With a bit of a mind flip you're into the time slip...

 

 

If you’ve wondered about the strange occurances around New York City I can explain. Unusual things tend to happen when my best friend and I are together. Yes Thurston’s in town. He’s made the pilgrimage from Orlando to see if his career was a fluke, some sort of cosmic disturbance in the time space continuum...like water spouts and tornados and  in New York City. He’s allotted 6 months to audition, get a job and start performing, preferably on Broadway.

6 months.

Let me clarify a thing or two about Thurston. He and his husband Noah left New York a few years ago to make a life in Orlando, a life that includes a house, a backyard, two cars and year round Equity performing employment. In fact Thurston has been consistently employed since the day we met each other at our first professional summer stock gig. He’s worked in theme parks, cruise ships, regional theatres, national tours, international tours, foreign countries versions of Broadway and on the actual Broadway. He’s had like 9 production contracts and only one non-performing job in his whole life.

“Fluke career” my a...anyway...Thurston believes his success was based on being an acrobat. Like the strippers in Gypsy say “Ya gotta get a gimmick if you want to get ahead” and acro was his. Since tumbling is no longer his forte, he’s questioning whether he has any talent at all. This, coupled with the voices of all the evil jealous people he’s encountered, makes fertile ground for growing self-doubt.

I keep trying to tell him that getting a performing job has nothing to do with talent. Talent is subjective. If there are four people behind the table there could be five opinions on the level of talent and whether it’s good or not. Getting a performing job these days takes navigating a sea of variables.

If you’ve been keeping up with my blog, you already know some of the important variables in the “getting hired equation”: the material presented at an audition and the actor’s product.

I had the privilege of being a Casting Director for a Director and Choreographer, both of whom are or were performers. In most cases they’re very forgiving about what material an actor initially presents. They’ll either ask for something different or work with the actor to get something relevant out of the less than optimal choice. This is an exception. I think it’s because they’re performers themselves. They understand the challenges of finding perfect audition material, especially for new shows and the importance of being able to act and take direction. Most people behind other tables would probably quickly move on: “Thanks for coming in today”.

This can lead to actors believing some people behind some tables are uncreative when it comes to envisioning them in the roles they're auditioning for.

Let me explain what’s actually happening...

The current trend in the performing arts is hiring people who are “real”.  This means an actor’s product is so closely aligned with who the theatrical character is that telling the difference between the two is a challenge, if there’s a difference at all. The savvy actor knows his or her own product and presents that product in the best possible light. He or she auditions for shows that are specifically looking for his or her product. These performers don’t have to “act” because they “are”. They walk into the room just as the people behind the table envision the character in question to look, sound, and interact with others.

Knowing his or her product and targeting auditions for said product will help get an actor called back and maybe even hired.

 Maybe...

A lot of talented product savvy actors don’t get hired because of the lack of available contracts in their union status. The recent financial downturn has either closed some regional theatres all together or caused them to limit how many union contracts they offer. With limited contracts, casting becomes a game of chess.

There is one Equity contract. If union actor A gets hired for role A, then union actor B can’t be hired for role B. However there is only one viable choice for role C so actor C has to be hired. And guess what? Actor C is union.  Even though none of the actors were up for the same part, Union actor A and Union actor B completely lose the chance for employment because Union actor C is cast. It doesn’t matter about look or talent or product.

Another variable in getting a job is how under some union contracts certain roles have to be offered to the actor who last played that role. Montego Glover, a colleague and friend of mine, was involved with the hit Broadway show Memphis from its start in 2003. The show opened on Broadway in 2009. Any actress coming to New York in 2009 for a limited 6 month audition stint to see if her career was a “fluke, some sort of cosmic disturbance in the time space continuum” had virtually no chance of being cast in the role of “Felicia” in Memphis on Broadway. This role was already Montego’s...from 6 years ago.

A new 6 month relationship cannot compete with a tried and true 6 years.

Now add personal alliances into the fray...

Recently I applied to be a director for a new up and coming non-union theatre group here in New York City. I became aware of the company when I went to see my friend Teagan in the company’s first production. The talent was good and the effort was fantastic. It was impressive to see what the company had done in only a short while with severely limited funds. The founder of the company was actually in the show in a smaller role. Teagan introduced me to him and I used the opportunity to mention my interest in working with the company, specifically directing the third show.

After Teagan’s show closed, I kept communication going with the founder. During this time I had mentioned that I wanted to use Teagan in the third show. The founder told me that he wanted to expand the company and the company’s contacts so he would rather not reuse former cast members.

In the mean time, I spoke to a colleague about being my Musical Director/accompanist. Both of us went to see the second production, which was quite ambitious. The show itself was more mature and refined. I was surprised how well it actually came off, again with limited time and budget. There were some casting choices I wondered about though. There was one actress who was at best “phoning in” her performance. Both the musical director and I didn’t care for her.

After the show I introduced the musical director to the founder. We spoke briefly about the show we had just watched and the upcoming third production. The founder told us that a lot of actors were already interested in auditioning. The founder also said he wanted to use someone from the show we had just seen for the third production. Guess what? It was the very same lack luster, unenergetic actress that we didn’t appreciate.

The founder and I continued to communicate via email regarding the third show. In one email, he wrote:

 

...I chose [the third show] primarily based around myself and [actress]. I know that we were both going to play [part] and [part]. I also have ideas to utilize only one more [company alumnus] and that's that.

 

Auditions hadn’t even been announced or planned for that matter. The show had been picked for certain people. This happens all the time. You don’t really think Gypsy gets revived again and again on a whim? When a show has a very demanding role like Gypsy, like Evita, like Music Man, there is coupled with the idea of doing that show with an idea of who’s going to play that role. At times, the idea of doing the show in question was a star performer’s idea in the first place. In some regional theatres, actors have even been known to produce a particular show themselves just so they can star in it.

I was taken aback because the founder had told me in no uncertain terms that alumnae were not going to be used for the third production. Yet he continued to cast the show completely with alumnae. My reply to this revelation was:

 

When I spoke to you about doing the show I said I had wanted to cast [Teagan]. You told me that you didn't want to use [company alumnae] for the show. The company needed to expand and incorporate more people. I totally understand. However at this point you have assembled virtually an entire cast of [company alumnae] which includes [actress]...

I saw [actress] in [the first production] where she was fine. In the performance of [the second show] she was flat, boring and completely uninteresting. She was the weakest performer on the stage and the only person both myself and the musical director did not like. When not doing a main part, this is the type of performance I expect to see from her. [the third show] can not afford the luxury of an inconsistent and uninteresting actor.

[actress] is welcome to come in and audition, as is anyone else you think would be good for the show. Whether she is used for the show or not is dependant on the quality of her audition and subsequent callbacks and the input of the creative team.

 

His retort was:

 

How you feel about [actress] is how I feel about [Teagan]. How the reviewers, producers, directors and how the general public feel about [actress] is the complete opposite from your opinion. [actress] has worked on broadway the past three years, she's talented, generates great ticket sales, and has a big support team - which includes me.

             I told you in the previous emails [actress] is IN the show. She's not invited to
            audition. She has a spot. As the OWNER and PRODUCER - it's my job to TELL
            you these things. Not ask.

 

It was at this point that several things came into light for me. The first was his duplicity. Had he simply said he’s not a fan of Teagan’s work in the beginning, all would have been fine. To concoct a less than truthful answer was unwarranted. When he continued to cast the show himself before auditions, he should have known there would be questions.

The second issue was that the founder was deluded. In our meeting after seeing the second show, he admitted that it was a financial flop. This was painfully evident since I sat watching the second show with 9 other people, one of whom I had invited. The fact that he was singing the praises of this actress who “generates ticket sales” was preposterous.

The third and biggest issue was his lack of professionalism and decorum. As a director I gave him my honest assessment of [actress]. His reply to that assessment was:

 

Evan, be careful about what you say and how you say it. You completely insulted me. You completely insulted a friend and a colleague. My interests in you has plummeted.

 

When I informed him that as a proud member of Actors Equity, that is was my duty to report an actor “scabbing” (working in a non-union capacity while being a member of the union), as was the case with [actress] who had spent the last three years on Broadway, he proceeded:

 

[actress] doesn't have her card so your threats are empty.

            Your lack of tact and your ability to stay composed are on a level of that of a

six year old.

...watch your mouth and your threats as I have more power than you think I do, SIR.

            Good luck with your dying career.

 

You may be thinking “What does this have to do with persaonal alliances and time limits?” Everything. If this scenario happens in a brand new, non-equity, non-professional, non-paying theatre company with a couple grand invested in a show, it is possible that it happens with a show budgeted at 20 million dollars, albeit much more subtle, nuanced and eloquent. The basic premise is this...regardless of an actor's talent or product, the ones who control the money control who gets cast.

Rebecca, a new show slated for Broadway, has its marquee up. Investors are allegedly dying or receiving emails convincing them to jump ship, and the entire production is stalled. Again. You can bet your life that if someone came up with the budget and insisted that his sister’s husband’s cousin’s niece star in the show, the current lead actress would be bought out of her contract and sent packing. Rebecca would open as planned.

Show business is a business. The point of being in business is to make money. Everyone likes a sure thing. So producers hire casting directors, choreographers and directors they know and or trust. These people have delivered top notch performers and or shows in the past for the producers, or they have a reputation for such. And most of these people hire actors they know and trust and like. It’s the reason so many jobs go to a relatively small circle of people. The investors are literally banking on familiarity and dependability.

When new actors come to New York, they’re taught to go to every audition possible. The people behind most of the tables need to get very familiar with a performer before they’re willing to take a chance. It’s why a “household name” can virtually do any project he or she wants. The actor is familiar, so the producers believe their investment will pay off.

An unknown actor, an actor without a reputation for success, can be viewed as a real monetary risk. If the unknown actor is hired and is unable to handle the requirements of the show, word of mouth will travel quickly. Attendance will suffer. No audience means no income. No income means no investment recoup. And no investment recoup means no show.

Breaking into the circle of dependability takes time and patience. It takes time, and effort, to build relationships with various directors, choreographers and casting directors...and other performers. It takes time to convince people behind tables that you, as an actor, are able to handle the rigors of rehearsal and performance. It’s the consistent positive reinforcement of auditioning, over time, which convinces the people behind any table that an actor is dependable and capable.

A colleague of mine developing relationship with a major casting office once asked what he could do to better his chances of getting cast. He was literally told “we need to see your face more at auditions”. And that takes time.

There is a seemingly never ending string of variables that can hinder an actor from getting employment. The vast majority of those variables are out of an actor’s control. Time is one of the variables an actor can control. Wield it like a weapon. Take a jump to the left and then a step to the right and set up camp. Put your hands on your hips and with a pelvic thrust charge into the time space continuum and fight for your career.