San Francisco vs. Los Angeles: The Bi-City Dilemma by Ed Hooks

"I love it up here, and I hate LA", explains Peter Fitzsimmons, an enterprising actor who has managed a bi-city existence for eight years. He's racked up a nice resume, including appearances on hit tv shows such as Family Matters and Eddie Dodd, and at the same time has been active in the Bay Area theatrical scene, working, among other places, with Berkeley Rep. He is also co-producer of San Francisco's Fellowship Theatre Guild, which recently had a successful run of four O'Neill one-acts under the title Tales of the Sea.

This kind of life style may not be for everyone, however. To pull it off, you have to design your life in such a way that you are able to shift between LA and SF at the ring of a phone, never knowing today where you will be tomorrow -- or even this afternoon -- and you have to have a fairly high tolerance for stress. And a fairly large wallet to cover the necessary cash outlays that may never be recouped.

According to the bi-city actors I talked to, the first problem you encounter is how to retain a good Hollywood talent agent. Even though there are over two hundred franchised agencies in Hollywood, most of them are not eager to work with out-of-town clients. Auditions for TV shows and movies are frequently set up on short notice, sometimes on the same day, and an agent wants to know that his clients are immediately available.

An out-of-town actor may have a work conflict in another city ("Gosh, I'm shooting this industrial in San Jose...."), may be unable to catch a flight fast enough to get to LA this afternoon ("You're kidding. You want me to be in Culver City at 3pm ...Today?!"), or he may balk at traveling for a one or two line role that will probably only pay scale ("Uh..maybe we should hold out for something better...") which causes the agent to have to call back the casting director and cancel appointments that are already set. With 60,000 union-member actors living in LA, all of whom are presumably ready, willing and able to work, an agent doesn't really need to go through this kind of hassle.

Anticipating resistance, most bi-city actors set things up so they are "local" in both LA and San Francisco, while keeping their precise whereabouts nebulous. They use the LA address of a relative or friend and stay in touch with agents in both cities through elaborate voice-mail systems, pagers or 800 numbers. The callers are charged for a local call even if the phone rings 385 miles away, and no one is the wiser. As veteran San Francisco agent Joan Spangler observes, "You just can't tell an LA agent that you are based in San Francisco. He won't have anything to do with you. That means getting a local number and address down there."

Union rules also seem designed to thwart the bi-city actor. SAG requires an LA producer to pay per diem, travel, hotel expenses and related charges if he hires a SF-based actor to work on a LA-based production. This can add $1,000 a day to the production costs and is almost definitely a deal-breaker. Even if the actor has deep pockets and is willing to absorb the expenses himself, the producer is legally obligated and can get in trouble with SAG if he doesn't pay it. So the best way around the problem is to avoid putting the producer in that spot in the first place.

While researching this article, I discovered several Bay Area performers who have been unsuccessful in their efforts to land an LA agent, but who are determined none-the-less to be bi-city. They are attempting to make an end-run by paying $595 every six months to a San Diego/LA-based "manager" cum "agent" cum entrepreneur who submits their photos for projects listed in the Breakdown Service.

Every month, they receive a list of how many submissions were recently made on their behalf. If an LA casting director who has been contacted in this fashion wants to set up an audition, the "manager' quickly transforms into an "agent" and arranges the appointment. Then, if a job results, the actor forks over an additional 15% to the "agent".

The entire enterprise is of questionable legality, however, since talent agents are required to be licensed by the California State Labor Commission, and this person in San Diego is not. A licensed talent agent would be prohibited from charging that $595 fee, just for starters. Mainly, this is an entrepreneurial deck of cards built on the wallets and naiveté of aspiring actors who are willing to do almost anything to get at the Hollywood casting scene, and the only person who is guaranteed to profit is the entrepreneur. Success stories from this route are extremely rare.

Given all the problems, does it make financial sense to be bi-city? Well, maybe. It depends on an actor's pay rate and how often he gets cast. It definitely is not worth while to commute south for commercial auditions since the average actor books only one job in thirty tries -- and there are almost always callbacks.

If you fly to LA for movie and TV auditions, your statistical chances of actually getting the job are much better, maybe one in ten. Round trip air fare runs about $165 these days (Southwest Airlines is the cheapest), car rental costs about $25 (Thrifty is a favorite) and you might want to factor in the cost of eating something before returning to SF. Double the expense if the first audition turns out to be a pre-screen and you have to go back to read for the producers. If you land the job and have to go south again to shoot it, add motel expenses, meals, more air fare and car rental.

A job on a sitcom, for example, usually requires actors to rehearse for several consecutive days before taping, so that means you'll have to stay in LA maybe a week. Episodic shows hire a lot of "day players" but, even for those jobs, an actor will have to go to LA a day or two early for wardrobe fittings and such. With these kinds of expenses, it is almost impossible to get into the black when working for anything close to union-scale wages. If you have worked enough already to get your day rate up to, say, "$1,000, it makes more sense.

Fitzsimmons says that none of this bothers him. He's in it for the long run and considers this to be "twenty years of me investing in my career." He figures that, even if he loses money, he's building a strong resume, making contacts, increasing his day rate and qualifying for union insurance coverage. One Bay Area actress told me she justifies losing money on the grounds that she has an understanding spouse. "He has a successful business here and supports me in my efforts. I've made five trips to LA recently, spent almost a thousand dollars, and still haven't been cast."

San Francisco agents aren't keen on the whole concept of actors being bi-city, though Janice Erlendson at Stars, The Agency acknowledges that there are "some, a few, who do it successfully." When asked what advice he might give the Bay Area actor who is longing for Hollywood, Craig Jones of Film-Theatre Actors Exchange suggests that he forget about being bi-city and "go there." "Commit to one market, and work that market."

Joan Spangler at Look Model & Talent encourages actors to work here first and then move to LA. "Get your union cards, maybe a couple of national commercials to pay your bills." She advises that patience, common sense and good planning are essential. "I've seen way too many people move back, wonderfully talented actors who go to LA, and can't get the time of day." Janice Erlendson is in agreement, observing that, whether an actor migrates south, moves to New York or remains permanently in San Francisco is a very personal decision, a factor of his particular drive, desire and passion to "make it" in the industry.

"There are so many variables," she points out. "If you are hoping to work in LA at any point in the future, however, you are probably in the right place right now. There is a great diversity of acting work here. San Francisco can be a wonderful springboard."