Bonnie,
I just read your “Pre-Preread” article. You should be embarrassed. I am a professional actor, not the wannabes that idolize you as their guru. Your “Pre-Preread” is SO anti-actor it is nauseating. You have taken the process from one of interpersonal contact and relationship to putting the complete onus on the actor. You change the actor’s responsibility from being prepared and talented to being technically proficient in camera, set design, lighting, makeup, wardrobe, editing. Being financially able to submit. Being able to hire a suitable scene partner.
The result is a completely bias process. Of course, it makes your job easier (instead of finding talent, you are trying to get the job done in the easiest manner) and lowers your financial responsibility.
No wonder you are anecdotal in the community. Shame on you!! Of course, if I gave you may name, I know you’d sabotage me. I just booked another guest-star!!!
Hey, I hear you. I know there are people who see the Pre-Preread process as one that puts the burden on the actor to get on the casting directors’ radar. But if an actor wasn’t going to be called in anyway, doesn’t getting a shot at it make it worth going to the trouble? I never said that Pre-Prereads are being held to the exclusion of the “interpersonal contact and relationship” aspects of the casting process. That’s an assumption you have made after reading my column and I apologize if I was somehow unclear in representing what, exactly, the Pre-Preread accomplishes.
Obviously, actors who would already be invited into the room are going to continue to be invited into the room! This is more an opportunity for those who might not otherwise get a shot at it. Clearly, this doesn’t affect you. (And as much as I try to keep my columns accessible and relevant to actors at ALL levels, there will be some topics that won’t apply to actors at every possible level in the industry. Still, I appreciate that actors of ALL levels choose to read — and write in about — my columns week after week.) I mentioned in the original column that many times the Pre-Preread happens on roles for which we wouldn’t otherwise even be holding auditions. I think “getting in the room” (even if via a taped/uploaded audition) is always a good thing, but especially when there wouldn’t even have been a room to “get into” otherwise!
I understand your frustration over the idea that actors now must concern themselves with more than just “being prepared and talented” and focus also on technical issues that usually wouldn’t be theirs to consider, but please note that — as I mentioned in my Pre-Preread column — one of the best taped reads I’ve seen came from a kid using his cell phone’s built-in camera! He did nothing special in terms of lighting or wardrobe, makeup or scene partner acquisition, editing or set design. None of that! He just propped up that little sucker and clicked “RECORD.” That was enough for us to know for certain that this actor had the chops to handle the role. And we never would have even invited him into the room based on his headshot and resumé alone.
I see that as an inclusive process. Not an exclusive one. But I do understand that not everyone is going to feel that way! The variables of technology alone certainly can be terrifying to consider. Hopefully, as this becomes more and more common practice (and it is — whether I happened to write about it or not; I’m not the one who invented the Pre-Preread concept, even if my column is what caused you to first become aware of it), the technological aspect won’t be so daunting and the cost/benefit ratio for even getting considered on a role otherwise not scheduled for sessions will become clear.
Now, you mentioned that the Pre-Preread “is a completely bias process.” I’m wondering what about the casting process in general you’d say is UNBIASED. The whole process is very subjective — and that goes for the newbie actors all the way up to the name actors on a producer’s wishlist!
Finally, I’m sorry you didn’t feel comfortable sharing your name. Not because I could (or would) “sabotage” you. (And, hey, if I’m “anecdotal in the community,” how could I ever have enough clout to sabotage anyone, right?) But because I think a difference of opinion is a good and healthy thing and I tend to respect more the opinions of those who will stand up for their beliefs and sign their names to them than those who prefer to be anonymous. Still, I’ll share your comments this week because I support and adore actors and think the opinion you shared is an absolutely valid one. I had mentioned in the original column that the Pre-Preread concept was a controversial one, but until your letter arrived, I hadn’t heard anything from “the other side” of this issue, so again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter.
I would like to state for the record that I’m not one to look for shortcuts to doing my job. “Easy” or not, casting is something I love to do because I love casting. I have a blast working with indie filmmakers, agents, managers, and actors of all levels! And now, I get exposed to the work of actors I might otherwise never meet due to the awesome folks who are willing to take an extra step and put themselves on tape/online. Some actors will see that as an opportunity. Others will see it as a burden that they shouldn’t have to endure. Fair enough! But because I always welcome getting to experience the gift that an actor would like to share with me, I’m open to this new trend in casting and hope it benefits more people than it pisses off. 😉
Bonnie Gillespie is living her dreams by helping others figure out how to live theirs. Wanna work with Bon? Start here. Thanks!
Originally published by Actors Access at http://more.showfax.com/columns/avoice/archives/000949.html. Please support the many wonderful resources provided by the Breakdown Services family. This posting is the author’s personal archive.