For decades I have heard the agent-actor relationship described as being “like a marriage.” I have heard it from my colleagues in the agency business and of course, it’s been handed down to actors.
But there’s a problem with this marriage comparison. And it’s this: It isn’t. Let’s analyze it a bit, shall we? If the agent-actor relationship is “like a marriage,” how is it that when an actor signs exclusively with an agent (or agency) he or she isn’t allowed to work with any other agencies, but the agent or agency is allowed to have 20, 50, or 100 other clients? So the actor gets one spouse and the agent gets as many as he or she wants? I’m not talking about a situation where an actor is signed for legit/theatrical and then is free to pursue a commercial agent (or vice versa) at a different agency, I’m talking about the implication that you are required to be monogamous and your agent is not. If there are multiple agents working with you from the same agency, then you can quadruple the number of actors they’re juggling as well.
Here’s another problem with the marriage setup: Agency contracts are signed to commence on a specific date and to end on a specific date. They also come without clause, making the relationship dissoluble if the actor does not acquire work over a specified period. When the contract has expired, it can be renewed provided both parties wish to do so. A real marriage is somewhat more complicated, no? Now, you may be thinking that it’s just a word, but words have meaning and words have power. And “marriage,” when it describes the relationship between human beings, has weight (as opposed to saying, “marrying” the contents of two half-full ketchup bottles into one full one, as my readers who work in restaurants are all too well aware). In any case, what’s problematic is that it sometimes lulls the actor (client) into a sense of false security that they’re partners, and the actor slides into a less proactive state than he or she should maintain by forgetting that an agent has many, many partners.
Also problematic is that the word “marriage” can make an actor feel off the hook as far as taking as much responsibility for their careers as would be best. Also, being “married” can intimidate an actor into thinking he or she should not move on when the relationship is no longer viable. I believe an actor should think of the agent-actor relationship as a contractual business agreement between two parties who have agreed to communicate and work together until the relationship proves not to be productive for either or both parties. Because that’s what it is.
Having said all the above. I have a fond memory of my employer when I was in the agency business. She owned one of the largest agencies in the entertainment business at the time, and as a new client was signing her contracts, the actor looked at my boss and said, “I’ve always heard that the agent-actor relationship is like a marriage.” My employer, a wife and a grandmother, in addition to being an entrepreneur, looked at her warmly and wisely and said, “It’s not. Believe me, it’s not!” I was at the other end of the room and looked at my boss and mouthed “Touché” with both my thumbs up.
Like this advice? Check out more from our Backstage Experts!
