As faithful, unpaid readers well know, in the past few months I’ve participated in several shows at the marvelous UCB comedy theatre in Hollywood. In my most recent show there, SketchCram, one of the skits went well enough that UCB decided to shoot it as one of their short films. (Several shorts a month are posted on ucbcomedy.com/videos).
SAG and AFTRA are considering merging with one another. Although the merger won’t move into high gear until 2011, it’s especially important for SAG members to understand this issue now, because next week they’ll be voting for new members of the SAG Board of Directors. I’m a candidate, and I’m running on the slate of Membership First.
Most actors, myself included, are in favor of a merger. There’s little benefit in splitting our screen work between two unions. However — it must be a merger under terms which strengthen actors’ voice and preserve their independence. This seems pretty obvious, right? If a merger won’t strengthen actors, why do it at all?
To help produce this result, I and my fellow candidates for the Board in Membership First want a simple solution: All Actors in One Union.
The sticking point to this is that AFTRA has many non-actor members (broadcasters, weathermen, etc.). Some people are so eager for a merger that they’d like to bring non-actors over into an all-actors union. But doing so would likely mean that these non-actors would vote on actors’ contracts.
There are a couple very big problems with this. First, non-actors are not familiar with actors’ concerns (residuals, contract terms for different types of roles, etc.). [And the reverse is true: Actors don’t know the concerns of non-actors—although in one big union, actors would be voting on their contracts.]
The second problem is that non-actors don’t work under actors’ contracts. They aren’t affected by such contracts. If the contracts improve, they don’t benefit from them.
Therefore, they’re unlikely to vote with actors on standing tough on certain contract issues: Why would (or should) non-actors risk losing days at work by voting to improve someone else’s contract?
Also, because the non-actors would be a minority in the merged actors’ union, they’d likely seek to increase their voice by voting as a bloc (i.e., all in the same way) and voting very actively. Doing so would give non-actors a power and influence much greater than their actual percentage of membership. So it’s easy to imagine the outcome of a close (or even somewhat) vote being determined by non-actors.
The end result: Actors would no longer be in sole control of deciding on the contracts which determine their salary, residuals, Pension & Health plans, etc., etc.
Please preserve the entire purpose of merging: To strengthen actors’ voice and control.
All Actors in one union.
So if you’re a SAG member (or know one, then please tell them):
Yes, I know, it’s been quite some time since my last post. What a bad blogger am I! And after sixteen (!) years of Catholic school, can you just imagine the guilt I’m heaping on myself??
Life, that heartless force, has repeatedly intervened by throwing to-do’s into my path. Among the obstacles are work, sleep, traffic, and saving puppies from burning buildings. You know, the usual.
So to help ease me back into posting, a fun link for you fans of Sesame Street is here.
Yesterday the Screen Actors announced the candidates for its upcoming 2010 Board election. The listing is here.
Although I know you’re just dying to spend 10 minutes reading all the names, I’ll cut to the chase: Yours truly is running yet again. (Must be something in the water..)
The candidates’ names are drawn at random for listing on the ballot. I got #43, a number first identified by the ancient Egyptians as the single luckiest number under the sun.
Significances of the number forty-three: It’s the 14th smallest prime number; I-43 runs through Wisconsin; and 43A.D. began on a Tuesday. I mean, seriously, how can I lose?
Ballots are mailed out to members on August 23. Don’t forget
Actors just starting out often ask me for advice, and I’m always happy to answer. I haven’t yet been sued for my advice, so I’ve decided to tempt fate by starting to offer some here from time to time. As if there weren’t enough wanton destruction in this world. I don’t promise that it will be profound, or even useful to everyone, only that it’s worked for me and/or other actors I know. Which means, of course, absolutely zilch unless it works for you.
Numero uno: Study yourself and your results. Make notes. Improve.
So many factors come into play during performance that it’s nearly impossible to say with certainty what caused us to soar or sink on any given day. It could be too much or too little of a frighteningly wide range of things: food, sleep, sex, prep, exercise, emotion, etc., etc.
However, over time patterns develop. If identified, they can help reduce the number of unknown factors. But you can’t expect yourself to see a pattern if all the data is bouncing around upstairs with all the other stuff in your head.
Therefore, get it out of your head. After every rehearsal, performance, etc., make brief notes on how you did and what might have contributed. Are you better at comedy pre-workouts and dramas post? Does talking to your bf/gf right beforehand help or hurt you? Do you perform better when you have the lines down cold (generally it’s yes, but perhaps you’re a freak of nature and the answer’s no)?
Once you guess at something’s good/bad effect on you, test your theory. If you’re right, then add/avoid it immediately. The sooner you discipline yourself, the sooner it will become a habit, and the sooner you’ll have one fewer obstacle to performance. Great acting is difficult enough without us making it any harder on ourselves.
Good luck.
