Agents: are they worth the money?

  

This blog is dedicated to 1. the young grads who told me after their showcase, how anxious they were about getting an agent.

2, The super helpful and very amenable Helen Grady who has graciously offered corrections, and for whose help I am very grateful.  Corrections following her comments are in red, and her original comment is appended at the bottom of the blog

It’s half past seven on a standard Tuesday night: trays full of mimosas tour round the crowded ballroom at the Ritz. Theatrical agents and theatre producers mingle.

“We need someone to play opposite Daniel Day Lewis,” says Mmme. Bigshot de Pinewood.  “But it’s so hard to find anyone with a 3 yr MT degree, panto experience, playing age 20-39, 5’8” with a base in both London and Bradford!”

 

“Darling, why didn’t you say?” says the agent, flamboyantly waving her vol-au-vent.  “I’ve got just the person!  Pass me your phone, I’ll type in her spotlight pin!” 

 

Oh, what a lovely scene.  

 

But it’s not how things work.  Not anymore.  Not for mere mortals like us.

 

I’m not sure the industry ever worked like this.

‘But entertainment is all about “who you know”, not “what you know”. Isn’t it?’. Don’t you believe it: training, persistence, positive work ethic and building a good reputation will (in the long run) all prove to be more valuable, more often, and more consistently than knowing the ‘right people’.  Of course, if what you mean by ‘the right people’ is people who end up giving you acting work, then there’s no better way of ensuring you’re surrounded by them than training, persistence, positive work ethic and building a good reputation!

Aside - OK, there is a slim, sliver of actors for whom this adage may hold true: ones who are part of a dynasty perhaps – a Sheen or a Fox or a Garland etc.  If your parents know everyone, you may well find you get a few ins others don’t.  However, if you have a megastar parent, you’re also much more likely to have grown up in the industry, have had excellent training, and have inherited/learned the same work ethic that helped your forebears climb to the top.  Nobody’s looking at Liza with a Z and thinking “she only got Sally Bowles because of Judy!” However, such counterexamples are merely exceptions that prove the rule.  If you do have a leg-up, use it… but 99% percent of us don’t.  And there’s no way of choosing new parents now!

 

Actual snap of Sir Ian McKellen's agent during the casting process for Mother Goose

Celebs may have agents that get them jobs “privately” – by which I mean, for which there is no audition, at least not one you have opportunity to attend.  Of these: a few are very glamorous roles, lead roles with stunt casting, names that are used to drive audience numbers, but in the grand scheme of things, these make up such a slim sliver of the pie, for our purposes, we can ignore them.  Many more roles that are “privately” cast go to returning artistes – ‘safe pairs of hands’, ‘company members’ and ‘audience favourites.’   By contrast with the very glamorous roles, these are roles that mere mortals like us might have been cast in.  The fact that these roles aren’t cast openly is a matter of huge frustration for anyone trying to get a first foot in the door, but is a boon both for time-pressed and budget-responsive producers as well as the established actors that return.  Whether it’s fair or not, is a topic best left for another time.

 

However, just about everyone else is cast through some kind of casting process, and some overwhelming proportion of these involve Spotlight.

 

The great thing about Spotlight is once you’re on it, you don’t need an agent to make a submission.

 

I’ll repeat that: you don’t NEED an agent.

 

There may have been a point in the past where you did need an agent, but those days are gone.

 

I’m NOT saying: you shouldn’t have an agent.  Nor that you’d be better off without one.

GREAT AGENTS: Costs vs Benefits
 

A great agent not only manages actors, but guides and nurtures them, working together to grow successful careers, underpinned by great relationships and positive work habits.

1: My agent has eight arms.  2: How do they smell?  1: Like an octopus!

 

Things a great agent can do for you: 

 

1. Networks – they maintain personal relationships with theatre producers (you can tell which ones because the casts of their always have one or two of the agents clients)
2. Advocates for you – they ring round producers the day before the auditions.  “Have you had any cancellations?  Any free slots?  Have you considered my client – they mightn’t quite fit the brief, but they’ve got a good look and a Manchester base.”
3. Is collaborative – they know what you want to do, they know your availability, they check in with you before subbing your profile: would you like to do this job?  
4. Sets you up for success – they make sure you fill the brief and are ready to take the role, they have checked the terms of the contract are acceptable before sending you in to audition, they communicate clearly with the producers what makes you such a good fit, they brief you beforehand: what are the producers looking for? What is going to impress them?
5. Administrate – Go through any contracts thoroughly, explain what will be expected to you, invoice in advance, chase late payments, disseminate wages quickly.  It's not rocket science, but it is admin… and if you wanted to do admin, you wouldn’t be an actor.

And what does this cost you?  A measly, piffling 20%. Believe me, it's worth every penny!

 

If you’ve got a great agent, cling on to them with both hands. They’re not as common as you might think, and they’re worth their weight in gold.

 

 

GOOD AGENTS: Costs vs Benefits

 

If your agent gets you a job, you’re quids-in right from the start.  Anyone who puts pounds in your pocket is worth their commission.  And worth hanging onto, believe me!

 

However, most agents don’t get us jobs, they get us auditions.  Which is nothing to sniff at!  Keeping an eye on Spotlight and subbing profiles is definitely work, and it definitely has a value.  Of course, if you find you find that you have to do job-board watching and ‘nudge your agent’ every time something suitable comes up… you may not be getting value for money.

 

Let’s imagine the audition.  Most of the actors in the waiting room were submitted by agents. Only a few submitted themselves.

 

Let’s imagine one of the roles goes to one of those actors who self-submitted. Imagine the contract is £3000.  At the end of the contract, that actor ends up £3000 cash in your pocket (and HMRC’s pocket).

 

Imagine you get cast in another role.  Your agent takes 20%*, so you only end up with £2400.  In fact, any actor represented by an agent, would need to be paid £3750 to end up getting as much as the un-represented performer.  In other words, an agent must provide £750 worth of value before their client is as well off as they would be without any representation.

 *Helen suggests a useful clarification here: 20% is typically at the top end of what an agent may charge for theatrical work.  Other rates are also common.  10% is, in my experience, the low end and less common than it used to be

That is a HUGE amount on a £3000 contract.  Budgets are typically much, much tighter than that. Perhaps you have a hard-nosed agent who can argue even the most spendthrift producer into covering a few travel expenses, but unless you’re arriving by helicopter, you’ll not likely break £750.

Nothing worth having is ever free

Leaving aside for a moment the value you gained from being submitted.  The rest of the shortfall is money you’re paying for watching contract management: Reading, advising, filing, invoicing.   

 

How much that’s worth will depend on the person (and the contract).but if I were paying hundreds of pounds for contract advice, I’d expect some red ink and circles with question marks… and for all the invoice to be submitted postdated before the contract began.

 
NOT-SO-GOOD AGENTS: Costs v Benefits

Some agents are in it for the artists, some are in it for the money

 

When a producer logs into Spotlight, they see a directory.  Folders and subfolders for each of the shows that they’re producing, as well as their previous productions.

 

Every production folder contains subfolders for each character.  Every subfolder contains the profiles of everyone who’s been submitted for that role.

 

It’s not possible to audition everyone who is submitted for a role.  Instead, the producer looks through the CVs and watches the showreels.

 

If you are running multiple shows, or have lots of submissions, it may not possible to look at every CV and/or watch the showreels.  Honestly, it’s not for wont of trying – we get many less submissions than big companies and when we do casting we work 100+ hours weeks.  If numbers are so high that hard work isn’t enough, you have to find ways to whittle down the inbox to something you can manage.

 

I can only speak for us, but here are some of the tricks we use:

 

If an agent has submitted more than 5 people for a role, we don’t look at them.  Some agents submit 20+ actors for every role, even though our character breakdowns are very specific.  It simply isn’t possible that they represent so many actors that match the brief.  They haven’t read the brief.  They’re just submitting everyone.  Even if one or two might be good, that means 90-95% of our time looking at their client’s profiles would be wasted.

 

If we’ve had a bad experience with lots of actors from a particular agency, we don’t look at any of their submissions.  What counts as a bad experience?  Here are a few:

• Not showing up for your audition slot (without explanation).  
• Turning down an offer for the role you auditioned for any reason you knew in advance (“it’s too far from home” “It’s at Christmas” “It isn’t TV”)
• Accepting a role then gazzumping the company for a “bigger offer”
• Claiming to live withing 25miles of the venue at the audition, then changing your mind after offer and negotiating for subs. 

 

Of course, things like this are bound to happen – they are to be expected.  As you also might expect: the more shows you produce, the more times things like this will happen.   What you might not expect is: when things like this do inevitably happen, and you go on spotlight to make a note for future reference, how frequently you see the same few agencies pop-up. How many times must you see the same name, Agency XYZ, before it becomes reasonable to assume Agency XYZ has a culture you don’t want to work with?  5?  10?  You can decide your own number.  We have our own – and after an agency reaches it, we don’t look at their submissions.

 

If we have a few bad experiences with an agent (or possibly just one big one), we don’t consider their submissions.  What are bad experiences we have with agents?

• They don’t respond to emails
• They don’t confirm attendance to auditions
• They are rude on the phone
• They don’t read the contracts properly
• They don’t read the brief/they submit performers who aren’t interested
• They are extremely pushy

If you are reading this thinking: why don’t I ever get called for a Big Tiny panto, there is some non-zero chance that you have been submitted, but we haven’t looked at your profile, simply because of who represents you.

 

 

 

BAD AGENTS: Costs...

 

Of course, you may have a really bad agent: an agent that’s losing you work.

 

Every year, when we send out offers to actors, there are a few we end up chasing.  Usually, the agents are dragging their heels on purpose: e.g. waiting for yes/no on some bigger contract (third round Les Mis, some bigger panto), and when pressed for a decision will usually try for a betterment clause.  However, some claim they’ve “not had any time to discuss it” (code for “I’ve not sent it on.”) and some agents just stop replying at all.

 

I’ll repeat that: some agents do not return emails or answer their phones. 

So…

The role gets offered to somebody else.

 One time following 2 weeks of silence we sent out an email rescinding an offer, only to receive an angry reply explaining they hadn’t been answering answerphone messages or emails because they were waiting for their client to come back from holiday… and now they had, they will accept!  Too late.

 

Some agents literally stop their clients getting paid

Luckily we’ve not had a repeat of that this year.  Although we did have an email from an actor asking for feedback; our response? We offered the part to you 10 days ago – we’ve tried to chase up your agent twice since then.  Would you like the part?  

 Delightfully they said yes!

 

ALTERNTATIVES:  Co-ops and Self-rep

 

What about you? Do you have a great agent, a good agent, a good-enough-for-right-now agents, or a good-grief-I-need-someone-better agent?

Maybe your agent is somewhere in-between. 
They might be great at networking, awful at admin.  
They might be great, but some of the time, until they’re overworked - then they’re awful. 
They might have been great when you signed with them, then they signed 200 others and now you’ve not heard from them since March.

If that sounds like you: remember you don’t NEED an agent.  Alternatives do exist.

You could become part of an actor’s co-operative.  A co-op is a group of performers who band together to share the costs and responsibilities of representation, with members taking turns to submit each other for roles and handle basic admin tasks. Popular co-ops like Act On It and The Actors' Co-operative typically charge a monthly fee (usually £20-40) rather than (and/or in conjunction with*) commission, giving actors more control over their submissions while splitting the workload of monitoring Spotlight and managing applications. 

 *thanks to the proof reader!

You don't have to be able to afford shop in co-op to join a co-op

On one hand, you’ll save on commission, on the other, your committing to giving time. Whether that’s worth it or not will depend – but for someone with lots of time but not lots of money, it’s got to be worth considering.

 

Or, of course, you could self-represent.  Watch the Spotlight board yourself, read the breakdowns, submit.  Communicate directly with the producers.  Send your own invoices.  You might have to learn a few things – you may not be a natural adminner or an accounts-whizz – but then again, plenty of other actors manage it: they can’t all have A-level business administration!  *SEE APPEND

 

I can’t speak for everyone, but honestly, The Big Tiny have never not called a performer because they were self-represented.  If you’re already having some doubts about your agent, you could always try giving self-rep a go… there’s little to lose, and you might even discover some talents you never knew you had.

Remember 10x8s?  Those were the days!

 

TLDR:

 

·      Every actor would love to have a great agent.  

·      There aren’t enough great agents to go round.

·      Having an agent (any agent) has a cost

·      Having a not-very-good agent has hidden costs

·      Bad agents can lose you work

·      You may be better as part of a co-op

·      Self-represention is a viable option

Helen's original comment. 

This is an interesting blog post, but there are quite a few things in it I would query.

1. Co-ops (in my experience) usually have lower commission than traditional agents but not *no* commission. 

2. The 20% commission you state in your remarks about what an agent keeps/takes is not universal. Some agents charge less than this -*especially* for theatre.

3. Most important of all in the discussion about agents: 

Yes, you can self submit on Spotlight without an agent. BUT- an unrepresented actor only sees a TINY percentage of available jobs on Spotlight. An unrepresented actor simply won't *know* about most Spotlight- advertised opportunities if they don't have an agent. 

It is so important for actors to knowhat to look for in an agent.

-----

ADDENDUM

Helen's third point is very apposite.  However, my limited search skills were unable to get any clarity wrt the size of the discrepency.  The following response was returned by Claude 4.0 Sonnet AI.

The commenter is partially correct, but it's more nuanced than they suggest.

Here's what the evidence shows about role visibility on Spotlight:

Self-represented actors DO see fewer roles than agents, but not necessarily just "a fraction." There will be projects that are only sent to agents, and that is the benefit of having an agent – sometimes they'll see slightly different projects to what you see as a self-represented performer. Tips for Using Spotlight When You're a Self-Represented Performer | Spotlight

The key differences are:

Agent-only roles exist: Casting directors have the option to curate which agents they prefer to get submissions from. How Spotlight Really Works Some casting directors choose to send certain breakdowns only to agents, not to all performers.

"All performers" roles: Many roles are sent to both agents and self-represented performers. Casting directors post roles to the Spotlight Jobs Board to all agents and all performers, regardless of agency status which they see in their jobs feed when signed in. FAQs and Help for Performers and Actors | Spotlight Link Jobs Board

Private lists: There is truth in the rumour that "higher tier" agents, for want of a better phrase, see higher profile casting breakdowns. How Spotlight Really Works This suggests a tiered system where established agents may receive access to more premium projects.

However, self-represented actors still have significant access: With the jobs feed board, casting directors can choose to send a project to both the agents and performers, and that means that you'll be seeing that side of things. Tips for Using Spotlight When You're a Self-Represented Performer | Spotlight

The reality is that while self-represented actors may see fewer roles overall, they still have access to a substantial number of opportunities. The exact proportion isn't publicly disclosed by Spotlight, but it's not accurate to say they only see "a fraction" - it would be more accurate to say they see "somewhat fewer" roles than agents do.

Elphaba/Dr Who/Snape/Snow White. "Why is everyone black all of a sudden?" and what does it mean for pantomime

Yes, it's finally happened.  In the vain pursuit of bumping my readership numbers, I have finally sunk to the absolute bottom of clickbaity blog titles.  Am I ashamed?  Absolutely.  Did it stop me? Nearly.  But, here we are... I pressed publish and now it's all a bit late!

So, "WHY IS EVERYONE BLACK ALL OF A SUDDEN?"

I've been asked the question about twice of late.  

"Who are you hanging round with?  The EDL?"

"Definitely not.  I can't even spell DLE."

Actually, both times that I have been asked this question, the person doing the asking was a person I really quite like: someone intelligent, someone inviting inquiry and conversation.  Perhaps I should also note: both of the people that asked me were white (I think you could pretty much work that out from the question) but let's not hold that against them!

Honestly, it's a reasonable question in the sense that all questions are reasonable, providing you're truthfully seeking an answer.  Maybe you've also heard someone ask something similar?

In truth, I've actually been asked this question (or something like it) three times of late, but one of those times was markedly different in tone.  In fact it serves as a great example of the dangers of making certain questions taboo... but I'll be coming back to that at the end.

All in all "Why is everyone black all of a sudden" has been a popular conversation starter.  Perhaps in response to a few cross-colour casting decisions reported about in the media, perhaps because I keep boring the arses of people by talking about my research into arts and identity and they've run out of other things to say.  

Whatever the reason, before we espouse an opion about "why everyone's back all of a sudden," I feel it's incumbent on me to point out:

1. It isn't true
2. It doesn't make sense
3. It is slightly morally dubious

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT ISN'T TRUE?!  

What about Snow White? 

Elphaba? 

Severus Snape?"

"Well... they're all interesting examples of something 

(three different somethings actually).  

But none of them are examples of 

EVERYONE

 BEING BLACK

 ALL OF A SUDDEN."

Let's start with defining our terms:

1. Who do you mean by everyone?  

• Everyone in the world? (surely there's about the same black people as yesterday, and as there will be tomorrow, birthrates notwithstanding)
• Everyone in Britain? (Actually 85% of the UK population are white... though that is changing, faster in some places than others)
• Everyone in entertainment? (Even that seems like unrepentant hyperbole... I mean, I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty certain I've seen white people in a couple of things recently... by which I mean everything.  Chill out!)

2, What do we mean by black?

• I don't want to get too woke on everyone here, but it's always worth pointing out that terms like white and black are technically incorrect because technically everyone's brown.  I know I'm obviating the more important issues relating to culture and identity, but it's always useful to have in the back of your mind the thought that there is actually only one skin pigment in humans: melanin.  You either have a lot of it, a little of it, or somewhere in between.  Being white means really just being very very light brown, and being black means being darker brown than that.  It really wasn't that long ago before everyone's ancestors lived in Africa and were all as brown as each other
• The identification of someone as being black, implicitly contrasts them against a cultural norm of being white.  In fact, having a racial identity at all only has any meaning in a multicultural setting.  Within such a context: who are you identifying as black?  Someone with black (ie dark brown) skin from the African diaspora, or do you simply mean anybody who does not adhere to the cultural norm?  i.e. for the purposes of your question: are Indians black? Are biracial people black?  Are Jews black?

3. What do you mean, all of a sudden?

• In reality, I'm probably asking how old you are.  The younger you are (and the closer you live to an urban centre), the higher the percentage of you lifespan you will have spent living in a multicultural country.  Granted, this isn't true across the board... demographics are tricky things to generalise about and there are plenty of places in the UK where seeing a person from the global majority would be something of a talking point in the village.  You'd have to be knocking on a bit to remember the peculiarly white Britain that predated post-war immigration, but if that's you, you have witnessed a hell of a demographic shift - that is true.  However if, like me, you're somewhere in the middle, you might have noticed a few more non-white faces than you did 40 years ago, but if you've spent 40 years counting how many non-white faces you see everyday, you're probably not the kind of person that's going to enjoy this blog.  TTFN.

To give you an idea of how big an demographic shift you are likely to have noticed, here's an interesting graph from Wikipedia showing how the proportion of white people in the UK population has changed over time.  

I was born in 1981 (I've got love for you if you were born in the 80s.  Love, but no milk... thanks, Thatcher!) That means, in my lifetime the UK has gone from being 94% white to being 82% white.  From my perspective, I have noticed the UK become noticably less white over my lifetime.  But the key words here are over my lifetime... not, as the question implies: all of a sudden.

Now that we've more clearly defined our terms, let's answer the question that I was actually being asked:

"Why am I seeing more non-white performers in entertainment than I used to?"

Well, that is a very different question, and a very good one too.  It is a question to which there are interesting and contested answers (NB plural, because there are several)... and in answering it, we shall also cast light on the magical world of pantomime.

So, first things first... 

???  HOW DIVERSE IS ENTERTAINMENT ???

It's a good question, and it is surprisingly difficult to get a definite and up to date answer.  There's a lot of research in the public domain in the last decade, but I can't find a lot in the last 12 months.

Certainly you may have noticed that "in recent years, the UK film and television industry has embarked on a transformative journey towards embracing racial diversity both on-screen and behind the scenes." -Allspring Media.

BFI diversity standards for film stipulate that at least one of the main characters should be from an under-represented group.  This could be defined by race, or disability, or sex or sexuality.  For secondary characters, film makers must hit at least one of a range of diversity targets, one of which is 40% ethnic diversity (London) and 30% ethnic diversity (rest of UK). 

"Is that a lot?"

"Well, for London, no."

According to the 2021 census, 46.2% of the population of London are from Asian, Black, Mixed or Other (non-white) ethnic groups, with another 17% being from other white minority groups.  When compared to the 63% 'minority' ethnic profile of London, the BFI's 40% target seems timid.

If you don't live in London, 30% might be overegging it somewhat: regions like North East and Wales are over 90% white, and most of this diversity is in urban areas.  There are plenty of people who don't get out much who go around thinking Britain is whiter than the French war flag.  (Can I make a joke about the French?  Is that racist, or is that still OK because they're European?)

How about diversity on TV?

Well, here's where my data gets a lot worse.  The best source I could easily found is this Ofcom monitoring report from 2018.  In 2018, Ofcom found that 12.5% of the TV population was from ethnic minorities (or if you prefer, the global majority... plus non-majority white races, unless you already counted them... terms are confusing).  This was comparable to the 13.7% of the UK population in these demographic groups in 2017. Black people from the African and Caribbean diasporas were over represented (roughly double) and South Asian people were under represented (roughly by half)... which is interesting! Particularly for panto... we will get onto this later too!

Now... 2018 was a long time ago (particularly in the world of on-screen diversity monitoring).  Since then we've had a PM with Indian heritage, non-white winners of Britain's Got Talent, and an orange man ruining the United States.  I think (and this is my own hunch) there probably has been some further shift towards greater representation of minority ethnic groups on UK TV since then... I defo don't think we've gone backwards, so I think we can safely assume peeps on-the-whole are well represented - perhaps with a caveat that we would like to see more Asians.

"What about theatre?"

"WHAT ABOUT THEATRE?!"

 ??? WHAT ABOUT THEATRE ???

Who's measuring this data?  Is anyone?  I don't know... they certainly aren't publishing it in any of the places I've been looking at.

I can tell you that some roles are ring fenced for non-white actors.  

E.g. in the Bolton Octagon's recent production of Little Shop of Horrors, the Greek Chorus were three black women, just like the film - because it would be weird to see white actors singing those parts.  (Fun fact: this Canadian production just got pulled because of exactly that!)

The awesome Little Shop at The Octagon, Bolton
If you haven't seen it yet... you're too late.  They just passed by!

Also, the guy playing the plant was black, even though you couldn't see him till he came on and bowed, but you could hear him, and everybody expects the plant to do the voice off the film... and it would be weird for a white actor to put on a black voice.  And also, the actor playing Mushnik was Jewish, because the character Mushnik is Jewish, and by this point you've probably already cut and paste "we welcome applications from ethnically diverse performers" from the other Spotlight callouts, so why change it now?

The fact that the cast and their performances were so fabulous is testament to the reputation and well-thought-out casting policies of the Bolton Octagon.  

                    .... Particularly as they were all actor-musos.  

                                .... from the Bolton area.

                                            ... And you thought your casting                                                     process was tough!

Mushnik from the same production... who also played the drums!

Now, I've just mentioned half the cast.  So unless you were black, or Jewish, and a puppeteer/musician or 3 young women singing close harmony, I'm sorry, those jobs weren't available to you.  Nor do I think they should be (except perhaps Mushnik... I mean, it was great that he was Jewish, and he was absolutely awesome, but nobody buys a programme nowadays, so if you were stuck you might be tempted to cast someone who merely look Jew-ish).

Now, the reciprocal is not true.  If you are from an ethic minority, there is nothing to stop you from auditioning for Seymour or Audrey if that's what you want.  Heck, if you fancied your chances, you could put in for Anne Boylin or Dr Who or even Snow White.   

"Snow White? Isn't that the one part 

you should keep for white actors?" 

"Well actually, Rachel Zegler's biracial.  

Her father's from Poland... 

or her father's father was... 

well, somebody was at any rate, 

and that means that Rachel's part Polish, 

so unless you're advocating for Spotlight 

to bring in a "one-drop" rule, she's surely white enough!"

"But the whole point is that 

Snow White's skin is as white as snow."

"Nobody's skin is as white as snow."

"But lots of actors are whiter than her.  

Aren't you taking away jobs from those actors?"

"No, because those other actors couldn't have played that part."

"Why not?"

"Because they're not Rachel Zegler, 

the amazing award winning actress. It's a stunt casting."

"Don't you just hate that?"

"I do.  But I'm not trying to recoup 

millions of dollars of big movie budget.  

At least it got everyone talking about it."

"Kind of backfired though, didn't it?"

"Yes.  It did this time."

"Because people prefer white actors in "white roles"?"

"Some very few perhaps: 

Tommy Robinson, Marjorie Taylor-Green.  

I think mostly it backfired because 

people hate cynical movie producers stunt casting actors 

just to meme-stoke culture-war controversies."

"You said she got cast because she was amazing."

"I don't know.  I didn't actually see it."

 "What about Paapa Essiedu who's just been cast as Snape? Was that a stunt casting?"

"I don't know, I'm only writing a blog.  

But I think there was a whisper of that in some corners."

"You coward! What's the point of writing this blog if you don't proffer an opinion!"

"Alright! 

I never imagined Severus Snape as black.  

He's not black in the books.  

Or in the films.  And I do love the films. 

(Yes, you can judge me in the comments: 

but if anyone doxes me...!!!!). 

Therefore it was a surprise to find out 

that Papa was playing him.  

Lots of people were surprised.  

Surely, the producers would have expected that?  

And when they cast him 

they factored in that surprise as a saleable quality.  If they didn't want a surprise, 

they could have made some of the other characters black."

"Like who?  Everyone in Harry Potter is white!"

"They're not all white.  

Not in the books anyway, but I take your point.  

The actress who played Hermione in the Cursed Child was black 

- that worked - 

I'd less firmly imagined that role to be white."

"But you did imagine it."

"Of course I imagined it... 

that's what it says in the books."

"What about Wicked?"

"What about Wicked?"

"In the new film, 

the actress they cast to play Elphaba is black, 

but in the book Elphaba is green!"

"She's green in the film!"

"But in the original movie, 

it's played by Margaret Hamilton.  

And Margaret Hamilton's white... 

she's just painted green."

"You do know they painted Cynthia Erivo green too."

"You can still tell she's black!  

She has black facial features."

"I know.  

She is black.  

Acting is pretend.  

Cynthia Erivo is a famous black actor 

and not an actual witch."

"But she got cast because she is a black actor!"

"Maybe that was reason 11 or something.  

Shortly behind 'BECAUSE SHE'S ABSOLUTELY FUCKING AMAZING,' 

TEN TIMES!" 

"What about all the famous white musical theatre actresses?"

"They were also cast in the film!  

You had to have won two Emmy's 

just to walk on as an extra!"

"Alright, forget about movies.  

What about stage actors? 

Do you remember that black actress who played Juliet last year?"

"You mean Francesca Amewudah-Rivers?"

"I don't know her name.  

She played opposite Tom Holland as Romeo."

"Then you mean Francesca Amewudah-Rivers."

"She was black, 

but Juliet is supposed to be medieval Italian.  

Why aren't they casting all medieval Italians?"

"Because somebody's got to be black!"

"WHY THOUGH?!  
WHY CAN'T EVERYONE JUST BE WHITE?!"

"Because lots of British people are black!  

Black British actors are actors... 

they do acting... 

they need roles to act in.  

If you only cast white performers 

to play every character that has 

at some point been imagined as white, 

you'd put every black actor on the dole.   

Shakespeare - out!  

Chekov - out!  

Stage adaptations of TV classics: 

Yes Minister, Fawlty Towers, Only Fools - 

out, out, out!  

90% of the British cultural canon predates post-war migration,  

You can't rule people out of the art form 

simply because their ancestors arrived on the island too late!"

END OF SCENE

WHY NOW?

What I can say, from my own experience, including attending the UKPA conference about diversity, and also including interviewing dozens of panto professionals.  Everybody in pantoland is very aware of the need to cast for ethnic diversity.

If you intervieweprofessional panto producers you hear five basic arguments for why they are so keen on casting for ethinic diversity:

1.   Maximising the pool of talent

2.   Providing opportunities for marginalised groups,

3.   Representation of the audience,

4.  Vanguarding cultural diversity

5.   THE SECRET EXTRA REASON THAT NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT (PUBLICLY)

1.   Maximising the pool of talent

Casting is hard.  You have limited time to read profiles, watch showreels and pick people you'd like to come in person.  Now there are A GIGANTIC NUMBER of HUGELY TALENTED, HARD WORKING actors out there, all of them worthy of being on stage, but you only get to pick one actor for each part, and you only get time to audition a few.

What you're aiming for with auditions is to select enough very talented actors, any of whom you could cast, and all who have something to offer.

a

FUN FACT: Big Tiny auditions are like The Voice, ..
only the panel start off facing forwards,
and the chairs don't revolve and
also instead of pressing our buzzers, we print off the actors CVs and make notes.

In the midst of this melange of submissions, casting calls and auditions,:great performers get overlooked, or misplaced, or unfairly not-considered, not because they have done anything other than choose a profession that is hugely overcrowded.  This is entirely unfair.  And there is very little any producer can to rectify it.

        Because...

                    ... the very best way to make choices, 

                                    is to choose from the widest range of possible options.

There is no point seeing 10 six foot, blonde dancer-singers who all trained at Lanes if you need one Prince Charming.  You'd like to see maybe the best two of those, maybe a couple of actors who sing, someone older, some grads, a couple of comedy character actresses in case you decide to go 'principal-boy'- and within those, every type of diversity.  Not only ethnic diversity: disability, neurodiversity, LGBT.  You want to wash up after auditions and make some artistic decisions about the cast and the show that you want to produce.

The better your processes, the more likely it is that you'll see the best people, and the cast you assemble will reflect the diversity of the talent pool that you managed to attract.

2. Providing opportunities for marginalised groups

IMHO, this is the weakest argument of the five.  I have heard it proposed many times and I either don't agree that it is that big an issue, or I don't think it's what actually drives producers.

Contrary to popular belief, the Lurpack Man is not part of a marginalised group
As he is made out of butter and not margarine

Do I think people from ethnic minority backgrounds are marginalised in Britain?  I do!

Do I think ethnic minority actors are marginalised in the Arts?  I don't.*

*Well OK, I do if we're talking about Hollywood movies... or celebrity/stunt-casting/national-treasuring and the like.  But that's the exception.  If I were a black actor, right at the top of my game and the only thing stopping me breaking through was my ethnicity, yes, I'd be furious.  And I would kick up a stink in the national press, and I would plaster it all over social media too.  Rightfully so.

BUT, most actors aren't anywhere near that position.  Only a blessed few ever get chosen, only the rarest ones taste that kind of fame.  Most actors act for a living.  And if they're really good, and work hard, and network, and keep up with training, they still have to be lucky to earn enough money to act for a living full time.  Certainly this is the case for most actors we call.

If we consider just this group of actors: does being part of an ethnic minority mean you are marginalised in the industry? I would suggest: possibly not. 

Before you start commenting underneath, hear me out (and bear in mind I'm not black nor an actor)... I think all actors are marginalised.  I think the depersonalisation of industry practices, coupled with an oversupply of graduate training courses forces the average professional actor into the margins.

Every actor deserves care and professional consideration.  The whole system is so desperately inadequate, that any special pleading for one particular group of actors becomes a bitter pill that others are asked to swallow.  In my experience, and in the experience of people I have spoken to, when we consider the margins of this brutally competitive profession in which the average jobbing actor competes: being from ethically diverse backgrounds often means you are more likely to be called to audition, are more likely to be cast, and in some cases can also benefit from the ringfencing of non-white roles.

Now, does this mean that the system is broken?  No.  It just means that the argument that producers have a moral obligation to cast for ethnic diversity as a foil against marginalisation is weak.  For a number of producers, the reasons for cast for ethnic diversity are something other than this. 

3.   Representation of the audience

This is a SUPER strong reason to aim for an ethnically diverse cast.

If I were watching a panto in London, or Leicester or any town in which every other face you see is not a white face, it would seem VERY STRANGE to me to see a cast in which everyone's white.

Who are you making the show for?

True: even in cosmopolitan boroughs white people are often over represented amongst theatre audiences compared to the local population.  There are social, cultural and economic drivers at play, that I've covered at length in previous blogs.  However, that ain't gonna change very quickly if every time someone who isn't white comes to see a show, they only see white people acting.  

Britain is becoming more diverse.  If theatre (and panto) is going to thrive, audiences need to become more diverse.  And that means the casts need to be more diverse.

BUT HERE IS AN ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE CAVEAT...

This is not a homogenous process.

London isn't Wrexham, Birmingham isn't Barrow-in-Furness.

There are plenty of towns in which non-white faces are an exception.  One of the pantomimes I produce is in a valley that was 98.5% white in the 2021 census.  There are non-white people in the valley, there are non-white people in the audience, where inclusion and community are not only at the heart of our practice but that of the theatre.  However, if the point of casting is to be representative - a representative cast in that valley would have one non-white actor every eight years.

There is a real pressure on panto productions to cast for ethnic diversity, felt at the same time of year, up and down the country.   With the best will in the world, it is difficult to secure the best actors, within budget, who may have to relocate over Christmas.  It is not practical to imagine that smaller, regional pantomimes will be able to access the same pool of talent as Crossroads or big city shows like the Hackney Empire.

Still, there persists from some corners, a clarion call for all casts to contain at least two non-white faces in order to be representative.  Come as it may from a well-meaning place, I can't help but wonder if those people got out of their corner and traveled around the regions a bit, whether their clarion call would be a bit quieter!

12 miles away from our panto in the very friendly, overwhelmingly white rural valley of Saddleworth, we have another panto in Bury.  Bury is very close to the cosmopolitan city of Manchester and is much more ethnically diverse. I do feel a greater pressure to cast for ethnic diversity here, because I do want all my audience members to feel represented.  We have cast some great black actors in Bury, who have relocated from London, and given very successful performances - so casting was definitely a success.  However, in Bury, the most populous ethnic group after White is South Asians, which includes 10 times as many people as Black (see 2021 census here).  Ideally we'd like our cast to include northern actor-singers with South Asian heritage, that would be much closer representation of the local population, but despite our best efforts we have found these actors scarcer in our submission pool.  It is possibly that casting the panto in Bury is subject to similar cultural and arts-access barriers driving the disparity between Black and South Asian performers that Ofcom reported in 2018.  That is a bold hypothesis that would have to be tested.

Above - The March for Diversity through Bury Town Centre, 2024

Pictured here, moments before catching up to then fatally trampling over a slow moving Beatles Tribute Act which had pulled out in front without signalling.  

4. Vanguarding Cultural Diversity

This is another strong argument.  Maybe the best one so far.

Vanguarding means taking action to get ahead of an issue before it turns into a problem.

In pantomime's case the issue is: it's a traditional art form, of which the traditional audience stopped having children to pass the tradition down to. 

I know, I know! That was 3 unwarranted generalisations, tarted up to look like a sentence).  On its own, this isn't a problem. 

• There are actually lots of non-white families who go to the pantomime.  There are even pantomimes aimed at ethnically diverse communities, e.g. the touring muslim panto which has a very South Asian bent.
• The start of post-war immigration was the best part of a century ago.  When we talk about ethnically diverse audiences, we're not imagining people getting straight out of "small boats" and heading to box office to buy their tickets for Cinderella.  Increasingly, we're talking about three or four generations of cultural harmonisation... plenty of time for a family to develop their own tradition of panto attendance.  Which many families have.
• Increasingly, British families are themselves ethnically diverse.  Say what you like about human beings, but the one thing they do love is other humans... and they don't let ethnicity get in the way.  As more and more families inherit a mixture of traditions from diverse heritages, the less meaningful it will be to talk about "white" or "non-white" families.  (The sooner the better, IMO)
• Lots of white families are having children.  But not as many, on average, as previous generations.  

The concession of these three apposite rebuttals notwithstanding, a great deal of pantomimes enduring popularity is borne of the fact that grandma came with her granny when she was a girl, and she buys the tickets for all of her littlies with the money she gets for her winter fuel payment (whoops!).   The long and short of it is, that panto producers in 50 years will no longer cash in on such an economic boon.

Now, you may well posit: so what?  Why should we care about panto producers.  Pantomime's been around for 200 years, it's had a good run - and there's no a priori reason that the art form has to survive for another 200 years.  Britain is a multicultural society - there are many communities all around us passing down cultural practices we have no idea even exist. They can't all be used to define a supranational identity.  That's not cultural exchange works.  Panto could be one of those things mostly done by white British families, like going to steam fairs, getting sunburn oreating  kippers.   As the demographics shift, it'll gradually wain in popularity, the amdrammers will gradually become to old to perform, all of the smaller regional shows will dry up, until all that remains is the same seven titles cycling round the big city theatres in which every role is played by AI using holographic projections of Biggins.

We could let that happen... only... I rather like panto.  In fact, I'll go further: I think that panto is a piece of cultural heritage worth propagating industriously.  I mean, I want to watch AI hologram Biggins more than anything else in the world, but if that means every 7 years, I have to go the theatre in Sheffield,  I'm simply not going to do it.

Bar chart 1: Regional British Diversity Bar Chart. 
Predicting a landslide for the liberal democrats

For pantomime to continue to thrive, it must reimagine how it engages with family audiences, who may not have a tradition of going to see live theatre, let alone seeing a panto at Christmas.

The vanguarding of visible ethnic diversity in casting is one way in which producers can seek do this.  

Not because it is better for non-white actors, not because is it better for national cultural integration, but because it is better for them and their businesses.

        ... which that is as close to a smoking gun as you're going to get.

                    ... except for one thing...

5. THE SECRET REASON THAT NO-ONE IS TALKING ABOUT (PUBLICLY)

So, there is one other very compelling suggestion for what's driving current shifts in casting for ethnic diversity, and it's this:

NOBODY WANTS TO GET CANCELLED

If you think about panto a lot, then surely you've noticed that lately, every year somebody's panto gets cancelled, or bawled out, or Twitterblated (should that be X-coriated?!?) because of perceived lack of ethnic diversity.  Maybe because they published a poster or whatnot without the prerequisite number of non-white actors on, or had the wrong costumes, or wrote the wrong lyric, or some other cardinal sin of which they must surely have known (everyone was at the meeting, right?!)

Putting a show on is such an expensive, cash-up-front business, that getting it wrong, and ending up in the national press under a headline of casual racism, could be potentially ruinous.

In a way, this is cancel culture working the way it's meant to.  Every producer is striving to cast for ethnic diversity whether or not they buy any of the other arguments about representation or cultural heritage.

However... and this is my plea to everyone reading this.  Next time you see someone falling below the high standards that you expect, consider that: not everybody was at the meeting, and some of these may well be trying their best to live up to standards that are harder to meet than to set.

JERRY'S FINAL THOUGHT:

Earlier on I trailed that three people had asked me this question of late.  The third was after a lecture I recently gave to a group of performers in Norwich.  As part of the Q&A after the session, the whole group brainstormed ways in which we could alter our practice to encourage performers and audience members from diverse backgrounds to engage with the artform.  One of the (very sensible) suggestions was to avoid performing racial caricatures (e.g. funny voices and belittling stereotypes etc.)  During the group discussion it seemed that everyone was agreed, so it came as a bit of a shock when this chap came up in private, after the session to tell me why his racial caricatures were so good.  He emphatically explained to me how the audiences love his African accents and "Chinese-eyes" jokes, and that I was completely out of touch with what ordinary people think.

I listened, adding in an occasional alternative interpretation and leaving him ,with a few thoughts-to-consider.  Then out of sheer curiosity, I asked him why   if he felt so strongly about it, he didn't speak up during the Q&A.  After all, if he was certain we'd got it all wrong, shouldn't he feel some sort of obligation to at least try and correct us. He replied that there was no point in trying to sharing his thoughts, because no-one would listen and people would judge him.

He knew that he held a minority view, so rather than let everyone judge him (unfairly - from his perspective), he said that he'd rather stay quiet and then come and put me right later.  Note that this wasn't him changing his viewpoint... he was as certain as ever... however, the fear of being cancelled had meant that he kept his thoughts to himself - where nobody else could challenge them.

This illustrates the problem with cancelling culture: it robs involved parties of the chance to engage in an honest discussion, to share and to justify their opinions, and to be challenged, to change and to grow.  You can cancel a show, but you can't cancel beliefs - you can only drive them underground - at that's where beliefs go to fester, to burgeon and pupate. If we are going to affect any change, we must have everything out in the open. This is a serious topic - it requires that we take other people's views seriously.