#1 It's a Lose-Lose
Hear me out: self-taping takes time and resources. Time and resources cost money. If the project is not paying ("but! copy! Credit!" NO! JUST SAY NO! In my experience, these unpaid projects are the HARDEST to receive copy and rarely make it to IMDb...so...no) or low paying, you are essentially paying the director or CD for the audition. Here's why: calculate how much you're worth per hour, multiply that by how many hours it will take to get ready for the self-tape, film, color correct, edit, etc. Say you are a working actor who has booked one-day shoots or commercials for at least $500 (being conservative, some buy-outs pay more, of course). That's $60+ an hour. Some self-taped auditions can take at least an hour to set up (lighting, camera, background, reader, etc.) and require at least several takes to get a good one. Even more if you factor in a reader and the length of the sides/copy. Add in editing, processing, uploading to Vimeo or YouTube, sending the link, awaiting feedback before you tear everything down...the process can last at least five hours. At $60 (again, more or less depending on where you live, what type of work you book, etc.), that's $300. So, no, I will not spend my time, energy and resources doing your work for you when (even if I book the gig) it pays $150 for the day. Hard pass.
#2 It's a Red Flag
Sure, even the busy pros are requested to self-tape. You might receive a self-tape request for any variety of reasons, and for the right project, I will ABSOLUTELY self-tape. Unfortunately, when you are self-submitting to breakdowns, usually a request for a self-tape is a red flag that the project is less than professional. Accepting "self-taped submissions only" means the production cannot afford to take a day or two off, rent out a space and manage the actors at a proper audition. If the project team cannot handle this very fundamental aspect of casting, how do you expect them to manage actual production? Not to mention providing a usable clip for your reel by skimping on post-production? In my experience, it's just a bad sign and an overall waste of time. Best case, the production team is just being lazy because budgetary reasons are no excuse for not having an in-person casting. I've been to plenty of auditions hosted in inexpensive or free spaces (i.e churches, libraries, offices). If you take your work seriously, do not settle for anything less when it comes to auditions or what projects you choose. Now, if you have a TON of disposable time and income on your hands, sure, self-tape away. Most working actors do not have such a luxury.
#3 It's distracting
"Hold on a minute! Auditioning in person gives me waaaaay more anxiety." False. Even in the comfort of your own environment, self-taping will NEVER allow you to fully focus on your character and his/her objectives. Sorry. There are those rare creatures who can work from home without being distracted by pets/neighbors/kids/Netflix (you know, the ones with the willpower of a Buddhist monk?), but for the average actor, there are too many variables. Even the pros admit it's hard to play writer, director and actor in their productions. Similarly, it's hard to get into the flow of the character when your conscious mind has to worry about lighting, camera operation, your "reader's" jerky line delivery, and ...wait...what is that tacky lamp doing there?! You get the picture.
#4 It's limiting
On so many levels, it's impossible to demonstrate your best self, or range, in a self-taped audition. For starters, your equipment might be limited to a camera phone. Womp womp. Camera phone quality might be acceptable for some castings, but remember you might be competing with actors who own/have access to professional gear...then what should have been a simple casting turns into Battle of the Better Equipment. Camera phones, poor lighting, and busy backgrounds, unfortunately, do not scream "I belong on a network pilot!" Additionally, your reader can make or break your performance. While this can occur during in-person auditions, too, usually the in-person audition reader is someone the director is seriously considering casting, and they are testing chemistry. So, if you don't have the chemistry...no harm, no foul. But it's frustrating trying to convey any chemistry during a self-taped audition if you're playing opposite your mom, kid brother, or a bum you enticed off the street.
#5 It's isolating
Yes, the option to self-tape provides actors in remote locations access to bigger markets, allows NYC actors to audition for LA and vice versa, etc. However, how you are IRL is a big part of whether you will succeed on set. How you take direction, how much direction you need, how you learn, how you interact with the crew, your overall personality...these are all attributes that do not come across in a self-taped audition. Unless you personally know the director or CD, have worked with them before, or they are familiar with your demeanor on set, it's difficult to convey actual likability on camera alone. Yes, there are the exceptions who read as more likable on camera than in-person (I hate you, jk..jk..jk). Given an audition is, essentially, a job interview, it necessitates that connection between interviewer and interviewee. Self-taped auditions don't allow such connection.
Whew, end rant. What are some of your frustrations with self-taped auditions? What do you love about them? Tell me your experiences! Comment below!
No comments:
Post a Comment