Workshop Words

In response to "Worth the Price?," by Stacey Jackson, Back Stage, July 3, 2008: 

Dear Editor:
Man, does this article piss me off.

I am happy that paying for access to the casting community is being addressed again in Back Stage. Kudos to Stacey Jackson for presenting the "workshop" scheme anew to your readers. 

As one of the interviewees, I was very disappointed, however, that the article wound up being more of a "how to" in helping actors find those venues that are more likely to offer a return on their dollar (i.e., to help them book an acting job by paying the people in a position to hire them). The title "Worth the Price?" seems to legitimize the practice. The problem with the title is that we're not buying a hybrid or a flat-screen TV; we're being shown how to invest in what has been shown by state labor laws and the unions to be an illegal activity.

The actors and casting directors in this article tell us exactly why casting director workshops exist. There's no doubt why actors pay to perform for the casting directors who are paid to watch. Talent agent Naomi Kolstein suggests that her clients would "benefit greatly from time spent getting to know a well-respected CD." This is absolutely true. Too bad that the actor has to pay for that privilege and some casting directors won't meet Kolstein's clients without accepting an "honorarium" — a funny word considering the lack of honor in such a transaction.

CD Michael Cassara says, "It's a waste of time…if the casting director doesn't cast anything you're right for." Really? So much for the "teaching" aspect of workshops. In the state of California, what he's suggesting violates the Labor Code. Some call it quid pro quo. I call it graft.

The actors in the article tell us how workshops are a tool, a resource to help move their careers forward. That's a selfish, self-serving attitude that only serves to hurt the acting community as a whole. In reality, these actors are virtually making free opportunities to meet casting professionals rare if not nonexistent by promoting a system where the most effective way to get in the door is pay a toll for access to the gatekeeper. Actors, contrary to what the article seems to suggest, don't want to pay to meet CDs. They simply want to meet CDs, and if the only way to do that is to pay a fee, then sadly, that's what they're relegated to do in a pay-for-access "workshop" culture.

And where are the interviews with the companies that run the so-called workshops? Did they refuse to be interviewed? If this were an article about legitimate acting classes, real teachers would be excited about promoting their businesses and selling their virtues as a service to actors. If the workshop companies are doing everything legally and have legitimate businesses, why wouldn't they agree to be interviewed? Could it be because they're doing something they shouldn't be doing? Duh. 

Just before I was interviewed for this article, a "guest coordinator" invited me to attend a CD workshop. I asked her some questions: Did I have to provide a lesson plan or a teaching curriculum? "No," I was told, "Just bring commercial or film scripts." Could I use material from current projects? "Sure, no problem." Can I take home all of the actors' photos and résumés after the workshop so I can consider casting them in current projects? "They're yours to keep!" the coordinator exclaimed.  Those answers, as I shared with Ms. Jackson, are all violations of guidelines contained in the declaratory judgment issued by the California Labor Department, which this company has signed. But why didn't Ms. Jackson interview a representative from this or any workshop company? There is certainly no shortage of these businesses in Los Angeles.

Why not interview representatives of the studios and networks for whom these CDs work as "job developers"? How would legal affairs or human resources at Warner Bros., Disney, Fox, or NBC feel about their casting representatives financially benefiting from the actors they're paid by the studios to find? The last time I spoke with the legal department at a major studio, they were flabbergasted that this kind of activity could go on under their noses. At first they denied it. When they found out it was true, they instituted a companywide policy forbidding their employees from being paid by actors yet again to be "discovered." Did Ms. Jackson make a call to any studios or networks? If so, why were their responses not reported on these pages?

This article could have been a wake-up call to both the industry and the acting community about the abuse that continues to take place in the pay-to-play workshop world and the way actors continue to be exploited. Over the last few years since the declaratory judgment was signed by most L.A. workshop companies, I have received dozens of emails from actors outlining violations by workshops of those guidelines. Those guidelines were developed jointly by the Screen Actors Guild, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Casting Society of America, the California Department of Labor, the Los Angeles city attorney's office, and the workshop companies themselves. But the workshops still push the legal envelope today. 

So, what have we learned from this article? We have learned that workshop companies are engaging in behavior that clearly breaks the law, yet we have no idea if they're being taken to task for these violations. That attending a workshop is a waste of time unless the featured CD casts projects you're right for. That you shouldn't expect a CD workshop to resemble an acting class. That SAG considers paying to meet CDs wrong, but we don't know what the guild is doing to stop the process. That CSA continues to turn a blind eye to an insidious behavior practiced by a great number of its members who are lining their pockets with actors' dollars in the guise of "teaching." And that it's unlikely the Labor Department enforces the guidelines it put into place five years ago. So much for protecting actors. Ironic, considering CDs, talent agents, managers, and the unions could not exist without the acting community.

While I applaud Back Stage for highlighting the few free opportunities that exist for actors to meet CDs, I'm disappointed that the largest print resource for new and working actors in the world has done little to shine a light on the law-breaking taking place on a daily basis by the workshop companies and the casting profession. Instead, Back Stage West has chosen to mostly relay anecdotes showing the benefits of paying a CD.

When the illegal pay-to-play dynamic is removed from the casting-acting relationship, only then will real opportunities for actors flourish. As Ms. Jackson rightly noted at the end of her article, if you decide not to pay a fee to get to know a CD, "you may have to work harder to gain access to certain casting offices, but when you do, you can be certain the courtship is genuine." Bingo. 

-- Billy DaMota
Casting director, Los Angeles
www.donotpay.org

Comments

[akter]

A writer/producer friend of mine-who has had a few bad experiences with casting directors from HIS perspective-has suggested half-jokingly that I should send MONEY to CD's along with my headshot and resume mailings. However, I wonder if even THAT type of action would get the point across to these creepy elements of "the casting community".