So JK has left Christopher Little and they are talking of sueing... why? Surely the millions are enough - why give it to the lawyers? Traditionally actors and writers are never happy with their agents - because the agents don't pay them enough attention to make them feel 'special' - and of course the agents are frustrated with their clients because they behave like needy, selfish over grown children - but can they ever meet in the middle?
As an actor I could never leave things to my agent. The idea of sitting waiting for the phone to ring was totally alien to me, I just couldn't trust my career to someone trying to manage a list of actors that was too many to be realistic. I was proved right. All of my work, bar a commercial, a couple of training videos and a presenting job, came from my own endeavours. My first agent took this as an affront to their ability - but as their ability didn't stretch to getting me many auditions I didn't lose any sleep over it. In the end we parted company because i just wasn't getting enough jobs in the West End Musicals he was putting me up for. Really. Check my face for surprise. If he'd taken five minutes to think where my casting strengths might lie he would never have sent me up for any of them. It was lazy and dismissive - everything that is bad about agenting.
My second agent was totally different - he took time, he talked to me, he gave advice on photos, audition technique and welcomed my own efforts to get work - stepping in at the right time to negotiate on my behalf. It was teamwork and worked brilliantly. Better than that, when I met producers they all said they liked working with him - something that is hugely important in this business - which I didn't realise until much later.
There is often an unrealistic expectation of what an agent is to an actor. Firstly the idea that you are their primary concern (You're not, get over it.) Secondly that the agent spends as much time thinking about your potential as you do (If you're an actor NOBODY thinks about you as much as you do...) - and thirdly that you have the right to screw up an audition, but they don't have the right to miss an opportunity for you. Its a business arrangement, if they have taken the time to put you out there the least you can do is try not to f*ck it up. It is staggering the amount of turns who arrive at auditions without anything prepared and knowing NOTHING about what they are auditioning for. Grow up. Agents get you opportunities, they are not there to show you how to pay your bills by direct debit, tell you what colour you should paint your front door or advise whether you should wipe your bum front to back or back to front. In short, they are not your parents.
As a producer I saw a totally different side. Casting is hard. I'm sad to say the number of folk doing the rounds who just aren't good enough is a lot higher than Equity would like you to think. (Good actors take solace from this - there are fewer of you than the stats ever lead you to believe!) producing is the least appreciated of the roles. A producer spots, pitches, finances and takes responsibility for a show. People court you to get a job, then moan about it when they get it.
A good agent never sends you people who aren't suitable. A bad agent is just grateful you're seeing somebody off their lists. After a few castings where an agency repeatedly sent unsuitable actors we just stopped using them. No reflection on the actors. (I was once rushed a script for a West End Comedy - travelled down from Nottingham where I was working to audition with six others. We all lined up... I am 6'1", they were all 5'0... the part was for a jockey. The agent hadn't read beyond 'Actor required, Liverpudlian...')
When negotiating I was staggered how many agents (and Union reps) just didn't know the commercial realities of the business we are in. Making grand assumptions about the income from programmes and naive guesses about 'What people in Telly make' If an agent doesn't know what deals are being done how is the actor going to trust the deal they get? It worked in reverse too, with Unions and agents assuming we would always pay as little as possible. (Once Equity called our office, angry, threatening blacklisting us, and INSISTING we paid all the actors equity minimum in one of our live shows. This would have meant halving their wages...)
Worst of all is the agent who tries to use unreasonable leverage, threatening to close down filming, organising cartels with the actors and being offensive and rude to staff. We once told an actor we would no longer employ him if his agent didn't change their tactics. He brushed us off, saying that was their job. So we stopped using him. We had an easier life, he got an overdraft. Unless an actor is the name, the money, unfortunately the commercial truth is they are dispensable.
Its a business, nurture it.
So what has it been like as a writer? Many of the same rules apply regarding the easily bruised creative ego and the overly busy agent who is so busy being busy and tweeting about how busy they are that they haven't actually got time to be an agent. One agent completely screwed up by sending out the wrong version of a manuscript and tainting anyone's chances of reading it afresh again. They also apparently sent two other manuscripts out to 16 publishers all of whom just said 'No'. Via a different agent two of those same publishers said yes, very quickly. Now I'm not saying the first one never sent anything out at all but...
The publishers use the literary agents as a clearing house - a filtering system to stop them being inundated. This is fine - but puts the pressure on busy agencies to filter the mass of unsolicited manuscripts. It also takes the direct option away from authors, giving the agents more power in the equation, but also inappropriately turning them into first stop editors too.
The biggest difference I have found is the impression of ownership. Now, this might be agency specific, but my belief is that when a writer writes a book and an agent sells it, the only rights that pass over, and which the agent enjoys a percentage of, are those named in the deal. Being represented does not mean being owned. Every idea I have is owned by me until a deal is signed - and that goes for all rights associated with it. The BBC do this in their contracts, they specify that all your IP created whilst in their employ is theirs (a totally immoral stance if you ask me) This is why I won't sign a contract with an agent. Get the deal and enjoy the benefits, have me under contract and you will get lazy. (This is of course assuming I still deliver the goods too!)
This is about realistic expectations. As a writer what I need from an agent is an honest and constructive dialogue about what I'm writing, where it might be placed and, frankly, if its good enough. As an actor I need to know about my ideal casting, what the people I'm auditioning for are like, and approaches for the audition. As a producer I need suitable actors suggested, who arrive prepped for the audition. As an agent I need writers who keep delivering, because it is about the book and not the author, and actors who prepare properly. But then if everyone did all that it would make for a pretty boring industry...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment