What is it to be present?

Tom:  You and I have talked a lot about being present, and all acting teachers do.  They say Be present, live in the moment, live in the now.  But… how do we make that happen?  And how can we tell when we actually ARE in the present?

Austin:  Man, this is such a seemingly simple conversation to have – be present! – but there is so much going on in an actor’s mind at any given moment that this is way more complicated than it appears.  

Tom:  I agree.

Austin:  But I’m not sure there is a cut-and-dried explanation for how to do this.  

Tom:  I was afraid you were going to say that.

Austin:  Sure you can and SHOULD be focused on your objectives, focused on fulfilling tasks, listening to your scene partners, and focusing outside yourself, but this is all while doing an activity that you most likely have put hundreds of hours of rehearsal into so you’re repeating history, so to speak.  You have to be present in an event that has already occurred.  And yet hasn’t!

Tom:  I like what you’re getting at: that the best way to live in the moment - even though you’re saying lines you’ve said hundreds of times - is to put the focus outside of yourself.  Why do you think that helps?

Austin:  I think because giving yourself a task to do – something that can actually be fulfilled and completed – keeps your mind busy doing what it can naturally do.  We live our lives problem-solving, and most of that is done in real time.  We don’t have time to THINK about something other than finishing the task.  

Tom:  I like that.

Austin:  But I also think there are personal complications which could be addressed as to why putting focus off ourselves is important.  Do you agree?

Tom:  I do.  It’s like if we “find” the other person, we “lose” ourselves.  In a sense, we’re tricking ourselves.  Sure, there’s an audience, and yes, we’ve rehearsed this thing to death, but if we put our focus on someone or something other than ourselves, then yes, we do seem to become more present.  It’s all a great trick, isn’t it?

Austin:  A MASSIVE trick!  I love that you used the word “find,” because great acting relies so much on making discoveries.

Tom:  Finding something.

Austin:  Right.

Tom:  But then I come to the question: how can you tell if you’re present or not?  And the second part of that question, what if you don’t think you are, but the audience thinks you are?  (And vice versa?)

Austin:  Wow!  You aren’t pulling any punches with the questions today, are you?

Tom:  I blame it on the chicken chili.

Austin:  First off, I want to bring up something about the actor who doesn’t believe in technique because they want it to be all organic and “in the moment.”  They believe working that way—without technique—is “real” or “present.”  It’s like that great breakthrough in rehearsal when everything fires at once and we all want to get that again so we believe the only way to do that is to wing it. 

Tom:  Deadly.

Austin:  I know, right?  And what happens the next time?  Do you change everything all over again so you can wing it and make that magic happen?  

Tom:  I love that you bring up trying to re-create the magic of a previous rehearsal or performance, because we all experience that, and it’s dangerous.  My own opinion is that we shouldn’t copy, we shouldn’t imitate, we shouldn’t replicate, we shouldn’t re-create, but we can make adjustments.  

Austin:  Yes.

Tom:  Our intentions will probably be the same, but maybe we tweak the tactic.  Or maybe we just pay attention to what the scene partner is giving us and it happens to be slightly different than the night before.  And THAT will create our own life that is different and unique … and present.

Austin:  Exactly!  I like to think of it as breathing new life in an existing choice.

Tom:  I like it! 

Austin:  And as for knowing if I’m being present or not, I think it goes in ebbs and flows.  I mean, we have to remember our lines and our blocking and why we’re out there in the first place, and most of this is – or should be – second-hand because of all the rehearsal.  But if I’m focused on what I want and if I’m getting through to the other person, then I feel there.  It’s when I flub a line and start kicking myself I know I’m no longer in the moment.  I’m in the past.

Tom:  That’s really true.  However, sometimes you see a play that’s entirely too slick and not “present” at all, and the only real moment is when actors go up on lines and then you see a real exchange between human beings on stage.  Funny how it can go both ways like that.

Austin:  Oh it totally can!!  But that’s why we have to accept that anything can happen, and our ability to deal with it (i.e., living in the moment) is how we can make those adjustments.

Tom:  Exactly.

Austin:  I like what you said about not replicating a performance.  And I think this is were laziness creeps in.  It’s easy to rest on your work and rehearsal and just coast through night after night.  And we all know and have worked with these actors – and, sadly, BEEN that actor – but what is thrilling about a performance is sending that new action or intention at every moment you’re acting.  THAT is what makes one night different from the next.  Even if on the outside it looks the same.  It can’t be because it wasn’t.  It was something new.

Tom:  I love that!  And there have been those times when it IS difficult to be present and alive.  I did 350 performances of a play once and there were nights - not gonna lie - when I struggled with it being in the now.  It was tough.  And then someone would get sick and an understudy would go on who wasn’t totally prepared, and man oh man, everyone’s focus went up a notch and the play just took off.

Austin:  Because it forces you to get off yourself and it forces you to work for something and that is living in the now.  Actively pursuing something.

Tom:  The word “actively” is huge there.  Love that.  You used the word “past” a little earlier and that reminds me of a book we’ve talked about before, THE ACTOR AND THE TARGET, and a quote he has in there about living in the now.  It’s something like, “The past is about regrets, the future is about anxiety, so live in the now.”  That’s it, you know.  On stage, we just can’t allow ourselves to go either backwards or forwards - we just have to be present.

Austin:  So happy you mentioned that book!  I have to say, Declan Donnelan’s whole chapter about fear and the present is spot on!  I love that he talks about the present as a gift—a PRESENT!  That the past can never be reclaimed and the future can never be known so all we have is now.  Great advice for living, to boot!!  But so crucial for the actor.  What are some traps you’ve encountered where this becomes difficult?

Tom:  We’ve kind of touched on one: living in the past.  Trying to re-create a particularly good performance.  There was a show once where one night things just HAPPENED.  Emotional, honest, true connection -- all of it.  And the next night I wasn’t as present, but I tried to force it.  And the next night I forced even more.  And the next night even more.  And finally my director took me aside and we went for a walk and he said I was working too hard and I didn’t need to, and actually, what I was doing before the breakthrough night was pretty good in itself.  That gave me so much freedom that it ALLOWED me to relax and not force, and good things started happening again.  I’m so thankful I had a sensitive director who pointed out to me what I was doing and taught me that lesson in a respectful (and gentle) manner.

Austin:  You were lucky.

Tom:  Tell me about it. 

Austin:  And what a huge discovery about yourself and your work.

Tom:  It’s true.  And as for the future, well, in any audition where I’m thinking about the RESULT, my focus is completely screwed up.  Instead of thinking about pursuing intentions, my focus is on, “If I get this job, then I’ll….”  You know?

Austin:  Don’t I!!  I really love your story about the breakthrough because I’m fascinated with the desire to FEEL the discovered sensation over and over again.  Can I ask you, was your forceful work just that, to re-feel that moment, or was it that the sensation of discovery actually felt NEW?

Tom:  Good question.  Tough question.  I think the former.  This all happened when I was right out of college and I’d never really experienced emotion on stage, and I must say it surprised me, and it felt good.  You know, it felt like I was ACTING.  And so I wanted that feeling again, probably entirely for selfish reasons.  Yes, I thought it served the play, but if I’m honest, I was probably less concerned with serving the play and more concerned with showing off that I could access emotion on stage.

Austin:  I wouldn’t feel bad about being selfish.  I think that’s natural, and I know I feel that way from time to time.  If I’m honest, I think that sensation of feeling is one of the things that draws me back every time.  But what’s great is when we learn to have faith in all the other work so that we don’t NEED to feel that feeling to KNOW we are working ... and truthfully acting!

Tom:  It’s true.  And it’s why I gravitate more toward the word “personalization” than “emotion,” because it implies more truthful acting more often.  How about you?  What are some moments when you’ve found yourself really present?  And moments when you’ve found it difficult?  

Austin:  I was trying to dodge this one, but you came back around!!! 

(Austin shakes his fists at the heavens.)

Tom:  Gotcha!

Austin:  You know, I’ve honestly only felt TRUE presence a couple of times on stage.  I know that sounds odd and almost embarrassing, but I find it to be something elusive.  That isn’t to say I don’t feel in the moment or truthful on stage, but I had a moment once that transcended something.  I was doing a show and there was a moment when I was buttoning up my shirt on stage.  It was a Pinter play so there was much more going on than me just buttoning up my shirt, but there was something about that moment where – as an actor – I was right there.  I could feel my fellow actors.  I could feel the audience with me.  And I could feel that I was fulfilling what the character was there to do and it was all happening in the now.  Talk about addictive!  Maybe it was just how everything fell into place.  Maybe I had some exceptional focus that night.  Maybe I was actually not thinking about anything other than what I was there to do and THAT is what presence feels like, but it was an amazing sensation and one that I chase every performance.  And right there I’m admitting to living in the past!!

Tom:  That is gospel, my friend.  And what a great story.  No, I don’t think you’re living in the past - not at all.  Because you’re chasing a kind of perfection.  That’s not living in the past; that’s present.  You’re not re-creating, you’re using new text, new characters, and you’re chasing.  That’s awesome!!  But this all makes me think this is far more difficult than we give it credit for.  If you’re saying you’ve only achieved it a few times (I don’t believe you, by the way, because I know you’re an amazing actor), but then why don’t we feel it MOST of the time?  It should be simple, right?  Putting our focus on someone or something?  What prevents it?  Are we getting in our way?  Living in the past or the future?  What?

Austin:  I think you just said it all!  There are SO many variables.  First off, I’ve said it before, but our egos and that NEED to please drive so many of us OUT of the present.  There are also our colleagues messing with us, or our own impressions derailing us.  Plus, any number of external forces that can knock us out of the moment.  I’ve seen many an actor actually FEEL something and that discovery kicks them out of the present.  So I think you are spot on to say this IS difficult and takes MUCHO hard work!

Tom:  Amen.  And maybe it’s as you said: there are times we just need to button the shirt.

Right for the Type vs. Right for the Role

Tom:  Today we want to talk about auditioning with material that shows off your skills as opposed to what’s more right for the part.  

Austin:  And more specifically, knowing or showcasing your “type” versus your range.

Tom:  This is an interesting one, and let me ask you this: Why is this on your mind?  

Austin:  I guess because I’m doing some auditioning these days—

Tom:  More power to you.

Austin:  …and I can’t help but think how to apply my life lessons to training.

Tom:  Cool.  Well let me start with the obvious.

Austin:  Please do.

Tom:  I’ve often thought that when you’re first starting out in a market, you should play your strength.  Get in the door, get recognized, get those first roles doing what you do best, and THEN you can start exploring range.  What do you think?  Do you agree?  

Austin: Well, this is something I’ve often thought about – do I try to showcase my strengths across the board or do I focus on what the business is going to “see” me as?  I think all actors want to go into every audition and do the most WOW-factor work.  

Tom:  Absolutely.

Austin:  We want to give the director or casting director a full range of our potential.  But is that the best approach?

Tom:  This makes me think of fishing.  I remember once I was on this stream fishing a big school of fish and I was having absolutely no luck.  And this guy came up, stood a moment, watched the pool, made a couple of specific casts, and pulled out a nice rainbow trout.  As he walked away, he said to me, “Fish the fish, not the school.”  The meaning being, if we try to do it all, if we try to go for EVERYTHING, we end up being general and not successful at ANYTHING.  

Austin:  I love that story!  Fish the fish, not the school.  It’s kinda like in poker: play the man not the hand.  

Tom:  Great analogy, and it explains why I’m so terrible at poker. 

Austin:  So let me ask this.  I’m a firm believer in transformational acting and that actors need training that gives them the tools to play any number of roles, but are we muddying the waters?  By training “proper” or “classically” trained actors, are we developing too many actors who are TOO good at playing everything and will inevitably fall through the cracks?

Tom:  My answer is No, and here’s why: classical training is just good training.  Period.  It broadens range, and even if an actor favors contemporary material over Shakespeare, that so-called classical training will make him/her BETTER at the contemporary stuff because the classical training gives range.  

Austin:  Okay.

Tom:  The “problem” with classical training is if the actors believe too much in the training and forget they’re supposed to be interesting, dynamic, living, breathing characters.  Too often, the “classically trained” actor is too focused on showing off their training.  They play their training, not their character.

Austin:  Great point, and I think the studio is a place where an actor SHOULD play off type and experiment.  For example, if you’re a shy, reserved actor, then maybe you should tackle Henry V or Lady Macbeth.  But if you’re going to a general audition, do you think it’s inadvisable to break out this work?

Tom:  That’s such a tough question because I think there are so many variables involved.  For one, how good are you at this other work?  If you’re good, you can do any role in the world and people will sit up and take notice.  You can do awful monologues and it won’t matter - if you’re good.  But if you’re only so-so, it’s better to stick with your strength.  Don’t you think?

Austin:  Well, once again we’re back to trusting that if the work is done specifically and diligently then the folks on the other side of the table will sit up and take notice.  I like to believe this, but too often I worry that they’re questioning the thought process behind the choice of material.  

Tom:  I see what you’re saying.

Austin:  I’m definitely in the school of thought that if you can do something – and really shine in it – then you should go for it and challenge another’s way of thinking, their imagination. 

Tom:  I agree.

Austin:  But I think that takes even more courage and even MORE work to be successful.  

Tom:  I agree.  It takes A LOT of courage.

Austin:  I also think this comes down to being honest about the training you want to pursue.  Do you think this has a difference with film and television?  For instance, if you’re going for a career in film and television, then should your focus be more on perfecting your type and the truth of “you” as an actor?

Tom:  I’m on the fence about the difference between film/TV vs. stage.  I think good acting is good acting is good acting.  

Austin:  Hear, hear!

Tom:  Now camera work needs a different scale than stage, no question, but it needs just as much “truth” as stage.  A different kind of truth perhaps, but still truth.  I think when it comes to type, actors have to help agents and casting directors out (and directors and producers), by doing material that is “appropriate” for them.  I think the problem comes when we’re trying to please that other side of the table.  Instead, the more we can put our focus on “the target,” the more truthful and interesting and engaging we’ll be … and we’ll get cast.  Don’t you think?

Austin:  Of course, and I’m playing devil’s advocate here because I believe it’s important to understand all angles.  And one that comes up for me is if an actor only wants to act within a specific range of their experiences – then I think the idea of staying close to home or type starts to be a factor.  “Why should I try those choices because in real life I wouldn’t do that?” or “I’m never going to be cast in that role so why should I try?”  That sorta thing...which I think is lazy, to be quite frank.

Tom:  I don’t disagree.  And from a training point of view, yes, all actors should be stretched as much as possible.  I was assigned the role of Big Daddy in an acting class once.  Now, you know me; I’m no Big Daddy – even after all the pasta I’ve eaten this year.  But it did help stretch me as an actor - no pun intended - and find a sense of largeness.  But I don’t find fault with actors who play a more limited range … as long as they play it well.  Some cobblers make the same types of shoes their whole life and are brilliant at it, and good for them.  And some make different types of shoes, and good for them as well.

Austin:  This is exactly where I was hoping this conversation was going to go today.  I think that it is amazing you were assigned Big Daddy, because THAT is what acting is all about.  And that is what training SHOULD be about.  The process and the growth of each actor’s skills.  I think that the “type” recognition almost plays into some of our previous chats about craft vs. career, so I once again find myself thinking about that dualist quality an actor has to embody.  

Tom:  You’re right.  And by the way, I was dreadful as Big Daddy.  But… you’re right.  For training purposes, it was great.  But I want to go back to that phrase we used earlier: proper training.  I think this is where actors get into trouble.  Classical training and proper training can - if the actor isn’t careful - lead an actor to trying to show off, trying to please others (casting directors, audiences, etc.), as opposed to being a living, breathing, interesting character.  This is the primary BALANCE in a training program - learning the work … and then hiding it.

Austin:  You know, I always think of an old classmate from drama school who was such a technician that you could see the work – but it wasn’t the work of an actor, it was the work of a character.  I was always so impressed with her commitment. 

Tom:  I know what you’re saying.

Austin:  Something I’ve been thinking about since I suggested this topic is the level of work that is necessary for an actor to play “against” type.  Obviously, the industry is going to see you as who you are – your race, your sex, your coloring, your size, your personality – and they’re going to place you based on those factors.  BUT!  When you use the training that a “proper” acting studio offers you, then you have the tools to truly show them something different.  Do you think so?

Tom:  I wish I did.  But I’m not convinced that every actor graduating from every acting studio will have the tools to play a wide variety of roles.  That would be nice, of course, but I don’t think it’s the case.  And frankly, I don’t think that’s terrible.  As an audience member, I’m really not looking to see an actor’s range, I’m looking to see if they’re good in that TV show or that film or that play.  And if I see them again and they’re playing a similar role, well, if it serves that project, fine.  I think it’s exciting when actors can play a variety of roles, but I don’t hold it against actors whose range is more limited.  And I don’t think every acting studio can possibly make every actor have incredible range.  It’s a great goal, but I just don’t think it’s possible.  Am I cynical?

Austin:  I don’t think so.  Obviously, I’m optimistic and an advocate of range because that’s the kind of actor I aspire to be.  Is that the right fit for EVERY actor?  No.  But I still believe that actors should push their limits, but be honest with their type.  

Tom:  Exactly – I like the way you put that.

Austin:  And you’re right, as audience members we shouldn’t be looking for ridiculous range.  We should be captivated by a character’s story.  I just think that the better an actor can facilitate that goal, the greater the contribution they can offer.

Tom:  I could break it down into two categories: training and career.  For training, absolutely, stretch like crazy.  Go against type.  Push the boundaries.  Absolutely.  But when it comes to the career, I think it can/should evolve.  Find your type.  Explore it, perfect it.  If you get tired playing that type, stretch it.  Go another way.  But I do get nervous when actors early on in their careers are desperate to show “how good they are” and how “versatile” they are because then they’re not being true to the material; they’re trying to please.  They’re fishing the school, not the fish.

Austin:  Exactly.  An actor’s ego is a wicked, wicked adversary!  It’s the thing that will bring an actor down no matter WHAT type they are! 

Tom:  Amen.

Austin:  I was listening to a casting director the other week talk about how actors all want to come in and SHOW them how good they are.  They tap dance to get a glass of water.  Sometimes – and this goes back to doing the work and then hiding it – we have to remember to have FAITH in the work.  

Tom:  I love that story.  And I think it goes back to other variables, too, like whether it’s a general audition or whether you’re auditioning for a specific role.  But even if you’re auditioning for a specific role of a certain type, there are a lot of ways to play any given role.  And casting directors talk about seeing hundreds of actors do the same role in the same way and when an actor comes in and does something a little bit different, presto!  That gets their attention.  So it’s playing true to the role, and using your imagination.  And letting type take care of itself.

Austin:  Yeah, because like it or not...you are who you are.

Tom:  Absolutely!

Austin:  It’s interesting how all our conversations tend to melt and morph into so many of the same things.  Either that or we’re really boiling acting down to a few very simple rules!

Tom:  Now THAT’S interesting – and maybe a future topic:  If there are a few simple rules for acting, what are they?  And let me just add, you and I have played father/son before, so the next time I’m offered Big Daddy, I’m going to insist you play Brick.  Deal?

Austin:  I already got the gingerness covered!  Deal!

The Craft of Acting vs. the Business of Acting

Tom:  One of the things you and I have talked about in the past is the balance between the craft of acting and the business of acting.  For a lot of actors, “business” seems like a dirty word.  Why do you think that is?

Austin:  I think – and this is mostly me projecting from my own experiences – that we start out in the arts because we want to be creative, we want to make a contribution to society.  As such, “business” has been portrayed as the enemy of creativity.  But honestly, the arts and money have had a love/hate relationship since the dawn of time!

Tom:  It’s true, and while we may all want to be “artists” (picture me saying that while flipping a scarf around my neck), the fact is we have to be businesspeople, too.  

Austin:  I’m going to imagine you in a beret as well.

Tom:  Well, duh.  But maybe we should step back from our scarf and beret and define some terms.  When we talk about craft, what are we talking about?

Austin:  The craft has evolved into the process and the creative contribution of the actor.  It’s the element that we have control over, if that makes sense.  

Tom:  Absolutely.

Austin:  I think it’s also the passion-driven center of an actor’s creativity.  Now I sound like I’m the one wearing the scarf!

Tom:  We’ll trade the scarf back and forth.  I like “passion-driven” a lot.  One definition of craft says “a skilled activity or profession,” and that’s what drama schools and private classes are all about: working on those various skills that make us better actors.  And maybe that’s the rub: we spend so many years working on the skill, that few people bother to mention the business side as well.

Austin:  Well, actors NEED to be more business-minded in today’s market more than ever!  Maybe fifty years ago an actor could focus on being a hired gun or going to work for a repertory company and all the business side of things would be handled by others.  But now each actor is their own company AND product!

Tom:  Yes!  I just read Carolyne Barry’s excellent book (Hit the Ground Running) and there’s a quote in there that actors are “the CEO, VP of Finance, Personnel, Housekeeping/Maintenance, Marketing Development AND you are also the PRODUCT!”  Exactly what you’re saying.  

Austin:  It’s true.

Tom:  And I think this comes as quite a shock to many actors when they leave college.  Which raises the question: how should this issue be treated in colleges and training programs?

Austin:  I believe we’re seeing a major shift in creative training here in the United States.  There’s a stronger push toward artistic entrepreneurship, and I have a classmate from grad school who’s spearheading a new curriculum in this very subject down at SMU.  

Tom:  That’s really interesting.

Austin:  Actors have to be given at least a taste of this information at some point within the training, but with funding issues and cutbacks, it’s difficult to address these issues within a four-year undergrad or three-year post grad.  I mean, how do you work in these classes within a full creative curriculum?

Tom:  Balance.  It all comes back to balance.  I agree with the notion of a “taste” of this information.  Where I have trouble - and maybe I’m just playing devil’s advocate here - is if there’s too much attention, too many classes devoted to “the business.”  

Austin:  I know.

Tom:  I would even use as an example our own graduate school training where there was virtually zero emphasis on the business.  It was all on the craft - movement, speech, voice, acting, styles, etc., etc. - and while there was a major showcase at the end of that time, the thought was that if you are seriously “trained” to be the best craftsperson that you can be, the rest will take care of yourself.  Now I know that’s not a popular philosophy, but I have to say … I kind of like it.

Austin:  And that IS the way, in my heart, I would have things be as well.  But we all know that’s not always the case and it’s no longer the world in which we live.  

Tom:  True enough.  But I don’t know how much faith I have in a lot of training programs in terms of the balance they give.  I see a lot of young actors paying more attention to their websites and their number of Twitter followers than their craft, and I want to say to them: Get back to the acting classroom.  Yes, work on your website, do all that, but get in acting shape!  And keep in acting shape!  Do you know what I mean?

Austin:  I DO, and I’m right there with you.  And I believe that an actor HAS to know why they’re acting to really grow as an actor.  If they’re more interested in the career side of things, then their craft suffers.  I mean, if you’re more focused on getting the job and what that job could do for your career then the odds are that you’re going to blow it because your priorities are in the wrong place.  Because the bottom line is that a strong set of skills is what is going to play a major role in booking the gig WHEN the business opportunities arise.

Tom:  Absolutely.  

Austin:  Do you think this is a maturity issue?

Tom:  I don’t, actually.  I think it has to do with being “young” in the business.  

Austin:  Maybe more of an artistically mature idea.  

Tom:  Exactly.

Austin:  I keep coming back to my own experience, and I know that even after four years of undergrad and a couple years in the business before the three years at Yale, by that last semester I was full of the Kool-Aid and ready to go out and accept my "fame."  A fame I really had no idea how to manage.  BUT!  The career was the major focus, at THAT point, and I wonder why?  And all I can think is that I was just chomping at the bit to discover or experience the career I had spent years fantasizing about, but could someone have offered better advice or was this just my own shortcoming?

Tom:  First off, I don’t think you have any shortcomings.  Secondly, I don’t know about the advice that we receive at that age.  I think we drink the Kool-Aid - and hopefully it’s the Kool-Aid of craft - but we’re going to hear what we want to hear.  Teachers can cite all the dreadful statistics in the world, but students are going to go out and try it anyway.  As well they should!  

Austin:  Right.

Tom:  Maybe the “taste” we should be offering is simple: you need to spend 30 minutes a day (or whatever the number) on the business.  Work on your website.  Iron your shirts.  Be prepared for auditions.  Have a great headshot.  Etc., etc.  The rest is being a darn good actor, and being as authentic as possible when you go into that audition room.

Austin:  Exactly!  Wesley Fata used to always remind us that “the cream rises to the top,” and I loved that because it put the focus on being the best actor you could be.  But what if the cream doesn’t rise?  Are you then forced to accept that you aren’t the cream or maybe you aren’t working hard enough?  

Tom:  I think a lot of it comes back to what we’ve talked about recently: luck.  

Austin:  I knew you were going to say that.

Tom:  Luck is a HUGE variable in all this.  There are sooooo many talented actors out there, that you need some luck.  You can put in all the work in the world - and the right kind of work - but it may not land you the big break.  However, I go back to what the golfer Gary Player once said, “The harder I work, the luckier I get.”  

Austin:  Man, I love that quote!

Tom:  All you can do is work hard at it ALL: the craft, the business, everything, and hope that some chips fall your way.  The fact is, life is unfair, and that’s especially true for artists, but there’s no getting around it.  Don’t you think?  

Austin:  It’s funny because after we started talking about “luck,” I thought that maybe luck isn’t the best word.  Maybe it’s “chance.”  I think that luck might imply that some are lucky and others are not but chance is a great equalizer.  Chance comes to us all in many shapes and sizes and it’s just what we have to deal with everyday.  

Tom:  Chance is such an interesting word – I’ve never thought about it before.  I guess the ONLY thing I prefer about the word luck is that you can “make your own luck,” as the saying goes, and that implies being active, and working at it.  And while there are those cases of actors getting jobs (and sometimes careers) SOLELY on luck, they’re by far the exception.  I tremble when I see actors not doing the work and instead relying on luck to pull them through.

Austin:  So if we agree that the taste of the business side is needed, then how can we articulate and pass that on without sounding bitter or jaded or even cynical about the industry side of things?

Tom:  I think it all comes down to how you frame it.  I’m really not bitter or cynical about the business at all … because I recognize it’s a fickle beast.  Maybe it took a while for me to reach that mindset, but that’s where I’m at.  And if you can say to actors early on, “Listen, we’re going to focus on the craft of acting for these four years, but we’ll give you a taste of the business from time to time so you’re prepared for that, but please know: there are many, many variables out there and you may very well not get what you want.”  It goes back to how you frame it, don’t you think?

Austin:  Like you, I don’t feel bitter anymore, but I’ve gone through some bitter moments, and I do think that keeping bitterness at bay does take a healthy dose of faith.  Whatever that faith is is up to you, of course, but faith in something does keep one happier I find.  

Tom:  Man, do I ever agree with you there!

Austin:  And as for “the taste of the business,” I believe it should be examples of our own experiences.  For me, I try to relay all the mistakes I’ve made along the way because I feel I might be able to help a young actor avoid the pitfalls that tripped me up.  

Tom:  Sure.

Austin:  But I like to frame the conversation as a set of facts and not an end result.  More like: here are the facts based on my experience and the experiences of others that I’ve collected, but that doesn’t mean this is law.  If that makes sense.

Tom:  It makes perfect sense.  But here’s the challenge: it’s like the fable of the six blind men and the elephant, and they each experienced a different part of an elephant.  So one touched the elephant’s tail and thought an elephant was like a rope, and one touched the elephant’s side and thought an elephant was like a wall, etc.  Same with actors.  Every single person’s experiences are so wildly different that it sometimes seems we’re in different fields altogether.  

Austin:  You are so right, and it’s not just with acting that every one of us will have dramatically different experiences, but that sharing can remind us that we’re not alone.  

Tom:  True.

Austin:  I was with a former classmate recently and we were talking about auditions and he said “I never think about THEY anymore,” and I LOVED that because we all talk about the struggle to give “them” what they want and it always messes with the craft side of it.  Listening to a fellow actor discuss the same struggles and confirm the same lessons learned gives me more confidence to put faith back into the work … and let the chips fall as you say.

Tom:  I love that about the THEY.  And you’ve also hit on a hugely important point, which is the value of friends and mentors.  I think the college/grad school experience should prepare for the business and give the taste, but where we can most learn is from those already out there and doing it, people taking us under their wing.  That happened for me when I got out of school and I’ll never forget it, and I tried to do it for others.  It’s like professional sports – the veterans taking the rookies under their wings.  It’s really necessary.

Austin:  That’s a wonderful way to look at the actor training experience, isn’t it?  We are more mentors than “teachers.”

Tom:  Which implies more give-and-take between the two, less “I’m teaching you,” and more, “Let me share what I know, knowing full well you can and will take it from there.”

Austin:  Well put.

Tom: The bottom line: it IS a business, and a craft, and it’s all …. a balance.

Austin:  And having faith that you CAN balance it all if you work hard and have a little luck!

Tom:  Amen.