Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Acting for Free vs. Acting for Money

A friend asked about how to pursue acting, and specifically asked, among other things, about acting for money verses acting for free. This is what I wrote:
Working for free for some is always acceptable since acting is for them more avocation than vocation. If one wants to make a living, I'd recommend, once you have some credits that may not have paid on a resume, only accept work that compensates in some way: Like all professions, eventually one must get paid for one's work if one plans to make a living at it. Doctors take 10 years to become doctors after college. Actor's should expect the same kind of investment of time to become established.
Anyone have any other thoughts? Leave a comment.

Labels: ,

You should follow me on twitter here.
Subscribe to the feed

this posted by David August at 4:04 PM 

comments: Michael Gellman (Second City) told us, "You're not an actor unless you're getting paid. Otherwise, you're volunteering."

I agree!

-Melina

# posted by Blogger M : 11:34 AM  

Michael Gellman is a very wise man. I obviously agree.

# posted by Blogger David Lawrence : 2:24 AM  

You should get paid. It is a job like any other.

Totally agree !!!

# posted by Blogger Sunshine : 8:32 PM  

whats up guys. I've been training to be a screen actor for 1 year now. I have done a number of jobs for free to build my cv and im sure i'll have to do many more before I really start getting paid for my work.

I think its alot harder to find paid work as an actor over here in the uk because theres less productions happening over here.

I am planning to take a trip over to the LA in search of work. What do you'll think???

Hit me up on myspace with any sugestions www.myspace.com/officialgregwalsh

-Greg

# posted by Blogger Gregg : 11:24 AM  

Good luck!

# posted by Blogger David Lawrence : 6:21 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home