I went in for it not too long ago; it was a very secretive affair, identified only as "Project X", so I didn't know it would be the first commercial of Jerry Seinfeld's new campaign for Microsoft, and that my "co-stars" would be Jerry Seinfeld & Bill Gates.
I'm almost glad I didn't get it.
I say "almost" only because money's money, after all (And the spot is going to run a lot).
But in my opinion, the spot isn't funny, or particularly effective as advertising (If this is Microsoft competing with the "Mac vs. PC" ads, it's an "epic fail", as the kids say); I'm a fairly bright guy, and I just don't understand how Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates in a shoe store is selling us on the virtue of Microsoft.
And I don't think it does Seinfeld any favors, beyond making him another $10 million he doesn't need anyway; it's just going to add to the growing perception that Larry David was clearly a bigger reason for the success of Seinfeld than most of us realized at the time.
What's interesting is that when I went in for the spot, what I thought what was funny - to the degree the copy was funny - was the plight of the poor, beleaguered shoe salesmen (Who are just bit players in the completed product). Cause that's really the way the copy reads.
(And you could do the very same spot, shift the focus, drop Gates and Seinfeld - who, shockingly enough, aren't very good actors - and have a very effective PSA for staying in school: "Get an education, or you could end up like this".)
It reminds me that, yes, I want to make money, but it's also really important to do things that are good, things that are funny (If they're supposed to be funny). Things that work, that do what they set out to do.
Cause even if it's just a commercial, I want it to be a good commercial (If I'm selling soap, I kind of want you to want to run out and buy soap afterwards).
But speaking of "funny"...
I'm currently about two-thirds of the way through The Eight Characters Of Comedy; A Guide To Sitcom Acting And Writing, by Scott Sedita.
Sedita devotes some time to "Sitcom History", "Half-Hour Technique", etc., but naturally, the bulk of the book is about his "Eight Characters", eight comedic archetypes that pretty much cover all the sitcom characters you can think of - breaking down their character traits, their underlying motivations, listing famous examples throughout sitcom history, etc.
I think the book is definitely worthwhile, particularly if you're coming in from "ground zero" comedically (The early part of the book, on "Half-Hour Technique", is worth the price of admission all by itself).
For me, a lot of what I'm reading is either stuff I've heard before (During a 4 week "comedy intensive" with casting associate Nick Anderson, who was working on My Name Is Earl at the time, and is now on Desperate Housewives), or stuff that feels kind of self-evident.
But the book has still served a good function, which is to make me think about how I "fit" into tv comedy, where I belong in the comedic scheme-of-things.
Actors tend to think they can play anything, and this actor is no exception - I think there are circumstances where I could play any of the "Eight Characters" in question - but being realistic about who I am and what I look like (What I naturally "bring to the table"), I'm most likely to be cast as "The Loveable Loser", "The Neurotic", or "In Their Own Universe", and least likely to be "The Bitch/Bastard", "The Womanizer/Manizer", or "The Materialistic One" ("The Smart, Logical One" and "The Dumb One" are judgement calls - Again, I think I could play either and it wouldn't be bad casting...but in most situations, you could probably do better).
It's something that isn't necessarily a comfortable process - trying to see yourself how others see you, for one thing, and admitting who you essentially are as a person for another - but it's pretty important to know what you have to work with as an actor.
(It just struck me - When you do that, if you do that, you can turn personal failings into professional strengths.)
For the past couple years, I've tried to make a point, during each new tv season, of seeing as many new shows as possible (Like reading The Eight Characters Of Comedy, I watch the shows thinking about where I "fit into the equation"...or where I don't).
To that end, I recently DVR'd Raising The Bar and Sons of Anarchy.
As an audience member, I was not knocked out by either show.
But I give the edge to Sons Of Anarchy, because Ron Perlman is a more compelling actor than anyone on Raising The Bar (And I don't like Mark-Paul Gosselar as much as Stephen Bochco obviously does).
And Sons Of Anarchy, about a criminal motorcycle gang that runs a small California town, is a somewhat more original premise than yet another legal drama.
As to where I "fit", I could imagine being cast on either show, but again, cause Sons of Anarchy is something a little different, I think that would be more fun (Though there's something to be said for getting in good with Stephen Bochco. Cause if he likes you as an actor, he hires you over and over again; he really seems to enjoy having a "rep group" of actors).
And on that note, I'm going back to bed, so I can dream of the day I'm acting on tv shows and not just watching them...
No comments:
Post a Comment