THE TIGHT VERSION: KEY TO SUCCESS IN HOLLYWOOD

THE TIGHT VERSION IS WHAT YOU ALWAYS WANT, REALLY.

Some of my clients, and in particular, the top clients that have the careers that everyone else wants, have figured this principle out already and for the most part, the information presented here is superfluous to them.   This essay, therefore, is for everyone else and for clients who I have not yet met. 

TIGHT VERSION VS. SLOPPY VERSION
To say something is "polished" means that it has been prepared to some exacting specifications and either meets or exceeds the stated specifications. Specifications are based on objective measures and so subjectivity is not useful or warranted here. 

For example, saying "I thought it was good enough" is an irrelevant statement if the specifications have not been met.  Failing to meet specifications is the same as saying "It was not good enough."  You can hear people in Hollywood making these rationalizations all the time.  Just open your ears at Coffee Bean and listen for it.

THE TIGHT VERSION vs. THE SLOPPY VERSION
This chapter is about professionalism and polish within the entertainment industry.  It is going to make some of you uncomfortable.  I also get uncomfortable thinking about some of the things that I have done that violate these rules, so don't take it personally.

To say something is "polished" means that it has been prepared to some exacting criteria and either meets or exceeds that same desired and exacting criteria.  Explicitly stated criteria are  objective measures of a thing and so subjectivity is not useful or warranted here.  An example here might be a pilot script.  "I thought it was good enough." might be used to describe a 35 page sitcom script that had 4 typos, and extra line of space in the action on page 3 and other literary shortcomings.  We see those kinds of shortcomings all the time in shooting scripts because pages are being written and sent around at a pace matching the production schedule.  On a writing sample, there is no question: the material must be polished.  No typos.  No grammatical mistakes.  If you don't believe me, read one of Akiva Goldsman's published screenplays and then re-read one of your own scripts.  If you can't see the difference, a career in writing might not be the best path for you.

To say something is "professional" means that it has been prepared to some professional standard and either meets or exceeds the standard.  Again, a professional standard is typically based on measurable criteria and so subjectivity (or opinions) are not warranted here.  For example, the professional standard for auditions is that actors are seated in the waiting room 15 minutes before the scheduled appointment with the material fully prepared (sometimes called off book but really referring to all aspects of preparation).  So if you're just pulling up to the studio gate 10 minutes before your scheduled time, you're already unprofessional.  "I thought I was on-time enough." Or whatever.

One time I had a client who scheduled for what is called a "producer session" (callback) for a Series Regular (a high-paying, elite, prime time television) role. The client had confirmed the day before and I had no reason to believe anything was amiss until the casting office called our firm 40 minutes after the scheduled appointment time to leave us a voicemail asking us "Jane is 40 minutes late to the session, where is she?" This was a circumstance that embarrassed our firm from a professional standpoint and I never regretted the client leaving. Later this client complained to me in a phone call "Why won't anyone hire me?"

Therefore we can contrast things that exceed the criteria with things that fail to meet the criteria.  I call the activities and work products that fail to meet the expected standard THE LAZY VERSION.  I use the term "lazy version" to heighten a readers interest in what I'm writing, not because it's the most accurate description of what's going on.  Do I have your attention?  Great, read on.

I have little to no experience differentiating wines based on tasting them, but a professional sommelier has that ability. So I might taste two different wines and conclude that they more or less "taste the same."  However, to the sommelier, my opinion might be the cause of riotous laughter and ridicule.  Just because I cannot taste or discern the difference does not mean there is not a meaningful difference. 

By analogy we understand that the professional casting office (or any gatekeeper in Hollywood) sees and evaluates thousands of aspirants for any available opportunity.  So the casting office is like the sommelier: they are able to discern small differences that you and I and likely your acting coaches as well are not able to identify.  Why?  Because they spend more time and effort evaluating than anyone else.
 

So now I’m faced with a challenge: I'm trying to communicate to my clientele the stringencies of the preparations necessary when auditioning for major casting offices when only a minimal subset of criteria have been published (or expressed).  Important criteria are likely ASSUMED (ie. expected levels of professionalism) or too ephemeral to describe, ie. held in the mind of the casting director (and other decision makers) based on a body of experience.


I personally think that the only way to deal with this situation is by raising one's personal standards so high above the minimum expected criteria such that any unpublished criteria would also most certainly be exceeded.  I call this version of preparedness "THE TIGHT VERSION."

So now we have two versions of everything, "THE TIGHT VERSION” which so greatly exceeds any expected standard of preparation/behavior and "THE SLOPPY VERSION" which so clearly falls short of all stated criteria/professional standards.  It's the grey area in between that's problematic.

Because now we have to choose which of these approaches to use in Hollywood when opportunities are presented to us.  Typically these opportunities fall into two categories:

1. SUBMISSION MATERIALS:  these would be things like headshots, reels, writing samples and so forth.  Materials that are prepared in advance with almost unlimited opportunities for revisions, polishing and improvements. 

2. AUDITIONS AND REQUESTS: time sensitive and on a deadline, for example: preparing on-demand writing samples for a topical comedy show, or writing sitcom proposals for an important meeting or the most common scenario, being sent 7 pages of sides for an in-person theatrical appointment with a professional casting director the very next day.

Those are two circumstances with very different challenges.  You're going to face both circumstances and you need to have workable strategies for both.  You can have the most amazing submission materials (headshots, reels, etc.) but if you are likewise unable to rise to that level of preparation for your in-person auditions, it is unlikely that your career will materialize.  Except by luck, and by now you should all have a good idea about how I feel about being "lucky" as a Hollywood success strategy.

I think the most common type of career failure I'm looking at is the one of "missed opportunities".  Which is to say inconsistent preparation of materials to the standards of THE TIGHT VERSION.  For whatever reason, some people produce excellent work in certain circumstances, but in other circumstances feel compelled to roll with THE SLOPPY VERSION.  Often financial cost is a determining factor in the latter.  "I am not willing to spend money on the 'TV' so I'm going with the 'SV'."  If you think success in Hollywood is about having an excess of money to spend on your career, you're wrong.  In fact, being frugal is recommended.  It's about being adamant that money is spent when, failing to invest the money is going to result in you/your career being associated with THE SLOPPY VERSION.

This bloggeddy blog is not about assigning blame or criticizing any one person, it is about aspiring to the highest standards so that any judgey gatekeeper that stands between you and your dreams in Hollywood are rendered mute (criticism).  Winning over Simon Cowell on AGT might be an example.

I am faced with this "problem" constantly.  Typically many times in a single day and thousands of times over the course of a year.  Headshots, reels, audition tapes, audition coaches, acting studios, it would seem that finding THE TIGHT VERSION of every aspect of our business, the entertainment business, is a NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO SUCCESS.

In fact, this is so important that I'm making a table, which I will update as needed, highlighting and contrasting the LAZY/TIGHT versions of everything I deal with.  I'm trying to keep the table conversational and sassy so that you'll understand that this is not about being draconian, it's about being serious about excellence.  It’s about wanting to exemplify THE TIGHT VERSION.