From the Department of Context, a sketch of the lifecycle of a project. In boldface, the items over which actors have control:

1. Writer fills a page. And then another…

2. Project reaches casting phase.

3. Writer / Producer / Director / Casting solicits talent.

a. Names
b. Agency submissions
c. Those with good personal/professional relationships.

4. Auditions – factors in casting:

a. says lines correctly / fluidly
b. imbues the lines with the reality required by the character and story.
c. nails the tone of the script, and style of the writer.
d. apparent age
e. ethnicity
f. weight
g. quality of voice
h. body type
i. overall ‘look’
j. height
k. overall ‘quality’ appropriate for the role
l. general vibe of your personality – easy to work with
m.  factors d-l in complement to other actors who may be cast

5. Production / Shooting (professionalism on display, we hope)

6. Post-Production

7. Release

8. Followup.

So using the BHP’s approach to Acting, Attitude and Administration…. Acting comes in at 4a – 4c. Scene work in class exists primarily to get you ready to kill in that moment, but overall class environment and emphasis can certainly help understanding and encourage activity up and down this list, and usually contributes to the all important…. Administration – hugely important at 3c and 8. Attitude: 4l and 5. Weight and quality of voice, which may well be crucial factors in casting, are certainly within your control, but only in a long-term sense – it’s a bit of a challenge to change either on short notice.

And one can always be the writer/producer/director yourself, in which case you have much more control over the entire lifecycle, and can hopefully reward yourself accordingly in terms of parts to act.

The point? Just trying to look at the life of an actor from 10,000 feet, whereas many actors may go underwater here and there with frustration and how to make this damned thing happen.

Posted in Administration | Leave a comment

Had an interesting chat with an actor in class the other week, who was questioning whether my taste and his taste were compatible for further training. At issue was the topic of “naturalism,” for which my from-the-hip definition would be, “that style of acting where the unadorned presence of the actor, delivering the lines of the script in a ‘real’ way, is all that is required to tell the story.”

I perhaps too often decry naturalism, not because it isn’t useful or in demand, but because it’s boring. I find the acting in most network television to be boring, and the style these days is marked by excessive naturalism. That being said, I’ve written plenty about how actors need to know what project they’re reading for, and if the show is marked by a naturalistic style, they’d better serve it up and give themselves a real shot for a paycheck.

Prior to our conversation, I’d seen this actor do a scene from Guirgis’ “Motherfucker with the Hat” and Mamet’s recent play, “Race.” I don’t believe either of those writers deals in naturalism as a style, and in both, I felt this actor’s naturalistic tendency was inhibiting the full expression of the writing.  So I redirected both scenes as part of the critique, complete with line-readings, because I’m that guy – the jerk who’ll give line-readings from here to Timbuktu if that’s what it takes. The actor was not pleased – hence our conversation.

He felt “naturalism” was more closely related to “honesty.” To be natural was to be honest, to be real, and that was the start point of all good acting. So he hears “natural” and thinks “honest,” and I say “natural” and mean “boring.” So…. You can see why he’s wondering whether to continue!

I enjoy conversations like this, actually, because I figure there are others who think just as this guy does, but he happened to be forthright enough to come and speak to me about it. So to be clear:  We both want the work to be honest, to represent real people in real situations, so the audience believes what is happening in the story. To me that’s a good expression of the ultimate simplicity of acting’s purpose: “To make the audience believe the story.” That is a very agreeable startpoint for me in judging acting – do I believe what’s going on here? And yeah, simple naturalistic acting, if that’s what the writing and the story require, is often good enough to make me believe. Job done.

I just happen also to think we go to the movies and to the theatre for something a touch beyond that which we see every day at Starbucks. And it’s not just the stories that will take us there, but some vivid acting – this is particularly true in theatre, which as a form is auditory, versus tv/film, which is a visual medium. So in theatre I believe we really have to hear the play, and each has its own music, its own rhythm. Playwrights are often much freer to express themselves at length, and in order to bring the music to life, something beyond simple reality is necessary. And, further, I believe that actors who can use good writing to expand their expression will be better suited and more valuable even to those naturalistic styles and shows, because every so often you need a little ka-pow, and a little rhythm, and some more expressive style….

So in class when I decry ‘naturalism,’ it’s only that for most advanced level actors, to sit there and be ‘real’ is not so much a chore, and I don’t want to be the guy who collects tuition to validate what they can already do. I think a class should also serve to expand those boundaries, and encourage actors to look at writing that allows, even demands, that expansion. For actors starting out, getting them to be natural on stage, and able to bring to life a simple conversation without artifice – this is very important. So this essay is somewhat directed toward the more advanced actor in class. For many of these actors, the job of getting work on a naturalistic network show is more a matter of administrative discipline and getting out there than it is one of acting ability. Terrific careers can happen on the usage of 30% of your talent, but I think actors need to be in the gym, working out 100% of the talent in order for even that 30% to shine the way they want.

 

Posted in Acting | 3 Comments

….that you’re a jerk.

….that you did something horrible.

….that your audition sucked.

….that your relationship is on the rocks.

….that you’re a substance abuser.

….that you’re no good as an actor.

….that you hopped into bed with so-and-so.

et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Save yourself a bunch of physical and psychic head trauma by ignoring all ‘somebody said that somebody said’ information. It’s not information. It’s likely not true, or at best only partially true. And on the rare occasions that somebody said that somebody said something positive, that’s probably not entirely true either. But let’s face it, the somebodies who theoretically said whatever they said to somebody who said it to you are rarely saying something positive. Right? It definitely seems that just about all somebody-said-that-somebody-said information is negative. When you try to verify this information, it’s like trying to pull on wet tissue paper and it’s a fucking mess and you end up with probably zero real information, a lot of contradictory information,  and a shit-ton of wet tissue paper all over you. And chances are good you don’t even feel any better for all this mess, and in fact you probably feel a good deal worse.

We learned this back on the schoolyard with that dumb game where you start by whispering “I have a sandwich,” and by the end of the line of grade-schoolers it’s become “The moon is made of dog crap.” And yet in what can be a very gossipy business, full of intrigue and rumor, we sentient mature adults, aspiring to the highest levels of professionalism and artistic achievement, compulsively indulge the habit for somebody said that somebody said. 

Ignore it. Sigh deeply and express boredom. Move on with your life. It may well be that somebody said that somebody said something that you need eventually to handle, but the fact is you don’t really have “actionable intelligence” until you observe and hear directly with your own eyes and ears. If you think the somebody-said-that-somebody-said information is important to rebut or handle in some way, go to the supposed source directly. But you’d better not be bloody accusatory and uppity about it, because I can pretty much guarantee that this supposed source didn’t say what somebody said they said, or at least not in the way it was reported, or probably with some entirely different context, and you’re gonna have egg on your face by being uppity and righteous before you get the scoop. So if you insist on investigating somebody-said-that-somebody-said, do so cautiously.

But my advice, 90% of the time: IGNORE IT AND MOVE ON.

******

PS: In a discussion with someone about the above, they brought up an important and particularly lethal variant: Somebody Heard That Somebody Said. How many times has something like this hit you: “Yeah, I heard so-and-so thinks you’re this-and-that.” Clearly this falls within the broader topic of somebody-said-that-somebody said, but has that awesome dissociative ‘heard’ word. I heard that someone said something. And immediately, this places you in this position: “Somebody said they heard that somebody said.” Impossible to trace. Try chasing that one down! It’ll go like this:

You: From whom did you hear that?
The Other: I don’t know. At the party this weekend. Someone said they heard you were yada-yada.

Did you see that? With a single question, you’re now here: “Someone said that someone said they heard that someone said.”

You can see how completely screwed you are. So again: IGNORE IT AND MOVE ON.

 

 

Posted in Attitude | 1 Comment

Ask a majority of actors what’s going on with their career, and you’ll likely get a fuzzy look, the eyes will wander this way and that, some stammering will emerge about needing a better agent, or simply getting any agent, or they did some casting workshop recently. They’ll tell you about a note they sent to someone last month, and toss in a few justifications about what ‘everyone’ says the business is like, and of course the improv/on-camera/sitcom/whatever workshop their agent told them to do is a lot of fun, and, uh…. well…. It can peter out from there rapidly.

Pre-supposing the presence of natural or hard-won ability, a career is then built on relationships – lots of ‘em, developed and nurtured over time. Actors can suffer from chronic career myopia, however, with their concept of how it’s all going centered on what happens (or not) this week, with this agent, with that audition. Ask about last week and a fog descends, and next week doesn’t exist. The sense takes hold that the actor “doesn’t know where to begin” on building (or, for some, re-building) their career.  This “I don’t know where to begin” feeling remains in place even for those who are blessed with talent, worked hard to train themselves, and have a few years or more behind them in the biz.

So, here’s where to begin – three pieces of paper (or their digital equivalents), and three lists:

Group One: Every person you’ve worked for as an actor. For each gig, that would involve the director, writer, producer, casting director and other actors of note. You won’t be able to remember all these names offhand, of course, but start with the title of the project (including, e.g.,  ”that independent thing I did in Palm Desert”), and start filling in the blanks as best you can, using IMDb or whatever other resource you need to supplement your failing memory. Agency information is okay, but better overall is the address of their current production office.

Group Two: Those with whom you’d like to work. Write down twenty projects – film, television or theatre – that have rocked your world in the last couple years. It’s not about your having been right for any roles, just that the project gave you that feeling of, well… “That’s why I got into this nutty business. To do something like that.”  Find out the names of the writer, director and producer for each of those projects, and get a mailing address or other contact information. If you want extra credit, look up the casting director as well and get their current information. So that’s 60-80 names at least.

Group Three: Audition followup list.  For each audition you have, I believe you’ve met four people – the writer, producer, director and casting director. I don’t care that you just had the CD in an office with a camera – they work on behalf of the writer, director, producer, and you have in effect met all of them by reading for the project. They each have names, and you should walk out of the office knowing all of those names, and putting them in Group Three. To start the process, fill in the blanks on the last year’s worth of auditions.

Now, work the damned list. Start writing. A nice note, hand-written when possible. Get yourself some cards/envelopes with your name and contact information – direct phone and email. I wouldn’t worry about your photo – they can look you up in three seconds on the web – but you can include a business-card-sized shot, or work a photo into the design of the cards if you wish. The note should be relatively short-and-sweet, sincere and professional. Don’t speak from a position as a seemingly lowly actor who’s trying to get ahead, but as a fellow industry professional, based on respect and enthusiasm for the work. Don’t be cute, clever, joking, political, spiritual or say things like, “… as for me, it’s really tough going in this business, but I’m still at it, and learning not to detest myself or others. Yay, therapy!”  Don’t ask Spielberg to have coffee. Don’t try to close some deal with a single note.

For Group One, you’re just looking to acknowledge the project, the process, your enjoyment of it, how well it may have done, or what they’ve done since, or just that it’s a nice summer day out. If it’s been a while, say something like, “I was just thinking of that project we worked on, and wanted to write you….” That’s it. For Group Two, a simple and sincere acknowledgment of why their work rocked your world, and how it provided inspiration. For Group Three, a short thank-you for the opportunity to read, best wishes on the project, look forward to meeting you again (with followups when the project airs, with or without you in the role).

You’re building the relationship. You’re trying to open the door to further communication. You may well hear nothing back on most of these, and that’s fine. This process has little to do with whether individual notes get individual responses, but whether the entirety of your effort to grab onto, develop, and maintain relationships turns a career profit over time.

Add to and follow up these lists. Group Three gets four new names for each audition. Everyone on each list gets 3-4 notes a year, but definitely upon some newsworthy event for either of you. Widely ignored, and yet particularly effective, is your interest in their career and accomplishments. Actors have the tendency to communicate from an utterly transparent self-interest, and then wonder why people don’t get back to them as they might wish. Proper etiquette and interest in others is noted by them, it’s appreciated, it’s smart.

Stir with water. Add persistence and training.  Simmer for five years, and let’s see where you are then.

(Other relevant blog entries: A Slow Turning Wheel, X-to-1, Good Followup: It Matters.)

 

 

 

Posted in Administration | 6 Comments

One of the biggest acting class cliches are actors who say they are “working on their sexuality.” The fact that 90% of those working this “note” are females, so assigned from a male teacher, well, that’s just part of the cliche.

Disclaimer: I’m from Boston, we have Puritanical roots, and I’ve often joked in class that we New Englanders don’t talk about sex even when we’re engaged in it. I can barely say the word “sexuality” without wanting to barf. So I fully admit that the following is based in a big fat eye roll about sexuality in stage and film, or at least conversation about it. It just kind of bores me as a topic.  If I’m involved, well…. All is good. 

So, disclaimer disclaimed, let me say that I think actors (and possibly teachers) of all genders and orientation are too worked up in general about sexuality, and this leads to all sorts of fairly useless introversion and introspection and analysis about why one’s sexuality might be “blocked,” and then crazy exercises about how to “unblock” your sexuality – it all just kind of creeps me out, frankly. As a teacher I don’t consider this my business, and it seems very indulgent and possibly damaging.

Continue reading

Posted in Acting | 1 Comment

Who cares? You book it, or not, and you move on (with impeccable followup, of course).

When good actors go too long without booking, a very dangerous process can start to occur: The actor begins to think. And in these thoughts, the actor begins to diagnose. And with this diagnosis, the actor begins to remedy what they believe to be shitty acting, which is clearly shitty, demonstrably shitty, it’s shittiest shit you’ve ever seen,  and impersonal to boot, not to mention glib, and unfunny, and unconnected, and fucking old, and and and and and and and…. Because if it were not so, they’d book the job – after all, they were perfect for it.

So let’s step out, rise up, and look at this situation from 5,000 feet instead of five inches.

You have your impression of the work you brought into an audition. Okay. But this may differ from the actual quality as might be determined by a person you trust – a teacher or whomever you rely on in that regard. It’s all pretty bloody subjective. All performers, however, are prone to think they sucked when in fact they did not, or that they killed it when perhaps they’ve had better days.

Continue reading

Posted in Attitude | 8 Comments

Oh, the perils of turning 30 in the pursuit of acting!

It’s been on my mind for a while, as I have taught long enough to have watched many young students to whom I had a strong connection close in on and cross the dreaded 30-year-old threshold. And that’s when it often starts to happen… The slow, inevitable, creeping bitterness… The career hasn’t moved as hoped. Some other classmate’s career has moved, and well, he/she isn’t nearly as talented as… No, no. Don’t have that thought! That is an unsupportive, mean-spirited thought to think, but damn it I factually am better than so-and-so and where is the justice?… Why did my teacher just suggest a scene where I play a young parent for chrissakes?…. The trips home are becoming more painful, the parental apprehension more palpable… My college friend just bought a five-bedroom house, and I still can’t afford to fix the brakes on my car…. The audition last week for that under-five corrupted my soul. That thing where I was up for the part that would have changed my life but then it ended up going to Fading Film Star was straw last. I can’t take it. My agent quit the business to become a goat shepherd in Wales one week after telling me this pilot season was gonna be mine mine mine…. Am I going to get to 40 and then quit the business, having screwed up my chance for 20 years’ career advancement in the business world?

Now, it’s not rocket science to observe the classic phenomenon of 20-something actors who hit Los Angeles (or wherever) full of vim and vigor and ready to take on the world, and then hit the wall. The wall of jadedness. The wall of cynicism. The wall of bitterness. Nor is it necessarily negative that the older someone gets while chasing a dream, the more there may be a certain urgency to it all. That urgency may be a very well-needed kick in the ass to get off the general pattern one might find that you can spend your 20s fucking off, but after that it starts to cost you. Urgency, good. Bitterness? Not so much.

Continue reading

Posted in Attitude | 11 Comments

…. consists mainly of the the ability to behave professionally and take action despite your bad attitude.

Posted in Attitude | Leave a comment

Count me opposed to the needless and introspective thought process that has been introduced to what we at the Beverly Hills Playhouse would call “Administration” – namely, those efforts undertaken by actors to sell their talent to the industry that is seeking it. (There is much in life that could fall under ‘Administration,’ but this essay is addressing career-specific actions.) The study and attempted application of generalized “Actor Marketing & Branding” have increased in the last few years, and I think not always to the benefit of the aspiring actor.

First, as I believe many actors conflate the concepts of ‘branding’ and ‘marketing,’ let’s differentiate: My shoot-from-the-hip definitions would be that ‘branding’ is the process of clearly identifying the specific features of Badass Product X and linking them with the name Badass Product, while ‘marketing’ refers to the strategy and actions undertaken to let the world know about Badass Product. For your average up-and-coming actor, let’s simplify life and assume that ‘marketing,’ ‘promotion,’ ‘advertising,’ and ‘sales’ are pretty much all the same activity: Letting the world know you exist so that producers, directors and casting people call you in for roles.

Asking how you should market yourself is a valid question with many simple answers, all requiring consistency and discipline over time.

Asking how you should brand yourself, however, is trouble. It’s introspective, I think it leaves actors staring at walls trying to get an “A” in wrongly applied corporate-think. It introduces needless complexity to a simple matter: Are you a good actor? Nicely done, good for you. Now get out there and let people know. 

So a problem has arisen whereby the word ‘marketing’ is used both for the necessary activity of presenting yourself to the Industry, but also the unnecessary analysis of your brand, looking at yourself as a product, and how to distinguish that product from other actors/products. Enter stage left: a cottage industry of entrepreneurs looking to make money on that introspection, and sell actors on their ‘marketing strategies’ and/or their highly evolved tools for marketing, which often include excessive ‘branding,’ to all of which I say….

Meh.

Continue reading

Posted in Administration | 4 Comments

Much of the difficulty in addressing the issue of whether a ‘gay actor can play straight’ is due to its being conflated with the issue of homophobia. The two issues are entirely distinct. Homophobia is loathsome, but distinct from the technical matter of sexual orientation and casting. So stay with me….

Studio X is casting a part for a basketball player and needed someone 6′ 6.” You’re 5′ 5″, but you know a thing or two about basketball and you get yourself in there somehow. When you walk in, the casting person starts the internal calculation: Hmmmm. Too short. The part is for a very tall person. Why are they here? Hey, look, he can act. But still totally wrong. Or right. Hmmm…. I don’t know that any of these thoughts get verbalized, but I’d put money in escrow that these comprise some of the thoughts of the casting director.

Next: Studio X is casting a part for an African American, and you’re white. But you think you’ve got an angle on this part, you think you can change their mind, and you get yourself in there somehow. When you walk in, the casting person starts the calculation: Hmmmm. The part is supposed to black, this guy’s white. What the fuck? Okay – hey, look, he can act. Let me think… The writer says the guy is black but the story point is not bound to race one way or the other…Hmmmm…. OR: …. This is crazy, the story point makes it unavoidable that this guy is African American, there is just no way…. 

Continue reading

Posted in Administration | 1 Comment