Even though color headshots are very popular right now, it doesn't mean you can't still get attention with the more traditional black-and-white version.
Our panel of experts has a few more general comments to make about headshots. Carol Hanzel Casting assistant Jessica Kelly is "not a fan of the 'this is me with glasses, this is me with a beard' type of shots. I like to just know who the person is as much as I can from a photograph." Agent Bill Duey prefers to find real people who are good actors, so touching up photos is not necessary. His agency, Hanns Wolters International, is currently seeking mature French and Asian actors with strong credits, and by mature he says he means "between 40 and death."
Casting director Elsie Stark thinks actors should work with agents, managers, and other people in the industry to help choose a headshot from a proof sheet or photo CD: "Actors should never pick their own pictures, ever." And agent Dave Bennett of Talent House looks at actors as potential clients "on an individual, personal basis," so a good headshot may catch his eye despite the actor's type. Of course, opinions on any headshot may vary, as you will see from the feedback on the following actor submissions.
Elsie Stark: Overall, a pretty good picture. Nice energy. She looks great.
And her résumé looks fine, too -- it has all the necessities. A résumé just needs to be laid out so it's easy to read, and she has everything categorized properly: She has all her film credits together, all her stage credits together, and her statistics at the top, where I can find them easily.
Dave Bennett: It's a good general picture for initial mailings, for people to get to know who she is. She looks open and personable. As far as being specific for projects, it may be a little too general.
The résumé is well set up.
Jessica Kelly: The picture looks a little fuzzy -- it doesn't pop out at me. It's sort of all muted, like it's all going together.
And then on the back, the résumé is slanted and not put together correctly. So right away I think she's newer to the business.
Bill Duey: I like Pearl's headshot because I think it shows her personality and she's very open in it. Also, for film and TV work, an actor's eyes are important, and her eyes are vivid -- they invite you in. I like it that she hasn't tried to disguise that she doesn't have perfect teeth. I like it that she's confident enough not to have to try to fit into the societal norm, because that's boring and there's too much of that already.
For her résumé, I don't like it when actors put their telephone numbers and email on it, because we have to cover that with the sticker from the agency. When we begin working with an actor, we ask them to either put our information on there or leave it blank.
Stark: Interesting picture. The black background is not my favorite, but it's a great picture. This is a very strong, masculine photo. It shows he's a mature man, looking very dapper. He could play a judge or a district attorney or a CEO; he could be a doctor or a congressman. Immediately you react and can see him in all these different roles. You can look at it from any angle and his eyes seem to be making contact -- his stare is right there. That's how I test a picture.
His résumé is very good. I'm just surprised he doesn't have any unions. Some of the credits seem like union jobs, so if he is union, he needs to put that at the top.
Bennett: Robert's photo is great, but it may be a bit too specific. I would bet there are other shots from this shoot that might even be a little stronger. The eyes are fairly connected but could be even more connected. But it's a good, strong presence. He looks like a strong person from this shot. And for the roles that this shot is indicating, people will have confidence that he would fit in.
The résumé is well set up. Just be careful how you format and what you're really trying to highlight. The commercials on this, unless they're well known, you might not need to list those all for everybody. If he's going after commercial agents or commercial casting directors, then fantastic, but otherwise he may want to make the theatre and TV credits stand out. He has a lot of different font sizes as well, which isn't as clean as it could be, so he should try to be consistent.
Kelly: I like Robert's photo because he's a mixture of things to me. There's something intelligent going on in the eyes. In this case I like the black background because the lighting highlights his shirt and his face. He definitely looks like he's communicating something, which is what actors need to do.
His résumé says that, too. I see he plays the dad, the psychiatrist, the mobster. He's sort of ethnically ambiguous, which is helpful -- he could be Russian, he could be Jewish. He's very European-looking, which is great. And he looks like he's commanding -- there are a lot of roles for him. But what's clued me in to him, what's made me want to look at the back, is his picture.
Duey: He's a good type.
But when you're nonunion, you should not have 5,000 things on your résumé. He also has a lot of extra things on his résumé. I wouldn't call him in for that reason.
Stark: The photo doesn't thrill me. I'm not sure what that expression is. To me, a picture has to say something about the person. It has to be an interesting photo that says there's an interesting actor or actress there. Something in their eye or facial expression should reflect who they are. Either a serious, introspective mood for legit shots or a relaxed, smiling moment for commercial shots.
Bennett: This is a nice, clean, natural shot -- a good introduction to Adam. He looks like he's probably going to look when he walks into the room.
The résumé is fine. I would probably just reformat it slightly so that it's easier to pick out the roles and where each was done. He should use the three-column format instead of two.
Kelly: It's a nice photograph. He's wearing black and there's a lot of gray in the background -- usually it's all about popping out. But his eyes are nice in the shot; they're welcoming. He looks like a warm person to me.
It doesn't bother me that he wrote his new information on his résumé, but the cutting of the résumé is a bit off. And he needs to have the résumé stapled evenly, not just two in opposite corners. If all I notice about the résumé is how it's attached, then it's not as compelling.
Duey: Very nice picture. Since he wrote in new information, it gives me a sense that he just moved to New York. He has an out-of-town cell number and a new New York number. That's a good thing, believe it or not, because it makes me think this is an actor who's not already with 500 different talent agencies. It really annoys me to push for an actor only to have the casting director tell me, "Oh, he's coming in already from another agency." I don't like actors who tell me they're not working with anybody, and then I find out they are working with other agencies. Every actor should do what they need to do to get a job, but they should be honest, as I try to be honest with them.
Adam did his résumé very nicely. My sense is this is a very smart young actor.
Stark: Perfectly fine, nice, easy picture to look at. I like body shots and three-quarter shots sometimes because they give me a little bit more to work with: They show personality, how the person stands, and their body type.
As for the résumé, it seems laid out pretty well.
Bennett: Victoria's shot might be good commercially. It's a little bit too staged for my taste. It sort of looks like those old commercial comp-card shots. Her personality doesn't come through. If it looked a little more relaxed and natural, it'd be great. But everything else about it is fine.
And the résumé is well set up. This is a personal thing with me, but I would probably suggest that she add directors' names after these shows. It's great that she has mentioned where she's done them, but it's probably best to add the director's name. You never know -- we may recognize the name. We all like to have some sort of connection, so put the names in just in case there is a connection.
Kelly: She has a nice smile, looks like a very warm presence. But in order to really know what kind of person or actress she is, I'd have to see what she's played.
When I look on the back at Victoria's résumé, I see a lot of ingénues, which makes sense. There are a lot of tours on here as well. She's a singer, so it seems like she would have a big presence.
Duey: I like her headshot very much. I think this is a commercial headshot. She looks very savvy and, unfortunately, not enough actors are savvy enough. She looks likeable and like she has very positive energy. She is probably slightly too commercial-looking for this agency, but I like her headshot.
On the résumé, it's always smart to have their vocal range if they're musical theatre actors, but I do find that when they also want to do film and TV and break out of musicals, then I suggest they take that off their résumé. She does play the clarinet, and a lot of producers are looking for actors who double as musicians. It's like the colorblind casting of 2005. So that was a good detail to include.
Kevin Michael Kennedy
Stark: Actually, Kevin has a fun picture. This would definitely be his commercial shot and nothing else, but honestly, there is a fun quality there, and his expression is certainly genuine.
And he has a nice résumé. He included staged readings and workshops, which is fine to put on there at the beginning. Just decide which ones are important. He has enough here that he can leave the staged readings off.
Bennett: Kevin's headshot is good, but in headshots -- for men or women -- always try to avoid jewelry. [He's wearing an earring.] He also doesn't look as relaxed as he could. I would say there are probably other shots from the shoot that would better demonstrate what he's trying to demonstrate here. But his eyes are big -- it doesn't look relaxed.
His résumé is well set up, and he included workshops. If the workshops are with groups or directors that people would know, then it's worthwhile to include them.
Kelly: I'm not sure why he's wearing words on his shirt -- that's a bit distracting to me. Really, all that says to me is he could play a gym trainer. He looks like a big, thick guy, which is great. He's also friendly, so maybe if I needed a gym trainer type, I could call him in. If this is him, then that's what he is.
Then I have to look at the résumé to see what he wants to be, what he's out for, what he's gifted at. He was a backup vocalist for Diana Ross, so he obviously can sing, which is needed for a lot of things. He's had some interesting projects. I don't know what he's right for, but it's not a definite no. There's something compelling about him and his résumé. I would bring him in, then I could place him after that.
Duey: He definitely gives a sense from his picture and his résumé what type of performer he is. You could cast him as a backup vocalist or a murdered singer on a "Law & Order" episode. He's very likeable in his picture, looks like he has a lot of positive energy and that he'd be easy to work with. I don't have to meet him to know exactly what he would be like. But he's a very specific type. And for all types, agencies can only have a certain amount of them. It is a very limited type, unfortunately, and I already have several of his type.
Stark: Not even knowing her, it seems like it's not a very flattering picture. It's pretty washed out. Her head looks like it's floating in front of her body -- the angle of the shot is pretty bad. I don't think it flatters her in the least.
The résumé is laid out pretty well.
Bennett: Her picture is fine. It's not a big thing, but the shirt and the background sort of blend in together, so she might not stand out as much as she could. But a nice general shot. She looks like somebody you would like, someone you would want to call in for a reading or an audition.
The résumé is well set up. It's usually better to put the strongest credit first, because people may not look down the whole list, but for me it's a matter of being honest with what the role was, if it's extra or principal.
Kelly: She looks like a character type. I don't mind white outfits; they don't bother me. But in this particular photo, I don't think it does enough for her. She's probably a much cuter woman than this picture indicates.
The résumé is messy. It's hard to understand.
Duey: I like this shot very much because she didn't have it airbrushed to death. I hate airbrushed photographs. I always tell actors, "You're in New York; you're not in L.A." They don't come here looking for Linda Evans; they come here looking for real people. If you have this look and can play the bitter landlady on an episode of "Law & Order," then use it, because they're trying to find that look, too.
Her résumé is very light for a woman of her age. Being a nonunion actress at her age, you just naturally wonder why she didn't start booking union roles at some point. But I always give people the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps this actress took time off to raise a family. I will try to find out about them if there's some reason I called them in. Actors shouldn't assume that if they're nonunion that we won't call them in, because I have some actors who make a lot of money doing nonunion commercials.
Cherish Monique Duke
Stark: I'm half and half on these types of pictures. While it's an okay photo, it doesn't say much. First of all, it's very dark. She has dark hair. She's an African-American girl with a black background and a dark piece of clothing on. All she is is a head floating. While I can see that she's somewhat pretty, it says nothing, gives me nothing. It's so close up -- I don't see shoulders or anything else.
The second photo on the résumé doesn't work either, since it's distorted.
Bennett: It's a good general shot, which is good for sending out mailings for meetings and setting up general auditions. She tends to meld into the background, but a good photographer or reproduction company can play with those levels, so not a big deal.
And her résumé is fine. I often suggest they take their vocal range off once I start working with them, but at the beginning it's good for my reference. If I take on an actor, I'll help them format their résumé, and I keep them on the computer in the office as well so I can print them off myself and constantly update them.
Kelly: I don't like how it's all black on the left side, because it blends in with her shirt. It's hard to see what her body looks like. Vertical or horizontal framing does not matter to me at all.
And the photo on the résumé looks like the same shot only stretched out, which doesn't help.
Duey: I like her headshot. I think it does everything it's supposed to do. And it's very contemporaneous at the same time. A lot of headshots look like you could have found them in a trash bin from an agency that went out of business in 1982, so I like seeing headshots that look like they were shot recently. I actually tell my actors to go for color digital shots so that people know it's a recent headshot.
When actors put the email address at the top, it's not a smart place to put it if she's working with an agent, because the agency sticker will cover it. Cherish has too many things on her résumé: She's a nonunion actress and she has 5,000 credits. Unless you've been in so many important things that I have to know that it's important, then there's no need to put everything she ever had a part in. No casting director is going to sit and read all the actor's credits. If they look at two of the credits, the actor should sing "Hallelujah!" The actress looks like she's trying to prove something, but she's not being smart about getting what they want.
Stark: It's an old-fashioned picture. Very icy, cold. I don't think it says anything spectacular about her. The look is outdated.
Much better picture on the résumé. She should use that one rather than the one she's using on the front. I like the fact that her information is along the side, which is a little bit different.
Bennett: It's a lovely shot of her, but it doesn't say anything to me about her. There's no personality coming through in the smile or the eyes, so it's just a nice representation of her and not necessarily a great sales tool.
The photo on the back is better, although I'm not big on the head-held-up-by-the-hand pose. But it shows a lot more personality. It's a lot more open and inviting. Lines are fine on the résumé to break sections up.
Kelly: It looks like a good reporter shot to me. She's obviously very pretty. Her features are very symmetrical, which is good for film.
The picture on the résumé shows she can play a nice housewife or mom, so it's good to show a contrast like that. Sometimes putting a second photo on the back helps, but sometimes it goes against the actor. If it's a really great shot on the front and then they're doing something really weird on the back, that could hurt them.
Duey: This is the kind of headshot that I don't like. It looks very airbrushed. It doesn't look real under her eyes or in her jowl area -- it looks like it's retouched to me. She looks like a Stepford wife; she doesn't look real. Every now and then they look for those types. I don't represent that type. It doesn't appeal to me because it's not real, and the whole idea about good acting is that what you're supposed to capture is reality, so what's the point? It's not like it's 1935 and we're looking to book actors into MGM musicals. It's a whole different time now. She's obviously a very savvy lady; she's trying to control the way everything looks.
She has a more sophisticated picture and résumé than some of these others, but she's controlled it to the point that we've entered "Prince of Tides"-dom. When actors do give a second look on their résumé, it's very helpful, but a lot of times it looks like the first one.
Stark: Hank probably does a lot of extra work. This picture is only going to get him exactly that: background extra work. The photo looks very dated, and the two photos side by side tend to look like what they used to do with composites in California in the good old days. He needs to update himself if he wants to get out of extra work.
Bennett: I'm not a big fan of the comp-card look. Also, the two pictures aren't that different except for the costumes and the props, so there's no real reason for it. I would say have one nice, relaxed shot. If he wears the glasses the entire time, great; if he's able to go without them, have a second shot without the glasses.
The résumé doesn't sell him as well as it could, either. Everything is just jumbled in together as one big, long file almost, so I would separate each of those to a separate line. It's good that background and principal is noted, but again, it's hard to read in a paragraph format. People aren't necessarily going to read through all that.
Kelly: It's the exact same shot with different outfits. So I really don't know what that's saying to me. I'm not the biggest fan of this style of headshot. I just need to know who you are, through your eyes or what you're communicating. You see a picture in a magazine and it affects you, you wonder about that person -- that's all it needs to be. Then we can put you in the cop suit.
His résumé has a lot of background roles, but they're all films everyone knows. He also worked on "Law & Order" as a stand-in for the mayor. Interesting things. He's usable. It's nice to know that people are going to be reliable and responsible. Good, interesting credits -- put them in a normal format and a bigger font so we can read them.
Duey: He's a great type. He's wearing a police badge in the picture and they just announced that actors are not supposed to do that kind of thing in the post-Sept. 11 era. If you have two pictures and they're exactly the same, one would tend to think this is not the most versatile of actors. I haven't discovered the new Laurence Olivier here.
His résumé is awful, very unprofessional looking. It's nice to know he was in the choir of Temple Beth Shalom, but that's not going to get him a job.
Stark: Cheap photographer, cheap picture. His face is all shiny: He looks like a car salesman that I don't want to buy a car from.
Bennett: He doesn't look relaxed at all, and that's a big thing you want -- to be relaxed. He's gritting his teeth, his face looks tight, and even his clothes have his collar done up all the way to the top. He doesn't look like he's at ease. He does look like he's showing his natural self -- and that's what we want to see.
The résumé is well set up. He might even have other pictures in that shoot, but even the paper and the finish is not presented as strongly as he might wish.
Kelly: This looks like it was shot a long time ago.
Much better on the résumé, although the placement of the name is mixed in with the credits and sort of confusing. Looks like the name was cut off. And a bigger font is needed for the numbers; not everyone can see that small. He has a lot of credits and he studied with a lot of people. And he knows Russian -- that's good; he should make that big. If you can speak a language, put it in bold, or somewhere that is definitely highlighted. Sometimes we don't have time to read every word, so if actors want to use a highlighter to point out certain things, that's a good idea, especially languages. I would keep Brandon's contact info.
Duey: It looks like a very old headshot, but for all we know, it could have been taken six months ago. It's his job to make it look up to date, because I don't want the casting director to think that he's going to look 10 years older than his headshot.
It's good that he's a Russian speaker and that he put that on his résumé. He was specific that he's a native Russian speaker.
Stark: She needs to get her money back. The entire picture is out of focus. I want to see what she looks like. Why would I want to look at it out of focus? It doesn't give me any definition.
The résumé is okay. But what actors send us -- what they've decided to pick as a picture -- tells us a lot about their personalities and how detail-oriented they are. I love actors that are detail-oriented.
Bennett: I like the shot. My worry is it's washed out, and it's hard to tell whether something is being hidden, like age. Maybe this shot is airbrushed or maybe it's just the lighting -- I'm not sure why it appears that way. I find, especially for New York, you want to show everything. If you're going for pilots and beautiful sitcom characters, great, but people tend to film here because they want real people. So let anything show. And we don't know if anything's being hidden in Emily's photo or not, but it just makes you question that. Some people don't like the top of the head cut off; for me it's fine, because it's showing the face and there's a real connection with the eyes.
The résumé is fine. She has all the directors for film and TV; I would add the names for stage. Especially for university and fringe productions, because there are so many different levels of those. Having the name there can be beneficial.
Kelly: I like her photo a lot. It's very ethereal. There's something mysterious about it that makes me want to know more about this person. This is my favorite so far.
Looking at the résumé, I'd like to know more about the things she did at NYU. On films, I'd like to know what kind of film it was or what network it was on. Directors' names usually mean nothing to me.
Duey: She's a very good type. The headshot is a little too artsy, a little too Bennington College for me, like she went to an exclusive girls school and this is her artsy way of thinking how a headshot should look. Emily's typed herself very upscale WASP, I would presume. That's a really good type, actually. The WASP types are almost a minority now and I do look for that every now and then. I would be intrigued to turn over the picture and look at the résumé.
She has a very smart résumé. I see she's very athletic. I think she would be a very good nonunion type to try to build up first nonunion work and then convert to union.
George Von Thaden
Stark: Old-fashioned, but it serves its purpose.
Basically, I can tell immediately from his résumé that he does extra work. He has no unions, so he does a lot of nonunion extra work. He's probably somebody who has another career, or had another career, and has now started to do this for a living.
Bennett: It depends what George is going for. If he's going for newscaster, it's a great shot. Even for a lawyer, it may be okay. But it's kind of flat. It may be a good representation of him, but the eyes aren't connecting -- there's not really anything behind them. Suits are fine; it's just a matter of looking as if you live in them. If you are comfortable in a suit, it's great, but you need to make sure you look like you'd live in a suit and that when you go to an audition in a suit, you're still you. It just doesn't say much extra about George, which it could.
Some of the things on his résumé, like commercial pilot, are fine, but his photo needs to be a little more alive.
Kelly: It's a very large picture, so I have to pull it away from me to see it all. He looks like a very all-American kind of father figure to me, or a lawyer. A very classic look in a suit says that to me. But the picture doesn't seem alive to me.
As for what kind of actor he is or what kind of roles he could play, I would have to turn to the back and look at his credits. He's played a lieutenant, court clerk, TV executive -- a lot of background things happening there, which is good. He's sort of an everyman. I don't think he should list the extra work first. List what is most recent or your biggest role.
Duey: It looks like he did a print ad in the 1970s for Grecian Formula, and this is the before picture. And it's airbrushed to the point that he doesn't even look human anymore. His skin looks better than mine did when I graduated high school, and the man is in his 50s.
Stark: I hate headshots where actors wear black or dark clothing. I have no idea if he's thin, if he's average, or his body language. He also looks very angry, and I don't know if I want to meet someone who's very angry.
Bennett: Lenny looks too much like he's acting in his headshot. He looks like a good-looking guy; he should just relax. When people do their serious shots, sometimes they think they have to look serious. It's just a matter of being natural and being who you are and letting it come through.
The résumé is fine. It's well set up, it's clean, it's clear. I would just add the directors' names.
Kelly: He just looks as if he has giant shoulders. You don't really know where his arms start or end. And especially with this shirt, you can't see his neck, so he just looks covered in black. He probably has a nice stature about him and a nice chiseled face. That could work for him as a leading man. But he needs to show what's going on all around him. He needs to have a longer shot or not wear black all the way up to his chin.
The résumé is printed on colored paper, which I like, and the font is nice and clear as well. I see Columbia college theatre credits, and he's a tenor, which is nice. So he's interesting to me as to what he can do. So the résumé is good.
Duey: It's too posed. He says he sings in Latin and Italian, so my natural question is "Do you also speak it?" So I don't know. I'd like to know without having to call him. The picture looks like a sidekick of Dieter from "Saturday Night Live."
Stark: I can see she's a very pretty girl, but I don't like the photography. The print quality doesn't help. This is like a prom picture.
If they're new people, their résumés are going to be sparse. That's fine; everybody starts off that way. As they accumulate experience, they should start dropping the smaller roles. But she should put her credits in the standard résumé format. If you're going to be working in this industry, you should work within the industry standards. And it's very easy to find books that show résumé style. It's also become easier for actors to do their résumés, because they can now print them at home on their computers.
Bennett: I like the actual photo itself, the image. The finish of the photo looks like it was from a laser printer, which doesn't quite have the same impact as better-reproduced versions. Pictures are an expensive thing and in the beginning it's tough to afford them, but gradually you want to get better shots. The inexpensive ones just don't have the same effect. It often looks like someone who's just come out of school or who is in school.
When I look at the résumé, I find that in this case, that's true.
Kelly: The actual photograph isn't very telling. She has really nice skin and nice features and could work commercially -- she would probably benefit from a color photo.
Even though she's a teenager and doesn't have many credits, she should definitely follow the format of the standard résumé. She should put her skills and everything she has in the right format -- it will be so much more helpful for her. This résumé is just hard to read.
Duey: I think her headshot is pretty, it's flattering, but I'm not in love with it. It's a little vague, and I'm sure she can get a shot with a little more personality in it. I would try to find a headshot that exuded some more of her spirit.
And I would show her a prototypical résumé that she could copy and then use her own credits for.
Stark: This is just too busy, and I don't know if anyone's ever used this format. I understand he's trying to show diversity, but he can do that through his résumé. Once he gets into an office to meet a casting director, he might have a portfolio of pictures in different roles that he's done.
And at his age, there are no unions listed, so it says to me that this is someone who's not doing it full-time.
Bennett: It depends what he's going after. If he's really looking to act, this would probably backfire as a headshot. If you want to do a press piece with these pictures, fine, but even then it doesn't look fully professional, which could frighten people instead of entice them. The picture almost looks like he's in character as well -- we don't see who he is. It's almost as if he's trying to play Orson Welles or something in the headshot.
And then the résumé is not necessarily well set up, but all he would have to do is tab the columns. Everything is all pushed together to the left, so nothing stands out whatsoever. Make sure it's easy to read and easy to pick out roles and theatres.
Kelly: There is no need to put all these photos on one shot. It's incredibly distracting. We can see that he has an intense look and that he's probably good for a lot of character roles.
The résumé tells us he's played Jud Fry and Lazar Wolf. It's very clear from the résumé, so he doesn't need to show us all those characters. He has a great look, and it's not an everyday look, so it's interesting and it's needed.
Duey: This is way over the top. I sometimes get pictures like this, like a guy with a lot of cats in his lap, and you can use an offbeat picture for specific parts. I don't have a prejudice against them, because I think there should be room for creativity. If you're going to use a very extreme character shot, it should be balanced with a very traditional shot so they can get used to seeing that you can be many things.
And the résumé is very unprofessional looking. This is someone I feel I would have to educate too much on how to work with an agent. He may be a very nice guy, but it just looks like it's going to be too much work for me to educate him about what he needs to do to get the appointments.
Stark: Very bad picture. It's grainy; it's uninteresting. The positioning of the hand underneath the chin doesn't do a thing for her, doesn't give me any personality.
Bennett: The head on the hand ends up looking too staged and not relaxed and natural. It's a fine first shot, but if she's been working for a little while, she should switch it. It's not speaking enough for her. It would be a fine first introduction, but it looks like a beginner.
Kelly: I feel like Michele is not a suit person -- that's the feeling I'm getting. I think she's trying to be a suit person but in actuality she's not.
Nice résumé. I don't have a preference about whether theatre or film and television should go first on a résumé. It depends on what I'm casting, but you can just have one version and the casting people will look for what they need to find.
Duey: My immediate reaction to this is she is not savvy at all. She sells herself as a corporate type, and she's not a corporate type. She doesn't have the Omarosa look.
Her résumé is done nicely for the type that she is, but she's also limited herself by listing all her uniforms. It makes her sound like a day player or that she works as an extra a lot, and as an agency we're not really into bringing under-five players here. We want to get the guest stars: Not only do the actors want that for themselves, but we also make more money that way.