Hey Emily,
I had a look at your showreel, and I think it's not bad, either. Essentially, there are a lot of myths given out about showreels, mainly by showreel production companies who are attempting to make maximum money out of you by adding in as many needless 'extras' to a reel as they can think of. By and large, you will find (if you can get to talk to casting directors personally) that they have little time or interest in anything other than well laid out reels that show them quickly and succinctly what an actor has to offer them should they wish to cast them. Is there a need for expensive graphics? Not really (although it can help your showreel to be aesthetically easy on the eye, of course). Is there a need for a DVD selection menu? Who will ever have the time or inclination to cycle through it? Does the showreel need to be five minutes long? No, no-one who has to watch it wants it to be longer than about three minutes max. Should it have a pumping soundtrack? Many casting directors find this needlessly distracting. Etc. etc. etc.
So, Vanessa is right to say that anything that shows off your acting and has been edited decently is a great start, and little more is needed. Where I would agree with your original view that you can improve the reel over time is by acknowledging that the quality of the *work* that is included *is* important - and the better this is (in terms of lighting, sound, reproduction, composition, and broadcast status) the more impressively it reads to a casting director - but that is something to be worked on over time. To start with, all your reel actually needs to do is three things:
1. It has to make it clear exactly who you are
2. It has to show you can act
3. It has to avoid being boring.
I think your reel succeeds in all those basics, so it's working. My advice for tightening it might be as follows:
a) If you want to ditch the montage, you might replace it with a good stills headshot or freeze frame, after your contact details have faded out. This is purely so that the viewer can quickly identify what you look like. Indeed, that's really the purpose of the montage anyway. There is an argument that, because montages are overused, they tend to bore, and should be done away with. With that said, yours is pretty brisk, and I don't feel it outstayed its welcome.
b) Everyone has made the point about getting rid of the title captions - I don't think this will harm the material, and it helps it flow better.
c) The 'waking the dead' stuff is very nice - well acted, and focused on you. There is enough of the other person in it to break up the feel of it being shot as a monologue (which is of no interest to screen casting). Naturally, it looks as if it has been shot in a back room on no budget (as I assume it has), but even just this snippet alone is enough to show me that you can act convincingly on screen, and that is really one of the major things your showreel is attempting to demonstrate.
d) The Shakespeare is also good - it is very easy to present Shakespeare badly and you deliver it excellently; also, it would seem that the casting has been very well judged (again, you make the 'waking the dead' character your own as well), which goes a long way also. I have read your thoughts on being cast 'classically' before, and it is clear from this material that you have a great talent for these sorts of performances. The only problem you may encounter is that something so blatantly stage based is of less interest to a screen caster than something less rareified, but more direct - such as your first clip. As you have, in the final location scene, a good combination of the Shakespearean style with a sense of cinematic location, I would actually suggest dropping your interior Shakespeare (which, great though it is, comes across as something of a specially filmed monologue) and make the point with the location material only - this makes me immediately realise that you are playing Shakespeare, but also makes me also think that you may have been doing it for the sake of a larger film project (in this sense, the performance comes across in the vein of occasional film adaptations of classic works that do not update classic scripts in any way, but nonetheless tell the story in a cinematic frame of reference). All this is about is showing a screen caster that you are well aware of what is needed to be a convincing screen actor (they worry if they see you implying that your forte is stage acting - because it makes them feel that you will not be as certain in front of a camera as they would like!).
e) Don't worry that it's short - being to the point is always best. Honestly, a casting director would rather see forty seconds of footage in which you did a mesmerising performance than five minutes worth of endless dullness.
Although she writes from a US perspective (and that has some differences), I always admire what this casting director, Bonnie Gillespie, has to say on her blog - not least because she looks at things from the perspective of a casting director who was once an actor - she did a nice article on showreels (what they call 'demo reels' in the States) a couple of months back and it links to some great analyses of people's reels that you can watch for critique - you might enjoy reading it - see http://more.showfax.com/columns/avoice/archives/2010_03_22.html
But, overall, yeah, get that showreel sent out - it can only do good for you!
P.S. In regard to USP's, I think the showreel makes the point - watching it, I become aware of what it is that makes you *specific* - be that your look, your colouring, your vocal quality etc. It is certainly true that the marketplace for your casting bracket is oversubscribed, but what casting directors and agents are always trying to find is specificity, and allowing them an easy and effective way to see that is a great step forward!!
