Dear Jackie:
I heard that casting directors are less willing to Taft-Hartley actors than they once were. I am nonunion, and I was hoping to get into SAG this way, so I am bummed to hear this. Is this true?
Hoping
via the Internet
Dear Hoping:
You're going to have to consider the source on this one. Who told you about this unwillingness? Was it perhaps a CD explaining why he couldn't consider you for a role? A fellow nonunion friend commiserating about the paradoxes of SAG entry? As far as I can deduce, there has been no dramatic decrease--or increase--of Taft-Hartleys in recent years. The trend is flat, meaning that CDs are Taft-Hartleying about as many actors as they always have.
The process CDs go through to Taft-Hartley a nonunion actor, thereby giving him or her the opportunity to take a union job and join the union, is relatively simple. There is a one-page form to fill out but no fines unless the applicant is unqualified--in the case of nepotism, for example. One CD told me, "I'm curious as to where the actor got that information. It's so easy to Taft-Hartley a qualified applicant that I've done 1,000, literally. I think any CD who doesn't Taft-Hartley someone who is the best actor for the role is either lazy or misinformed."
Perhaps that's the rub. There is no need to Taft-Hartley a nonunion actor when a union member is better suited to the job. Producers are required to make their "best efforts" to use union talent before considering nonunion actors. So, although they aren't uncommon, Taft-Hartleys aren't something you should rely on.
Currently, SAG is revamping its entry regulations and creating a point program in place of the old voucher system for background eligibility. You can read more about this and the other ways to get into the Guild on its website, www.sag.org. But keep in mind: SAG membership is far from a golden ticket. Don't make it, or any other piece of "acting business," your goal. Work on your acting skills and get all the experience you can, and let SAG come when it may.
Dear Jackie:
When you don't get cast or called back for a show, how can you know whether it is because of "type" (the CDs want a 5-foot-7 blonde, and you're a 5-foot-9 brunette) or if it is your performance? I know there's no definite way to know, but it's something that I know all actors wonder about. Recently I was up for a wonderful role but ended up not getting it. I became determined to focus and improve my skills so that I would do better next time, and then I found out that the only reason I did not get the part was because of my height. I know there are many situations in which the reverse is true, as well.
Also, to what extent should we take the positive feedback that we get in the audition room seriously?
Unique
New York, N.Y.
Dear Unique:
I hate to say it, but there is no way to know what happens when you leave the auditor's room, and anything you hear later may be more an effort to pacify your feelings than to give you the facts. Sometimes your agent might get helpful comments, and she will pass those on to you, and if you are curious you could always ask her to probe. But, for the most part, you are cut off from the auditors once you walk out of the room.
Maybe in a perfect world actors would be able to call directors or casting folks and get honest feedback about their work. I asked a few director friends what they thought of this idea. Here's what they said:
"If I didn't know the actors, then I would definitely be creeped out by them calling me to ask me why I didn't cast them. If I knew them, then I would be fine with it, but I might be inclined to soften the truth about why they weren't cast--i.e. push the blame onto the producer. If I did not know the actors, I would probably tell them the complete truth. But the simple fact is that the 'standby excuse' about type is usually true. People are rarely cast against type. And if they are, then it's a political move, or they happen to possess skills--or celebrity cachet--that are valued more than their appearance for a particular piece."
"I wouldn't like the phone call. I think the casting process is not as cut and dried as most actors believe. I have had friends audition for me, and I have told them the truth: that they didn't get the material, or nothing popped. I think any actor who can go and watch a full casting process would be greatly helped in his or her pursuits. I suggest actors sit in on auditions or work as a reader to learn the information given in the room."
"I wouldn't mind one actor calling me up, but 10 or 50 would be a problem. So, to avoid that, I would make a blanket policy not to receive or return said calls. In the event that they get through, I would do my best to tell the truth without being mean and (if I could get away with it) too personal."
Finally, and perhaps most honestly:
"I wouldn't mind them calling, but I would lie to them to make them feel good."
That last comment sums up the problem. Those doing the casting are not eager to hurt your feelings, but constructive criticism and teaching aren't their jobs. This kind of truthfulness is what you should look for in an acting teacher, or, more specifically, an audition class. In that context, you can get the kind of feedback you are after.
Your second question, about whether to believe the compliments you get in an audition, brings up similar issues. If you have ever been on the other side of the desk, you know that many actors--although sweet, talented, and trying oh-so-hard--simply are not right for the pittance of roles available. I, for one, find casting to be a painful process, and I am eager to say a kind word to those auditioning. Not that I out-and-out lie, mind you, but I am not beyond an unmerited "great!" from time to time.
Years ago I was casting a silly local commercial in which actors had to interact with an animated piece of cake. It was nonunion, and I think it paid about $500 flat, but we still had loads of worthy candidates. After a day of auditions, one actor called me at the office to explain that she was much funnier than she seemed in her read. She could do the role, she assured me; I just had to give her the chance. Could I please get her an opportunity to come back in and audition for the director or, barring that, could I just convince him of her talent? I was on the spot. How could I explain to her that she wasn't even in the running? She was fine, just not what we were looking for. What on earth should I have said?
The point of this story is to bring into focus why that line between auditioners and actors is needed. Occasional feedback might be helpful to performers, but CDs cannot be expected to give each aspirant a play-by-play of the casting process, and neither would they want to. I think I told this cake commercial actor that I was sorry, but we didn't have time to see her again, and I muttered something vague about her being just fine on the tape. Blah!
As far as I'm concerned, the best course of action is to forget about an audition once you have finished it. Take notes if you want to, reflect for a few moments on how you could improve if you must, but then leave it behind. That goes for comments like, "That was wonderful," as well as, "Next!" No matter how you try, you will never know why you weren't cast--or, in certain cases, why you were. And maybe, just maybe, that's for the best.