Judgement and Instinct

When new actors apply to join the agency, firstly we look at their letter, cv and photograph. Then, if we think they're interesting and different enough from other actors whom we represent, we ask to see them in something - usually a play. Then, having seen them perform, if we think they're good, and we think we may be able to represent them and get them auditions and hence work, we invite them to interview.

It's very important for actors to have an agent, for although they might be able to get theatre work without one, casting for television, film, radio and just about everything else is done through the agent. So it's a big deal for actors. To put it in context, the agency that I work for gets about forty applications a month, and takes on about four actors a year.

At the interview they're asked some standard questions about their careers etc and then the other actors can ask them questions: and then they can ask the other actors any questions. Then off they go, out of the room and home, and we vote as to whether or not they should be offered a place in the agency.

But should the vote be carried if there's a simple majority? What if eleven people want to take that actor on, and, say, ten don't? Should we still offer the actor a place? It's not as simple as it seems, as the actor has to be able to work with everyone in the agency, because it's a co-operative.

Over the years - quite a lot of years, I've worked here since 1993 - we have tried lots of different methods to be used in the case of a split vote. We have thought about it: we have had hours of discussion (we do that): we have applied rules: we have allowed written submissions: we have disallowed written submissions. We have faffed about like crazy, in other words.

Once or twice it has been a disaster: we've taken someone on who proved entirely unsuitable, or failed to take on someone who would, I suspect, have been superb.

And recently I think we've worked out why. We've been applying judgement where it wasn't needed: logical thinking where there wasn't a place for logic.

When we've thought "Well, he's got lots of experience but why's his cv set out so it looks like an explosion in a Disney film?" and we've taken the actor on, because everything else seemed right, it's been a disaster.

No, what's needed here is instinct, not judgement. When, as has happened a few times recently, after the interview the applicant leaves the room, and all those in the room go "Wow! Terrific!" and we almost forget to vote on it - - well, that's the person to take on.

Because choosing the right person for the agency is greater than the sum of its parts. There's got to be something extra, so you just know.

Now I've worked it out, I've realised that it happens in real life as well. On several occasions I've met someone - perhaps introduced through a friend - and something about them has made me think "Noooooooooo" - but it's seemed somehow impolite to say,

"Well, nice meeting you, but my instinct tells me to avoid you from now on."

And, of course, it works the other way too. Sometimes I've met someone and I've instantly thought, "Oh, you're a Good Thing." Some of you who might be reading this fit into this second category: and none of you into the first.

My judgement is occasionally wrong: my instinct knows what it's talking about. I'm trusting my instinct from now on.