fuss and fume about the idiots in my business. I keep it because I occasionally want to talk about work-related issues without worrying that I'm hurting the feelings of other actors around me or, conversely, that some Buyer of Talent will think I'm a horrible braggart. I keep it because I'm not worthy of being a dog, but very much want to be.
Monday, July 25, 2005
A Humbling Experience
Continuing with the theme of Humility (apparently), I was a guest on a show this past weekend on WGN Radio. It was one of those deals where the host helps promote a theatre show by having the actors do a short excerpt. The performance went fine, but what stuck with me was how VERY different live radio broadcasting is from, say, commercial radio voiceovers. I was frankly in awe of our director, who's done live radio before, because he was so... um... "immediate", I guess. He could verbally react — seemingly within a nanosecond — of any question put to him, and coherently as well (no "umm" or "ahh" spacefillers). Matter of fact, one of my fellow cast members was asked a question on air, and though they answered after maybe at most a second of thinking how to respond, both Host and Director went into a happy riff about how brain-dead theatre actors are in the morning.
Then there was the issue of my headphones. I figured they'd be dead until we went live, so I wasn't concerned that I couldn't hear anything beforehand, but when we did start our segment my cans were still dead and I felt helpless. I looked to the booth for the sound engineer since, in commercial voiceovers, the engineer is god-in-charge-of-all-equipment (and woe betide the actor who messes with anything), but the engineer had actually stepped out of the booth and was nowhere to be seen. I made a motion to our director indicating my plight and he — with not a little exasperation on his face — calmly walked over and twisted a knob that was basically right in front of me. That brought up everyone else's voice in my ears, but strangely not my own, so I just forged ahead and made guesstimates as to how far I had to be from the mike to keep from blowing it out on some of my louder lines (from talking later to those who heard the show, I apparently succeeded in this).
Between these experiences and numerous small other instances during that hour or so, I came away feeling like a bit of a moron, at least when it came to live radio. Which, since I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy, isn't all that bad — it's good to keep your talent and experience-to-date in perspective, and realize that you have much to learn from other performers and in other areas of live performance. Humbling experiences can be good teachers. In fact, I daresay the line between "humbling" and "humiliating" is just how well you're able to put your ego aside so you can draw good information from the whole thing.
Then there was the issue of my headphones. I figured they'd be dead until we went live, so I wasn't concerned that I couldn't hear anything beforehand, but when we did start our segment my cans were still dead and I felt helpless. I looked to the booth for the sound engineer since, in commercial voiceovers, the engineer is god-in-charge-of-all-equipment (and woe betide the actor who messes with anything), but the engineer had actually stepped out of the booth and was nowhere to be seen. I made a motion to our director indicating my plight and he — with not a little exasperation on his face — calmly walked over and twisted a knob that was basically right in front of me. That brought up everyone else's voice in my ears, but strangely not my own, so I just forged ahead and made guesstimates as to how far I had to be from the mike to keep from blowing it out on some of my louder lines (from talking later to those who heard the show, I apparently succeeded in this).
Between these experiences and numerous small other instances during that hour or so, I came away feeling like a bit of a moron, at least when it came to live radio. Which, since I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy, isn't all that bad — it's good to keep your talent and experience-to-date in perspective, and realize that you have much to learn from other performers and in other areas of live performance. Humbling experiences can be good teachers. In fact, I daresay the line between "humbling" and "humiliating" is just how well you're able to put your ego aside so you can draw good information from the whole thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)