Promises. We make them every day. When we tell someone we’ll do something, when we tell ourselves we’ll do something, when others tell us they’ll do something; in each instance, we are saying we will be responsible for making something happen. It can be a small thing like “I’ll make you a cup of coffee” or something large like, “I’ll take care of you.” No matter what, when we say we’ll do something, most of us try to actually do it. Does it always happen? No. Should we always expect it to happen? No. But there are different kinds of promises. Some are important, others less so. When a doctor says they will try to help us, that’s important. When a writer or director says they are going to give us a movie we have all been waiting to see, that is a kind of promise, but it may not ultimately be a very big deal when it doesn’t come to pass.

First of all, there is creative license to consider. If I were given the gift of a huge budget and studio backing to bring some of my favorite comic books to life, I’m positive my vision would not please everyone. And most comic book movies are in that boat. Fans want perfection and there are just too many potential stories to please everyone. So the way to go is to make something original, commit to it and do it well. We know this is possible not only because commercial art has pleased people throughout history. But also because great comic movies have been made and released before, mostly very recently.
In fact, Daredevil has been adapted to film and more recently (and spectacularly) to TV. I bring that example up because it came out about a week before Batman v Superman and dealt with many of the issues I ASSUMED would be dealt with in BvS. Assumptions are fodder for disappointment and probably should be avoided, but I’ll come back to that. Daredevil Season 2 on Netflix featured The Punisher and the title character, Daredevil, on a collision course becuse they viewed their roles in fighting crime very differently. For one, Daredevil has superhuman ability because of a childhood accident involving toxic chemicals. He can tell if people are lying, he can see in the dark, and he has had very special training to hone his abilities, including training as a Ninja (among many other fighting styles he’s mastered). In his other life, however, Daredevil is a blind lawyer named Matt Murdock who uses the legal system to fight the same battles by day he wages at night. Ultimately he believes in the law and that belief extends into his quest as a masked “hero.”
The Punisher is a regular man who has lived through some radical punishment himself. A war hero, he witnessed his family gunned down in front of him before taking a bullet to the head, apparently on his first full day back from war. Of course, he miraculously lived and now has a vendetta against those who took his family that will be applied to anyone and everyone he deems worthy of punishment. More than that, he will not only choose who deserves punishment, but he will be the one to give it to them.
That set up clearly defines the world view of the two characters before we see them collide, and those of us who are familiar with the two men from comic books, know these differing views will be the REAL battle between them; not that they need to fight because they are costumed heros but because Daredevil believes The Punisher goes way too far and The Punisher believes Daredevil is an ineffectual half-measure. Pretty good set up.

When we were told Batman v Superman was (FINALLY) being made, many of us were looking forward to a similar philisophical battle coming to the big screen featuring our favorite DC Comics heros, rather than some of Marvel’s coolest but frankly B-list characters. It’s not some notion a collective of fan-nerds invented in our heads. It’s a fight that has been taking place in comics since at least 1986 when Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns was released and featured a future world where Batman had to unretire to brutally dethrone a group of bad guys. In that world, there was only one real superhero left – Superman – and he had become little more than a government sanctioned lackey. Batman felt that defeated the purpose of fighting crime his way, which is to literally BE a punishing nightmare to criminals. So when Superman was tasked by the President to take Batman down, they fought about ideals, not just for the sake of fighting.
Especially considering the visual cues taken from this specific comic book, this is the promise that was made to us: Batman and Superman would battle because they both felt the other needed to be checked. In the wake of an alien battle that leveled Metropolis, Batman fears an overpowered, God-like being with no oversight. And Superman feels Batman goes way too far in his brutal vendetta against Gotham’s criminals. Pretty good set-up.

Every trailer, every clip, every interview given in the lead-up to release, reinforced this idea that we were getting more than just a battle between costumed heros. We would have to choose sides and in the end, there would be a real debate as to who was right. It would be the most amazing movie ever, and one we’ve been waiting our entire lives to see.

Then the movie was released. Turns out Batman’s motivation is pretty spot on: an alien war had been brought to Earth and even though Superman fought them off and saved Earth, the reality is that “if he wanted to, (he) could burn the whole place down.” And guess what? Batman’s right!! And though we were teased with some early scenes where Clark Kent reports on some of the Batman vigilante’s brutal ways, trampling on civil liberties, that idea seemed to stop cold about a third of the way into the movie as the villan, Lex Luthor, enters the landscape.
Once Luthor’s mechanations start to take shape – a PR battle against Superman and a desire to craft an anti-Kryptonian weapon made from wreckage of the downed World Engine from Man of Steel – the entire central fight goes off the rails. Lex captures Clark/Superman’s mother and with her hidden, demands Superman kill Batman. So they fight. And that’s it.

The fight is fine. Great even. And it goes down much the way I anticipated it would. Until the end. This is what I envisioned: Batman has traps set up to bother Superman, then uses the kryptonite gas to weaken him. But he doesn’t kill. He tells Superman, “I didn’t have to go easy on you (meaning, he could have killed him with the kryptonite). I want you to remember, in your most private moments, the one man who beat you.” See, the point isn’t to kill him. It’s to educate him that men are capable of and WILL take him down if he ever crosses the line. That he’s not all powerful and he’s not a god.
Instead, the fight happens and just when my storyline should have taken place, Superman – from under Batman’s boot – says something like, “He’s going to kill Martha. You have to stop him.” …Because both Superman and Batman’s mothers share the same name. Sigh.

All the peripheral story points notwithstanding, that gladiator match between the two heros should have been more than a Lex Luthor plot point. It’s the title of the movie for Superman’s sake!

I stated before that I had made some assumptions about what should happen and how. And of course, that’s not fair. After all, I didn’t make this movie. I had nothing at all to do with it. So for me to sit here and tell WB or Zach Snyder or Chris Terrio that what they did was wrong is crazy. It’s their movie, their vision.
What I feel isn’t disappointment exactly. It’s more than that. See, what I felt was a promise had been made to me. And, again, every ingredient we were given in the lead up seemed to buffer my idea that the two were going to collide because they both felt the other needed some kind of check on their power, since neither was subject to the structure of law and order the rest of us live by.
Examples:
1) The official plot outline: “Fearing the actions of a god-like superhero with unchecked power, Gotham’s own formidable, forceful vigilante takes on Metropolis’s most revered, modern-day savior, while the world wrestles with what sort of hero it really needs.”
2) The Comic-Con trailer opens with a Congressional hearing, seemingly in the aftermath of the destruction in Man of Steel. Then it shows Bruce Wayne was there in Metropolis during the battle between Superman and Zod, where one of his buildings is destroyed. Then it shows an exchange between Clark Kent and Perry White where Kent is clearly concerned about Batman’s brutality.
3) The famous Doomsday trailer opens at an event where reporter Clark Kent ambushes Bruce Wayne and begins questioning him about his “position on the Batman vigilante in Gotham.” And Wayne responding about how the Daily Planet isn’t concerned with Superman’s vast power. Do they know each other’s secret identities?!? Very intriguing.

All of these examples reinforce that there is a real reason these two need to straighten their differences out, and of course being a comic book movie, there’s only one way that can happen. It all seemed so great! And their differences so clear. Choose a side and watch what happens, right? I mean… RIGHT?!?!?

Is it fair to have assumptions about what should happen in a movie? Making assumptions and then being disappointed that other people don’t share my assumpitons, especially when it’s their movie to make, is horribly unfair. But that’s what I did. And I was so sure I was right that its taken me 2 viewings and 3 days to reason this out in my head. Was a promise made to me or did I simply think on my own what the movie should be? Since I have to admit that I had certain expectations that weren’t fulfilled, but that those film makers are not beholdent to what I want in my movie experience, I can’t call it disappointment. And really, upon seeing the movie a second time without the weight of expectation and assumption, I had a much more enjoyable time.

Go see this movie and take it for what it is. Like Man of Steel, where many MANY people were horribly put off by all the killing and death wrought by the Zod/Superman battle, it may be that in time, the collective anger, the disappointment I keep reading about will subside and even comic book fans like me will be able to see that this movie is just like another comic with a new creative team, telling a new story. Just because it’s a movie and one that lifts plenty of visuals from some very specific storylines, doesn’t mean it’s meant to be a direct adaptation of said storylines. Even in The Dark Knight Returns, there are story points that aren’t that great.

Do I wish the main fight in BvS held more weight? Yes. Do I think there are other, better battles between Batman and Superman told in comics? Yes. But, to it’s credit, Batman v Superman is bold in that it tells a completely new story. It makes tough choices and will be it’s own creation when it’s all said and done. For me, that was tough to swallow the first time through. Now, I think I’ll wait to see it play out and continue to hope that the people making the decisions don’t screw up.

Rating (out of 5): 4
A completely new take on Batman & Superman as their worlds collide. Different than what was expected, given all the promotional material, but new and unique, with BOLD choices made. Not for children because of violence.

Batman toys are normally what I run to. I went specifically to a GREAT comic store in LA called Meltdown. Boy is that an awesome place. Right on Sunset across from the Guitar Center, and it’s big. Really big. Big enough that it’s not just comics. It’s not even just comics and toys. It’s comics, toys, games, events, and maybe best of all, classic toys and action figures displayed behind glass, but still for sale. This was where I picked up the Batman from the Son of Batman animated movie. Is it the best toy ever? Is it even as cool as the Old West Batman it’s next to in the picture? No. But I wanted a toy, so I bought it. And for a while, I was really excited. Who knew what I would learn just a week or two later?So yeah. This guy. I’m not even a big Hulk fan. But I was visiting with some friends and their year old baby. He was restless so someone suggested the “kids section” of Barnes and Noble.

Am I the ONLY PERSON ON EARTH that didn’t know B&N has the BEST toy section EVER!?! Awesome action figures, tons of games, and it’s not just the quality; it’s the straight dope quantity of quality!!

There was a Batman figure, but oddly I didn’t like it very much. Then I saw Hulk. And I bought him. And I love him. And I can’t wait to go back!!

Today is the first day of voting for Actor’s Equity’s new 99-Seat agreement, wherein actors would FINALLY be valued and paid what they’re worth…. um… minimum wage.

Boy, and I thought I was beginning to UNDERVALUE myself. I was thinking I was worth $8 an hour. But wow, to dream of $9 an hour…? For a part time gig? That would almost (but not quite) cover the expense of driving all the way to rehearsal. Plus, all that time spent performing and rehearsing instead of wasting my life at some minimum wage job will finally be worthwhile. Thank God the union can see the big picture and make clear that all they want is for me to VALUE MY CRAFT.

Here’s the deal people: I’m not in Equity. I’m in SAG-AFTRA. The difference is one is for stage and the other for film/tv/radio. This affects me only in as much as my union will demand reciprocity, which is a very real; no, a very expected possibility. I don’t do 99 seat theatre to get paid. Would I LIKE to be paid to do theatre? OF COURSE!! Would I like to be paid minimum wage at the expense of my theatre company’s ability to take chances and produce the kind of theatre I want to be a part of? HELL NO!!

What I mean by that is 2-fold:
1) My Theatre Co is a Non-profit 501(c)3. That means it is eligible for grants and govt money, it can fund raise without tax penalty, and there are various other benefits. Because of that, shows don’t need to be chosen because of the profit they promise to bring in. Another of the benefits is that we can volunteer our time to productions, in whatever capacity is required. As an actor, I sometimes run the soundboard for a show I’m not performing in. Other times, I help backstage. Still other times, I am a PRODUCER. In the new world order (after Equity makes this happen in spite of the wishes of literally everyone I know in Los Angeles theatre), I – as a “Producer” – will be on the hook for either budgeting for Equity actors (and CA taxes, their EDD expenses, medicare, all of that), or finding another way to provide money when the show itself is already not going to make a profit. Look into it: NO THEATRE IN AMERICA PAYS ITS EXPENSES WITH TICKET SALES ALONE.

What does that mean? It means we, as a company, won’t be able to afford to use union actors. Good job Equity! You’ve succeeded in eliminating the best way your members have to practice their work!! It’s ok though. Equity actors can just join a class. Will that prepare them for actually performing in an actual show in front of a real, paid audience? Perhaps. Of course, its a little like how a writing class makes you ready to write for the LA Times. Thing is, would the LA Times hire a beat writer based on classwork? Or do you suppose they’d want to see some kind of real-world experience? I don’t know the answer to that, but I can guess.

Bottom line: The company can become a for-profit entity, which is unrealistic. Or it can use non-union talent, which is more likely.

2) It’s only because I already belong to my Company that I would even be allowed (under the new proposal) to remain in the way I have been for the past 10 years. Because I belong to SAG-AFTRA and they’d demand I follow their sister-union’s rules – Equity’s rules – if my status changes with Equity, say if I were to join, new rules dictate my status as a company member would be lost. My company, who I have worked with and gained valuable experience and exposure in the process, would suddenly have to pay me minimum wage. Remember when I said they can’t afford that? Well, guess what? They still CAN’T AFFORD TO DO THAT!!

Bottom line: I will not be joining Equity, short of being offered a job at a large theatre with an Equity contract (3 of these exist in Los Angeles). You know, someplace where I would be able to make actual livable money. Not the couple bucks Equity seems to think actors are worth.

This whole thing is so sad. It’s clear to me that the union is only doing this because they have huge membership numbers here in Los Angeles because of the film/tv industry and they think they can squeeze some more dues money out of them. Instead of supporting their membership’s efforts to be more professional and prepared when the larger theatres (Or, God forbid, a movie or tv show) come calling, they are effectively telling them, “Go back to class. That’s the only place you’re allowed to improve your skills. When you aren’t getting paid, you’re not really a professional. Further, you must not respect your talents or craft since you don’t agree you should be paid the very bottom, minimum dollar amount possible.”

Thanks for that Equity. I was having trouble valuing myself before. Now that I know I am worth minimum wage, I feel so much better.
I guess it turns out, i DO care. Please, if you have a vote today, VOTE NO. #ILove99 #NotThisChange

I haven’t posted anything for a while. Usually, I like to write posts about what I’m up to or what project I’m working on. But it’s been a strange few months. In Los Angeles, where I’ve made a home for myself and belong to a great theatre company, I’ve found that even when I’m not looking for work (Or rather, specifically when I’m not looking), jobs seem to find me. Sometimes it’s a play, sometimes it’s a short film; No matter what, it’s been consistent. In my line of work, there’s a certain amount of blind faith that as long as I do good work and stick with it, the next job opportunity will present itself.

That faith is one of the main reasons I’ve been with my theatre company for so long. Instead of a class, I’ve felt like actual, presentable work is a double edged sword: I get to practice and improve, and I get to add a credit to my resume. Both are great things. Either way, it’s work. And better, practice and improvement ensures I’m ready to be hired for a paid gig. Turns out faith is a little more practical when I’m practiced and ready.

Last year, a group called Re-Imagine LA Theatre began a kind of think-tank wherein they devised a series of proposals aimed at getting theatre companies like mine – and the many many others like it – to pay actors a minimum wage salary for both rehearsal time and performances. Currently, there is something called the “99-Seat Agreement” that exists in Los Angeles (and ONLY Los Angeles) between Actor’s Equity (the union for professional stage actors) and those who produce small theatre. This agreement was a hard-fought victory for small theatre producers back in the 80s and essentially hasn’t been touched since. What it boils down to is that for the past 30 years, an entire industry has grown around the ability to produce theatre in facilities with 99 seats or fewer, without having to compensate the acting talent, be they union or not.

I say “Without having to compensate”, but really the agreement is about the ability of Equity Union actors to participate without forcing the producers to pay them union scale rates, which would be impossible for small theatres and their shoestring budgets. Now, union actors DO get a small stipend for their time; Usually a token amount of $7-$20 per performance and nothing for rehearsals. What the agreement also allows for is labor rules to prevent the actors from being completely taken advantage of: Breaks, length of time between them, water provided backstage, safety requirements, and many other protections that otherwise would not be in place.

There are 2 main sides to the argument.
First, there are the proponents of change. Actor’s Equity is the primary player on this side. They feel that its unfair for a production to take place essentially on the backs of volunteer actors, while other people ARE compensated financially. Normally, a show’s budget allots different amounts for designers (Sound, Set, Lighting), stage managers, the director, musicians (If any live music is involved), and the rights to produce a published work. So why no pay for the actors? Many people, perhaps rightly, feel this is not an equitable arrangement.

On the other side of the line are the producers of 99-Seat theatre, often represented by a group called Pro-99. Their argument is that before any sweeping changes are made to the 99-Seat Agreement, there needs to be a negotiation and a timeframe for implementing any changes that are agreed upon. What isn’t commonly understood is that frequently the actors ARE THE PRODUCERS. So even though unions for those other elements of a production have fought to get some level of compensation for their members, Los Angeles actors actually fought their union for the ability to act in and produce small theatre. It’s not that we don’t like money, or don’t value our work, which are arguments I’ve heard a lot from the pro-change side during this battle. What actors wanted 30 years ago and still want today is the ability to produce new plays that wouldn’t be possible if they couldn’t be done on a shoestring budget. They want to be in shows with large casts. They want to practice performing, not in a classroom, but in a real theatre with a real audience and real, professional actors beside them. They want to meet other working professionals, learn from performing with/opposite actors of different age ranges and abilities. Much of this could be accomplished in a classroom, but it simply isn’t the same thing.

When I had just graduated from college and moved to New York to learn about the pinnacle of professional theatre in America, I was able to secure an internship with a major Broadway Management company. If not for that incredible experience, I would not have had a hand in laying the groundwork for Mama Mia and eventual Tony Award-winner Thoroughly Modern Millie, nor would I have worked as a PR Assistant for Chicago and Annie Get Your Gun. Those were seminal experiences for me. Not just making me feel like I had accomplished some major goals, but also providing me with invaluable contacts and experience. Now imagine that Management company was forced to hire an assistant instead of an intern. Armed with a Fine Arts degree and no experience to speak of, it’s possible I may have still been qualified; But at the same time, they likely would have gone with a more experienced person who already had the contacts and knew the wheres and whos of the Broadway business. In short, I would not have had that job.

Now imagine a red-hot small theatre scene in a town built on film & television. Unlike any other city in America, the sheer number of actors that live and work here is astounding (a 2012 article I read estimated over 100,000). Those actors need to act. They need to practice. They need to learn. Most of them will not be successful, meaning they won’t be able to make a living as an actor. Should that mean they stop trying? Because it’s hard to be successful, does that mean there’s no point in following a dream? That’s mostly rhetorical, but the answer is NO.

Theatre in Los Angeles has a few things going for it. Again, there are lots of actors, which means there are plenty of young, spirited, talented, creative people all trying to share their talent with the world in the hope that it will amount to success. Because it’s a film/television town, and in spite of the large number of people that want to be seen by agents/casting people/producers/directors/etc…, there is an ability to experiment that is unique to this city. Because a few actors can get together and produce a show, the LA theatre scene is bursting with opportunity – New plays, great parts for all ages & genders, plays with large casts… I could list a thousand things that are unique and fantastic about Los Angeles Theatre.

If the current proposal from Actor’s Equity is passed (How it gets to that point is another very large problem), the fear is most of those uniquely wonderful things will be lost. Overnight. Shows suddenly cost much more to produce, so goodbye large casts. The prohibitive cost makes risky theatre even more risky and less doable. Goodbye new plays and experimental theatre. The fine print in Equity’s proposal states that no union members may join a membership company without rules dictating they get paid while the rest of the company doesn’t, creating a poisonous internal tiered pay structure where some are paid for the same time spent as some who are volunteering.  Similarly, actors who are current members of a company (actors like me) and who join Equity then must be paid in spite of their tenure at their own theatre company. Remember at the beginning of the post when I said i was in one of the many similar small theatre companies? Well, without the ability to add young talent, those companies will die out. Goodbye theatre companies.

What am I getting at here? Clearly, fear is a driving force on the Pro-99 side. And there certainly are a lot of “what ifs” should the union’s proposal pass. I must also say I’m not without feelings that fall on both sides of the argument. For example, should small theatres have as a goal, growing to the point where they have a union contract? Or is that too much to ask of a company that’s working day-to-day, production-to-production? That’s a debatable question and it opens the door for the possibility of making changes.  Maybe Equity has a point there, that a goal of a small theatre company SHOULD, on some level, be to get to the point where there is some kind of pay for the actors, be it profit sharing or a budget-based share of the show. Regardless, what is brewing now is truly awful. A union exists to back its members, not to jeopardize (or outright eliminate) the field on which they play.  And that is what Los Angeles’ Actor’s Equity branch is unapologetically doing: Promoting one side of the argument, acting oddly hypocritical in its tactics (using actors as ‘volunteers’ to phone bank other less-informed members on eliminating their right to volunteer), and worst of all, holding a regional vote that is literally pointless, as a national council will ultimately decide the outcome.

Theatre will find a way. That’s one of the good things about creative people – they don’t give up. Hopefully an accord will be reached and instead of actors battling their union, that energy can be dedicated to another great year of outstanding, unique, sometimes unwatchable (but never devoid of passion) Los Angeles theatre. I have faith.

I just posted something the other day about Audrey Hepburn and I think i was struck so hard because I hadn’t seen Sabrina in such a long time and the newer one has been on HBO. I also hadn’t watched it in quite a long while, but when that other movie showed up – How to Steal a Million – and reminded me about Hepburn, I got inspired to sit with the remake for a time.

As much as I enjoy Harrison Ford movies, Julia Ormond is supposed to be so beautiful and full of life that both brothers fall for her. Ormond, talented and beautiful as she is, really doesn’t hold a candle to Hep. That’s one thing. The other thing I realized about the movie (both of them) is that Sabrina Fairchild is a HUGE snob. Which is ironic because that’s what she’s supposed to deflate in all the other high-society people she comes home to. Over and over, she says things like, “In Paris, I found myself”, “In Paris, you eat with your hands”, “In Paris, you wander to to your favorite place along the river and…”  Blah Blah Blah.

“Guess what sweetheart,” I wish Harrison Ford would finally say, “You’re not in Paris. So stop bringing it up and acting like a spoiled brat who’s seen too much of the world.”

The reality is if she really was well traveled and worldly, she would exude that instead of needing to remind everyone that’s where she spent the past few years. Seriously, STOP BRINGING IT UP. It’s truly annoying and if it’s so great there, why did you come back at all? Was it just to marry into money? Because you basically start swooning over the one brother, then switch to the other when he takes you on a couple dates. And you’re so worldly and experienced that you don’t see any of the scamming from brother #2 coming. Meanwhile, brother #1 missed you so much, he had no idea who you were and had no memory of you when you were younger, short of that the family driver had a daughter.

It’s all kind of sad. If not for great performances in both movies – Bogart and Hepburn in the original and Ford and pretty much every side character in the remake – I’m not convinced they wouldn’t be looked on as the story of a social climber and the rich, jerkoff brothers who only want what they can’t have.

Here’s the latest from my recent Cinema Operations Workshop project, After The Blast. Written and directed by Sam Saldivar, this is the story of the near future, after a major life-altering destructive event, where the survivors of the US government are hold up in a secret underground location. When a stranger stumbles upon their bunker, they hatch a plan for the future of America. But is anything what it seems?

Updated from the one on the front page

Woke up this morning and couldn’t get back to sleep. This happens occasionally and normally I play on my phone, online, or try to exercise earlier. What I try NOT to do – and what I went for this particular morning – is to flip on the tv. HBO was still on from whatever I was watching last – I think a nice little movie called Labor Day.  and what I found was something I couldn’t take my eyes off.

How do you even APPROACH a woman like this in a bar?

Audrey Hepburn, looking more smashing than ever, and a very young Peter O’Tool in How to Steal a Million, in what I learned was Hepburn’s last role as the “unmarried young lady” character she specialized in (She would later star in movies like Robin and Marian, and though she wasn’t married in that, it came out 8 years into her retirement from film and she was clearly aging at that point). The great thing about Hepburn is that she got better as the years went on. And this movie I stumbled on is a great example.

Most people think of Breakfast at Tiffany’s or Sabrina (among others), where she was very VERY young. How to Steal a Million was a 37 year-old Audrey Hepburn, as whimsical and doe-eyed as ever, but somehow lightyears sexier than when she was a younger woman.

Some actresses, like Angelina Jolie for example, seem so perfectly fit for movie-stardom that they seem to effortlessly glide from movie to movie, year after year, and don’t seem to age at all. I feel like Hepburn was the original version of that. Her personal charisma and spunk (not to mention – again – those EYES) carried her through her entire career and into more worldly (and more meaningful) work as a UNICEF Ambassador (Another reason Jolie seems to me so similar).

I’m not really going anywhere with this… I don’t imagine it’s a very controvercial position to take, that Audrey Hepburn was a great movie star and very attractive woman. Still, in a world where so few movies stay with me, maybe it’s worth a look back to a time when a different generation of movie stars was in their prime. It’s a troubling time we live in and whether its anachronistic or not, it’s nice to be transported to a place and time when things (complicated as they were then) seemed simpler.

One thing that isn’t so simple is wrapping my head around how and why women like Audrey Hepburn are so few and far between.

True to the promise I made to myself to scale back on working for FREE, I’ve been laying off theatre this year. It’s not an easy place for an actor to be – on the one hand, you always want to be working; On the other, nothing moves forward if all you’re doing is one play after the other in the Equity waiver world. Regardless, that’s where I am.

Nearly a decade after moving to Los Angeles to make a life for myself, I have a whole lot of theatre credits, but if I needed to prove to someone that I am a working actor, what can I point to? An old program? my good word?

The answer to that is IMDB. And sure enough, my credits on that site are slim at best. I exist there, which is step 1, but it’s not a place I direct people if they want to know about me as an actor. So, without theatre, and with some notion that my talents and training are worth money, I’ve had a pretty slow year. And, as it seems always happens, just when I’m reconciling the lack of a career in my mind, I get a call offering me a job.

Generally, these calls come from the same few people. One in particular surely has no idea just how much she means to me, since countless gigs in the past several years have been a direct result of her blind faith in my ability to get the job done, and done well. Such was the case in early August, when I received a call asking me if I could be in a short film.

1) Welcome to the Woods was the first legitimate SAG-AFTRA short that I have actually been cast in and paid for. Shocking considering how long I’ve been at this. I played Chris, the hipster in a band who convinces his girlfriend to bankroll the band’s new tour van. Much love goes out to the cast/crew but in particular, Amamda Weier (writer/director), Laetitia Leon (Star/Producer), and Jessica Noboa (Producer & my scene partner) for being stone cold pros.
Side Note: It’s fairly amazing how quickly actual, real SAG credits show up on IMDB when they’re legitimate. Unlike when one has to scratch and claw their way to adding a dubious credit, this short film showed up all by itself. Wow.

2) After the Fall was more of a workshop than a short but by all accounts, will look like the real deal when the editing is finished. Again, great to be a part of something I can honestly say I was lucky to be called for. In this one, I’m lost in post-apocalyptic ruins when I stumble upon the bunker occupied by the remaining few US Government officials. They take me in and more than falling through the rabbit hole, the truth of the situation is a mind bender.

More to follow in the coming weeks. I’m convinced it’s already been a successful year, just based on a couple weeks of working!!

I just watched the last episode of True Detective on HBO and LOVED IT. From the billboards posted all over Los Angeles alone, I was apprehensive about the show. It seemed like a money grab with some big names attached. Woody Harrelson (with his gut) and Matthew McConaughey (and that pony tail) looked like they were going to give it the old ‘this is a serious HBO drama’ treatment. Frankly, it looked like one of those rare shows – think Luck – that would come and go. Boy was I wrong.

It’s hard for me to get into a show these days. I often find myself choosing to see something I’ve watched to death instead of trying something new. And it took an episode or two before I was convinced I liked it because it was good; Instead of liking it because I was supposed to… Because it was well made or important or some other half-baked reason.

–SPOILERS AHEAD–

It was during that amazing single-shot scene in episode 4 where McConaughey’s Detective Rust Cohle busted into a stash house, collected the apartment room to room, protecting a little kid in the process, and ultimately dragged his mark out the back door and across the apartment complex into his partner’s getaway car… chaos abound… when I realized I was hooked.

I’ve heard some criticism from women about the way in which the female characters were either helpless, oversexed, working girls, or simply there to be messed with. I can understand that perspective. I’m not going to lie – the sex scenes were hot, as were the actresses who performed them. And I can see how that would be degrading to female viewers. Don’t know what to say about that except that it’s not like it’s a new portrayal of women in film or television. Only recently have female leads been given the green light to be a film or show’s hero. Even then, they are usually very attractive women.

So there’s room for criticism. And don’t get me wrong, there’s a whole lot of room. In the end, it seems like ages ago that we were telling the story from the POV of each character recounting it to the newer detectives. And it seemed like all the clues and storylines would coalesce into one resolution, but ultimately, a lot of it was straight-up character development.

Cohle’s daughter’s death for example. It really played no role in the storyline about solving the case except that it was something Cohle was constantly dealing with. I say that, though it seems important to his final thoughts about light vs dark. “In the beginning it was all dark. Seems to me the light’s winning” (maybe that’s not the exact quote, but very close) was NOT something he would have said at any point up until the very end. It’s always nice when the last moments of a show give us an uplifting message since mostly the world makes no sense and people live/die/succeed/fail/win/lose seemingly at random. Hope is the most important weapon any of us have against the darkness. It’s good they waited until that point in the show to offer any hope at redemption for those two deeply flawed detectives. If THAT quote had been posted on billboards all over town, I wonder if those final moments would have been as powerful.

Whether this is the best the show will offer, or if this winds up being the one in a collection of fantastic seasons of True Detective, I’m glad I watched. I give it 9 Hatchets-To-The-Chest out of 10. 

Charlotte Chanler and I in a Machinal Publicity photo for our 2011 production at The Open Fist Theatre. Photo by Maia Rosenfeld Photography.

Charlotte Chanler & Dylan Maddalena in Machinal publicity Photo – Open Fist Theatre (2011) – Photo by Maia Rosenfeld