11:05 am - Sun 8/1/04
A Use For Gatorade You'll Never See In The Commercials

Well, I snuck in one more commercial audition before the end of July (Another print ad, this time for Arco).

Print ad auditions, as I've said a couple times now, don't tend to be too satisfying. And rightly or wrongly, I always feel more like "product" being shot through the assembly line than I do when something requires more acting. But I want to book one of these things, not just for the money, but to put to rest the idea that "I never book print stuff".

I was thinking, after my last entry (Where I wrote about how I always see someone else who looks more "right" for the part at auditions), that that's not what it sounds like (i.e. me subconsciously sabotaging myself with doubt).

Or at least it's not exactly what it sounds like...

When I'm at home, and I look at my face in the mirror, I don't see a particular "type". I don't see the stereotypical "politician", or "nerd", or "ex-jock", or what-have-you. To my own eyes, there's nothing specific my appearance brings to mind. As an actor, I feel like I can play any number of roles, but as my own casting director, if I'm talking about "James Hoffmaster" as an actor who fits a particular "type", it's hard for me to say exactly what I'd bring me in for.

I can see me as a "scientist" (If you're not shading over into funny, "Nutty Professor" territory), and that seems to have been at least somewhat borne out by the number of scientist parts I've gone in for (At least four that come to mind).

I can also see myself as an "academic" (Maybe it's that glimmer of something-beyond-simian intelligence in my eyes...). I don't think I'd look ridiculous in front of a classroom.

Beyond that, it's hard for me to say "I'd be the perfect ______".

And in one sense, it seems like that's a good thing--I wouldn't want to always go in for one type of role, and one type of role only--but on the other hand, in the commercial world, where they often seem to want the shorthand of a stereotypical appearance, it leaves me afraid that I'm never going to look "right" enough for enough parts to have an actual career.

But some of the things I've gotten so far show that I'm maybe not the most accurate judge of how I would or wouldn't be cast.

The HBO thing springs to mind; I wouldn't have thought of myself as the head of a company (Even one that makes watercoolers).

(Of course, it sort of "muddies the waters" that I was essentially cut out of that commercial, but the important thing, in terms of the subject of "casting", is that I was cast in the role.)

The Time-Warner spot is another one. I would not be the first guy I'd think of to play a cop, but when I got cast in the role, and I was in the getup, I looked fine.

(Speaking of the Time Warner spot, still waiting for it to air, and still waiting to get my "buyout" money. Talked to JS about it recently; he said he's still bugging them about it, but that it doesn't mean the spot's not going to air, which was a fear of mine. There's just been some sort of paperwork snafu that's holding things up.)

(Had to take a pause to go get some groceries...)

It occurred to me, on the way to the store, that all this stuff about what I'm "right" for, or my "look", or whatever it is, actually is just self-sabotage.

The fact is, by the time JS calls me for an audition, it's already been decided that I could physically play the part, whatever it is.

And I'm getting callbacks, which means that not only do I look "right" for the part, I'm "right" enough to merit a second look.

So, I'm going to get out of the casting business. I'm obviously not very good at it.

on Thursday and Friday nights, I spent some time looking at the "Erotic Services" section of CraigsList (If you're not familiar with CraigsList, it's basically an online "classified section", with job listings, apartments for rents, things for sale, personal ads, and the aforementioned "erotic services").

Seems like the going rate is $250 for an hour of "erotic service".

I gave it some thought--some very serious thought--but decided (For now, at least) to continue to "erotically service" myself (My rates are better).

I don't have a moral problem with the transaction at all (I think if I want to buy it and someone wants to sell it, then why the hell not?).

For me, the main issue is, of course, a financial one; I can't spend $10 on an action figure without a major attack of guilt (Which is why I've quit buying them), so how am I going to spend $250 on a live "action figure"?

And it occured to me, thinking about the expense, that with my current financial standing, it's a no-win proposition--If I did it and got scammed (Or just didn't enjoy myself), I'd be thinking, "I just blew $250", while if I did it and had the time of my life, I'd be bummed that I couldn't do it every week.

There are other "considerations"--concerns about safety, about disease, about getting busted (Seems like it would be very easy for the cops to put up a fake post, then slap the cuffs on you as soon as you opened your door)--but to be honest, if I had the funds, I'm lonely enough, and horny enough, to be willing to take those risks.

Sex with hookers isn't exactly the sex life I imagined myself having, but it could end up being a case of "any port in a storm", since we're into our tenth year of celibacy (And the time has just flown...!), and I don't see real sex anywhere on the horizon.

In my mind, the area of Craigslist that's way more sad and pathetic than the "erotic services" section is the "casual encounters" section.

It's 99.9 percent guys, first off (And I'm pretty sure the remaining fraction-of-a-percent are hookers, and guys who are pretending to be women). And maybe I'm wrong, but they all seem to want things that no woman would be particularly interested in providing.

But who knows? Maybe I am wrong--Maybe for every guy out there who wants a woman to spit Gatorade on him while he masturbates with a carrot, there's a woman reading that who thinks "That sounds so hot...!".

But it seems...doubtful.

previous - next