The Starmaker wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:43:02 -0600, "rrr" <rpeterNOSPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>> "The Starmaker" <starmaker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:93ji641jcnq4gv71r829qtt6mr3tpfrrfu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> I know this may sound to far fetch..
>>> but I believe for example,
>>> Why should an actor
>>> have to take the day off from
>>> work to go to an audition, and risk
>>> losing that job or pay for the day..
>>> when they can charge for it.
You write as though this has happened to you ... several times.
>>>
>>> Let the studios pay actors for the privilege of auditioning them.
>>>
>>> Maybe, there could be a directory, or web site with the picture of the
>>> actor, with bio and the price listed for the privilege of auditioning
>>> them.
>>>
>>> I'll go even a step further...
>>> maybe the Screen Actors Guild could demand that all of it's members
>>> are to be paid an "auditioning fee".
>>>
>>> I think that's fair.
>> Fair it may be but the law of supply and demand says it just ain't
>> happening. When 90% of SAG members are not working on any given day,
they
>> have a lot of members who are glad for the op****tunity to seek acting
work
>> without getting paid.
>>
>> Peter
Exactly. For every role that's available, there
could be several hundred out-of-work actors who not
only desparately want the role but are willing to
forgo an auditioning fee (even one demanded by SAG)
in order to get a chance.
>>
>
> One of the purposes of implementing or mandating an "auditioning fee"
> is to protect actors from the law of supply and demand, and the abuses
> of the casting system.
>
> Like casting directors having auditions for roles that have been
> already secretly cast, but have the auditions anyway to cover up their
> inside casting. You know, all the abuses that exist. Sometimes a major
> star want to look at ****d actresses for fun so he holds "auditions".
>
> There's all kinds of abuses besides "law of supply and demand".
>
> It should be the Screen Actors Guild first priority to protect actors
> and members. Mandating an "audition fee" is a start.
Yes, the Screen Actors Guild should protect actors and
members but aren't most out-of-work actors not members
yet of SAG? They have to get real work in the business
in order to earn their SAG cards and pay the member****p
fee. While it would be noble for SAG to protect people
who are not members of SAG, if there's no financial
incentive to do so, they won't.
>
> If some major star wants to look at ****d women, let him pay for it.
> Why should he look at ****d women for free? Taking advantage of
> helpless people just seeking work.
>
> The Starmaker
>
> On a personal note...Yesterday, a girl I know called me and asked me
> if I would help her film a music video for her. She wanted me to go to
> her house and film her with her camera. Before I hanged up the phone I
> told her I want to film her ****d.
>
> When I finished with her directions, I then told her to take off all
> her clothes because I wanted her to do the same dance in the ****.
> She said "Why?". I said, "Because I want to have fun!"
> So she took off all her clothes and I filmed her ****d. And it was
> fun!
> She wasn't auditioning or anything, and I told her on the phone
> ahead of time, so I felt I wasn't taking advantage of her. But for
> Hollywood industry people to hold auditions just to look at pretty
> women is wrong in my book (probably fraudulent), if not immoral...and
> the actors risk their jobs and lively hood. An "audition fee"
> protects them. It cuts done on the abuses and economic hazards.
>
|
