Child Actors...publicity stills, agents, et al. You outta be in pictures, kid!

I listened in amusement as a woman next to me gushed about how cute a man's kids were.

"They should be doin' commercials," she insisted.

In response, the fellow grinned and noted that he stopped into an Agent's office one day to discuss representation, but decided to forgo on the idea when the woman in charge of the children's division informed him they would need photographs - which could conceivably cost about $200.00 - or more.

The woman reacted angrily,

"That's not true. It's just a rip-off. All you need is a snapshot or two."

Wrong!

I was a theatrical agent representing child actors several years ago.

True, if you're interested in having your kids schlep around as slave labor doing extra work here and there, one or two of the local casting offices will only ask for a Polaroid (oftentimes for a small processing fee, which I disagree with) to insert into their casting files where clients peruse for nameless "bodies".

But, landing bona fide acting assignments for the young ones is much more specific than that, and the process requires the investment of at least one standard 8 X 10 glossy photograph.

This is the industry norm - for children and adults - alike.

In fact, a quality still of the "talent" amounts to a calling card. And, based on its strengths or weaknesses, the aspiring thespian may or may not get in the door.

When I was submitting performers for consideration, I was constantly amazed by the fact that one particular photo of a client would always land them an audition, while other struggling hopefuls continued to be "passed" over. So, choosing the right photographer is also a key factor in the equation.

For those of you who are not familiar with the process, it goes something like this.

Each day, ad agencies and casting directors send out casting notices with a "breakdown service", announcing parts that are auditioning by appointment only.

Agents - usually franchised by the Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA - then sift through the casting notices and select clients they deem appropriate for the assignment - based on their actual "training", "experience", and "look".

Feature roles may require more extensive credits - but - the criteria varies from director to director. It's a general consensus that stage work is a big plus, especially when Film and/or TV credits are few and far between.

Commercial casting offices are often seeking an "image" to represent a particular product, so experience may not always be a prerequisite in that arena.

A list of the names of the talent, and their overall personal stats (Height, Weight, skills, etc.) - and the accompanying photographs - are packaged up in the morning, and then sent out in the afternoon mail by special courier.

Calls for auditions may trickle in later that day or bright and early the next morning.

So, without a photograph - and especially a quality one to catch the eye of the casting director - the talent may be left out in the cold.

True, some disreputable agents may be associated with an acting school, or a photographer. In that event, stay away from them like the plague, and seek representation elsewhere.

If you hotfoot it over to SAG or AFTRA (both are situated in the same building on Wilshire Boulevard between Fairfax and La Brea) you can obtain an Agent's list. Generally, those listed on the union sheets are professional, legitimate, and above-board - unlike other scam outfits hapless parents and their kids may encounter around Tinsel town in the pursuit of fame and fortune.

In the event your child is able to secure an agent, then be sure you can be reached on short notice; after all, that is also the nature of the beast...things may be slow one minute, then move at lightning speed the next.

And, a word of advice...

Make sure your tot is actively engaged in honing their acting skills and other talents by way of vocal lessons, and acting workshops and/or classes with reputable teachers and coaches on a regular basis.

That way - when the big break comes - they'll be ready for the opportunity and won't blow it!

Break a leg!





No business like show business!

Screen Actors Guild...warning to membership; reinstatement! (the Inquisition returns)

Galileo faces the Inquisition...


Actors taking the long trek out to Hollywood in search of fame and fortune often have one major hurdle to surmount...securing that elusive Screen Actors Guild card, so they can land work in the industry.

For many years, it was kind-of-like a Catch 22 situation.

For example, an actor was barred from joining SAG unless a job prospect was lined up. And, complicated by the fact, that a performer was required to be in the Union to be considered for a role.

In addition, most agents wouldn't represent an actor until he or she was a bona fide member of the Guild.

Understandably, a performer was inclined to practically jump through hoops, to get gainful employment in Tinsel Town.

So, why would an actor choose to quit the Screen Actors Guild?

For many reasons...maybe a performer was returning to school, or was starting a family, and opted to take a sabbatical from the business for a short duration.

In the alternative, some actors often chose to go on "Financial Core Status". In that event, the performer was only required to pay a portion of their dues; however, in that instance, the right to vote in elections and participate in the daily business of the guild was revoked. Actors often used "core" status to protest when they were unhappy about the political regime (elected officials) or disagreed with Guild policies (in recent years the issue of a merger with AFTRA has been a hotly-debated bone of contention among members, for instance).

Because the Guild must have a solid financial base to run operations and to ensure there are funds on hand in the event of a strike (if there's enough money in the coffers, performers can hold out on the picket line until their demands are met), financial core status has the potential to cripple the union.

Earlier this year, SAG made it tougher to rejoin under new rules adopted by the Union's Board of Directors. The move was particularly aimed at actors who quit SAG to work on non-union jobs in-between union gigs.

Up until the recent past, actors were granted free reign to rejoin the Guild with little ado, provided they paid upfront assessment fees.

According to the new rules, quitting will be considered permanent. And, members can only be reinstated if they undergo a sort-of "litmus test" that involves petitioning a disciplinary committee. The strict policy comes on the heels of concerted efforts by SAG to organize producers who aren't covered under the Guild's jurisdiction.

"Individuals who make the choice to quit the Union cannot expect to be allowed back in without the Union asking some questions about why they quit and what sort of work they were doing," noted Todd Amorde, the Guild's director of organizing.

Personally, I am opposed to the new rules, which amount to coercion and intimidation tactics, in my opinion. In their role as super cop, heading up witch-hunts, SAG Officials have created a working environment that is rife with dread and fear.

However, for what it’s worth, SAG has granted a deadline for SAG Members to reconsider their membership status.

Until December 31st, 2007, members who bowed out for personal reasons (prior to June 13th, 2007), have the opportunity to reinstate after fulfilling the new Screen Actors Guild requirements (interrogation, turning over first born, etc.)

Of course, this does not apply to Members who are on honorable withdrawal (sounds a little like AA, doesn't it?) or on suspended pay status. Nor does the petition process apply to members who lost their guild cards over failure to pay dues.

Direct Policy Questions to Branch office or Guild Headquarters...
(323)549-6019 or (323)549-6026

Screen Actors Guild...bid for anti-trust suit denied!

In the past year or so, the Screen Actors Guild has reacted to a number of industry issues in typical knee-jerk fashion.

For instance, in an effort to curb "runaway" production, some clever person at the Guild stumbled on the idea to bring legal action against Canadian Filmmakers pursuant to anti-trust laws.

You see, in the mind's eye of these odd-ball reps at SAG, Canadians are responsible for Hollywood's woes - in part - because they had the foresight to offer up tax incentives to attract film production north of the border decades ago.

Well, I laughed out loud when the Guild issued a notice to the membership regarding the pending action.

It was evident to me from the get-go that such action would not only be fruitless, but result in a costly waste of financial resource.

In a news bite in the recent edition of "Screen Actor" (the Guild newsletter) administration noted that the United States Trade Representative denied the 301 Petition challenging Canadian Film subsidies.

Now, maybe SAG will get on with business.

Like Canada, the Guild should make a concerted effort to push for tax incentives not only on the Federal level, but at the State level as well, to encourage local film production.

The problem with Hollywood is greed!

Although the pie is large enough for everyone to share, all the power-brokers (and workers) in Tinseltown are gluttons with an eye on the whole enchilada.

The idea that industry issues on the table relate to "us and them" is not only off-putting, but is the wrong approach.

Personally, I urge an ongoing harmonious effort to work out the issues so that there is equitable solution for all, not just a privileged few.

As Gandhi once said,

"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need but not every man's greed"