Vote for Me
Jack Rooney
news:20000929134539...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
>
> There are hundreds of thousands of actors and their families who have been
on
> strike for almost six months now; and the advertisers, headed primarily by
> McDonald's, Procter & Gamble, General Motors and AT&T, could care less
about
> the PEOPLE in these families.
When will you wake up and see the light and the truth -- that they have
already boycotted you. Your day is over. You rose to power in the 30's 40's
and had your heyday in 50' 60's and even into the early 70's. Unions were
strong, membership increased in the 60's, when production was centralized in
California and New York. This is no longer so. Production is no longer
centralized, union memberships are dwindling, and your total numbers no
longer scare the corporations you mention ( Procter, ATT, McDonalds, GM, et,
al, the biggies).
I really hate to be the one to tell you this beloved union actor brothers
and sisters but all union memberships nation wide constitute less than 10
percent of the work force and the numbers are falling. Actors unions, on a
pro rata basis, constitute less than .05 % of all persons presently seeking
employment in the acting field, attested by the fact that they, the biggies,
seem to be getting along so well without you. You have overrated your own
importance. The general public does not seem to notice any of you "big
stars" missing from television commercials. The sad reality is that the
world, and commerce, will get along just fine with or without you.
Your union is a non-representative union, it does not represent the
interests of all working actors, but only the interests of a small handful
of elitists who, it appears, intend to hold out against the Romans until
they run out of lamp oil. I would not count on Divine intervention in this
one dear misguided brothers and sisters; and if you are counting on the
union bosses to work miracles, let me remind you that they are the ones who
have gotten you into this mess in the first place. You are statistically
insignificant to these big corporations.
Statistical significance begins, mathematically, according to the science of
statistics, with a .05 variable deviating from the norm (sometimes called
the variance or deviation from mean or average) events are not considered
important (having an impact on the norm) until they begin to deviate .05% or
greater from the mean. This is also true of social events and in economic
theory. There are 280,000,000 people in the US alone, 7 billion world wide.
There are about 100,000 SAG actors. Now do the math and figure the effect on
sales of 100,000 actors on 7 billion potential customers. Even if you
consider the average SAG family to consist of the national average of 2.2
kids and a mother and father that's 7 bil/420,000 = 0.00006. If you factor
in Canadian unions, British equity, and the European actor's unions and the
third world organized labor movement entirely, you have a long way to go
before your numbers would ever begin to approach anything which would affect
the gross product sales or bottom line balance sheet of any of the companies
you mention. You are a fly on the ass of a pachyderm.
Now, I offered you a solution and you refuse to listen. I gave you a plan
and you refuse to act. The "Performing Artist's Rights Act" or the "Actor's
Bill of Rights" (outlined in my former posts) is the only real way to solve
this. Must I do everything myself?
I can fix it. I am the solution. Vote for me.
Jack Rooney
Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney
========
"TKONKLE" <tko...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000929134539...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
>
> EVERYONE needs to read this. Please. The major advertisers of this
country --
> the United States of America -- are literally trying to DESTROY the
actors'
> unions. They are trying to destroy the ability of American middle-class
> actors to make a living.
>
> There are hundreds of thousands of actors and their families who have been
on
> strike for almost six months now; and the advertisers, headed primarily by
> McDonald's, Procter & Gamble, General Motors and AT&T, could care less
about
> the PEOPLE in these families.
>
> The advertisers are telling actors that they will not pay pension and
health
> benefits to them for commercials made for the Internet -- which is the
major
> FUTURE of advertising. The advertisers refuse to address issues of
monitoring
> commercial use, while they continue to steal from actors and their
families
> by "forgetting" to pay actors for commercials that are running. They have
> been paying actors only $11 per day for unlimited use of actors'
commercials
> on cable television -- a figure that the actors agreed to for years to
help
> give cable TV "time to grow." Well, the cable baby is a BIG kid now...and
> advertisers refuse to give actors any meaningful increase to that measly
$11
> per day use.
>
> THESE are the issues. My wife and I, both actors, are now going into our
> savings. We are scared. And angry. In the next few weeks, and perhaps
months,
> you will be asked to HELP American union actors survive. You can do this
by
> participating in boycotts that will be called for by major stars who will
be
> helping their middle- and lower-class fellow union members. One of the
first
> boycotts may be against Procter & Gamble...please stay tuned to help when
the
> call goes out -- and please help by participating in the Procter & Gamble
> boycott. (Remember -- McDonald's, General Motors, and AT&T are some of the
> main companies behind this as well...so avoiding purchasing their products
> would help as well.)
>
> Go to this website if you'd like to help --
> www.idotvads.com(http://www.idotvads.com)
> IDOTVADS.COM is such a wealth of information, including the Corporations,
Ad
> Agencies, Negotiators, ect. that we're on strike against. That's:
> http://www.idotvads.com(http://www.idotvads.com)
>
> THANK YOU!
--
tenth...@my-deja.com
"Jack Rooney" <JackR...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Quack quack quack [snip. snip. Another snip. Ah, the hell with it,
snip it ALL.]
Jeez, I don't think that I've seen quite so self-deluded a post from
someone who is apparently literate. Omnipotent Jack. "Vote for
Jack, 'cause Jack is gonna change everything for the better all by
himself." Bwahahahaha! Hey, Jack, I've got a slightly used clue that I
could let you have for a song. It's just that I don't want to see you
completely without.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
edhooks
> ... You have overrated your own
> importance. The general public does not seem to notice any of you "big
> stars" missing from television commercials. The sad reality is that the
> world, and commerce, will get along just fine with or without you.
Jack Rooney is lacking in tact, but he makes a valid point. I teach
people how to act in commercials, and he is dead-on correct when he says
that you do not have to be an actor to do it any more. I get many
non-actors in my classes who do just fine at the auditions and book
their share of jobs.
It doesn't do a lot of good to piss and moan about it. SAG dropped the
ball a long time ago, especially when it merged with Screen Extras Guild
(SEG) in '92. It is very difficult for the union to sit at a
negotiating table and profess that professional actors are special and
deserve higher payment when, in fact, SAG will happily accept non-actors
into membership. Does SAG figure the producers are blind to this?
At the end of the day, SAG will win concessions from the advertising
industry not because actors are so valuable to the commercial-making
process (they are not), but because SAG-member movie stars are beginning
to bad mouth the Fortune 500. The Big Boys of American commerce don't
give a squat about actors, but they hate bad PR. SAG can probably
marshall enough star power to get out of this thing with most of the
skin on the union's back still intact. But even at that, it will be close.
The union will be on firmer ground -- but not by much -- when we go out
on strike next summer against theatrical producers.
Ed Hooks
Drama Queen
>
> Jack Rooney wrote:
> > ... You have overrated your own
> > importance. The general public does not seem to notice any of you "big
> > stars" missing from television commercials. The sad reality is that the
> > world, and commerce, will get along just fine with or without you.
>
> people how to act in commercials, and he is dead-on correct when he says
> that you do not have to be an actor to do it any more. I get many
> non-actors in my classes who do just fine at the auditions and book
> their share of jobs.
>
> It doesn't do a lot of good to piss and moan about it. SAG dropped the
> ball a long time ago, especially when it merged with Screen Extras Guild
> (SEG) in '92. It is very difficult for the union to sit at a
> negotiating table and profess that professional actors are special and
> deserve higher payment when, in fact, SAG will happily accept non-actors
> into membership. Does SAG figure the producers are blind to this?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, ...but wasn't SEG (The Screen Extras Guild) founded through
SAG (West Coast) originally. It's my understanding that only after it flopped did SAG
re-incorporate the membersship of SEG?
>
> At the end of the day, SAG will win concessions from the advertising
> industry not because actors are so valuable to the commercial-making
> process (they are not), but because SAG-member movie stars are beginning
> to bad mouth the Fortune 500. The Big Boys of American commerce don't
> give a squat about actors, but they hate bad PR. SAG can probably
> marshall enough star power to get out of this thing with most of the
> skin on the union's back still intact. But even at that, it will be close.
Hopefully WIPO delegates meeting in Geneva this December will aid actors in getting what
they deserve.
>
> The union will be on firmer ground -- but not by much -- when we go out
> on strike next summer against theatrical producers.
>
> Ed Hooks
Gee Whiz Ed, haven't you heard? Both Lew Wasserman and Bill Daniels say there is a deal to
be made? So let's stop all this "there will be a strike next summer" talk OK? <g>
Drama Queen
--
"Intellectuals cause a great deal of trouble trying to do it all with the mind.
It is the heart that counts." -- Louise Bogan
tenth...@my-deja.com
Drama Queen <drama...@home.com> wrote:
>Please correct me if I'm wrong, ...but wasn't SEG (The Screen Extras
>Guild) founded through SAG (West Coast) originally. It's my
>understanding that only after it flopped did SAG re-incorporate the
>membersship of SEG?
In a way, you are correct. SEG was not *founded* by SAG. It was a case
of the West Coast extras breaking away and forming their own union.
However, extras remained WITHIN the Guild in New York, where a New York
Extra Players Agreement came into being. There were two separate
SAG/SEG merger attempts back in the early 80s/late 70s, both of which
were soundly defeated by the SAG membership. SEG finally drove itself
into the ground and literally went out of existence, returning its
jurisdiction in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco (and a couple of
other places) to the Associated Actors and Artistes of America, which
had granted it to them. SAG then negotiated with the AMPTP to see if
the producers would agree to allow SAG to assume the jurisdiction that
defunct SEG previously held. The producers could have said NO and that
would have been it, period, for union extras on the West Coast, and
EVENTUALLY for union extras in New York. Instead, the AMPTP agreed, but
with conditions. Most important was that the rate for NY extras would
not rise for six years, and that the rate for LA extras (which had been
much lower under SEG) would rise slowly over those six years until it
matched NY, and then the rate would be national and in sync. The Guild
agreed in order to SAVE the New York extras jurisdiction, otherwise it,
like SEG's jurisdicton, would have been extinect in just a few years.
However, New York's WHINING extras have, ever since then, accused the
union of SELLING OUT extras and being corrupt and breaking the backs of
the "poor working actor" (their synonym for "extra"). SAG saved the
extras jurisdiction in the U.S., and then the extras turn around and
accuse everyone who engineered that salvage operation of being in the
producers' pockets.
I'll tell you this, there's good reason for calling extras "living
furniture."
Karen Horn
:
: The union will be on firmer ground -- but not by much -- when we go out
: on strike next summer against theatrical producers.
Ed, do you think I theatrical strike would be last nearly as long as
a comercials strike? I say this because while you may slide by for
a while by stockpiling commericials and shooting the sort of thing
you just need a pretty "face" for with not-necessarily-a-lot-of-skill---
it's TERRIBLY hard to 'hide' a gee-what-a-face-but-the-brains-of-an-
Irish-Setter on stage.
Karen
edhooks
>
> I'll tell you this, there's good reason for calling extras "living
> furniture."
I don't know about "moving furniture", but extras are for sure not
actors. The reason extras broke off from SAG back in 1948 was that SAG
gave them "third class" membership. SAG has never known what to do with
extras, and now the Guild has come out with a statement which
essentially says extras are, in fact, actors. Saying it doesn't make it
so, and it is nothing more than feel-good policy.
SAG has come to a point where it is entirely possible to become a SAG
member even if you are not an actor. There are many ways in. I believe
that the salvation for the union rests in it becoming a union for
actors. Quality, not quantity. Actors of quality could actually wield
a mighty sword in labor negotiations.
But now, anybody who gets a camera pointed at them can be in SAG. Tiger
Woods is in SAG.
If I had my way, SAG would have high entrance requirements. Training or
apprenticeship. And there would be gradations of membership. New
members should not automatically be able to vote, for instance. And for
damned sure, nobody should be able to buy a SAG card by doing extra work.
Ed Hooks
edhooks
>
> Ed, do you think I theatrical strike would be last nearly as long as
Given that the industry is preparing for a strike a full year in
advance, I think the strike will be long, yes. Seventy five percent of
the new shows on network television this season feature neither actors
nor scripts. The producers are playing hard ball, and they realize that
actors are not united.
The whole thing makes me sad. SAG needs a transfusion, a reality check.
It is messing around with cable when the real action is in the
Internet. Ten years from now, the entertainment industry will bear
essentially no resemblance to what it is today. SAG seems determined to
wait until that actually happens before it tries to do anything about it.
Ed Hooks
edhooks
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, ...but wasn't SEG (The Screen Extras Guild) founded through
> SAG (West Coast) originally. It's my understanding that only after it flopped did SAG
> re-incorporate the membersship of SEG?
SAG members voted down merger with SEG three times. SAG execs finally
TRICKED membership into voting for it by calling it something other than
a merger. The referendum said SAG would take over jurisdiction of SEG.
The word "merger" wasn't in there, and so SAG members approved it. Big mistake.
> Hopefully WIPO delegates meeting in Geneva this December will aid actors in getting what
> they deserve.
Who? Who are WIPO delegates?
>
>... Both Lew Wasserman and Bill Daniels say there is a deal to
> be made? So let's stop all this "there will be a strike next summer" talk OK? <g>
Lew Wasserman will probably be dead by next summer. And if Bill Daniels
doesn't get this commercials strike settled, he's going into early
retirement. I think it is absolutely outlandish that SAG has let things
get to this point. The advertising agencies are rejecting the notion
that SAG can even TALK about Internet use! I mean, we're not even close
to negotiating rates. We're talking about talking! Such a mess.
Ed Hooks
de Valois
Carl
In article <8r8ftj$1dav$2...@thoth.cts.com>,
Karen Horn <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote:
> edhooks <edh...@best.com> wrote:
> :
> : The union will be on firmer ground -- but not by much -- when we go
out
> : on strike next summer against theatrical producers.
> :
>
> Ed, do you think I theatrical strike would be last nearly as long as
> a comercials strike? I say this because while you may slide by for
> a while by stockpiling commericials and shooting the sort of thing
> you just need a pretty "face" for with
not-necessarily-a-lot-of-skill---
> it's TERRIBLY hard to 'hide' a gee-what-a-face-but-the-brains-of-an-
> Irish-Setter on stage.
>
> Karen
>
--
If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.
de Valois
responded), he has a point (so did you):
SAG allowed itself to get mired in some godawful issues that it really
could have deferred in favor of other, more pressing issues (like a
cable contract way back in the 80s). Also, this whole "extras,
non-extras" debate is pretty distracting.
So what to do about this? Well, here's a thought: since they negotiate
in tandem anyway, perhaps extras could fall under the purview of AFTRA,
rather than SAG. This "open union" concept could then negotiate a second
contract which would provide working condition demands for "living
furniture" (I have to take offense to that term, by the way, but that's
a seperate discussion), providing a union context for people who pretty
much are manipulated unfairly in the first place. This contract could be
less lucrative than a SAG contract, to be sure, but would take the whole
SAG/Non issue out of play in the theatrical negotiations.
So if you wanted to work some films as an extra (and still maintain
hopes of an upgrade but get valuable experience on a set), you could pay
your thousand to AFTRA, and work to your hearts content, and no one
would take issue about waivers and all that: you'd work as a union
(AFTRA) extra, and would be provided a minimal union umbrella. AFTRA
would see a spike in membership from these acting wannabes, thus saving
AFTRA financially.
The life of a non-union extra is one no one wishes on any serious actor,
and yet one most of us have had to endure. It would also, in some way,
provide Chandler's "training ground" or apprenticeship provision for SAG
membership. This way an AFTRA extra could work as an extra, could even
earn entree into SAG as an extra, but it wouldn't be with some
ridiculously low number of waiver appearances. They would have to earn
scale points, from deep background to featured, and then there would be
a body of work to judge their merits on.
Carl
In article <39D82915...@best.com>,
--
Bill491
your points. You and I have been in agreement 97% of the time on the issue
of "background," "furniture," etc.
Like you, I voted against SAG's assimilation of S.E.G. (Screen Extra's
Guild), even though I understood that SAG needed the numbers to strengthen
their negotiating position. Yet, one producer shares with me that this
action was a "fatal flaw," in that by reducing the standards for SAG
membership, the union lost bargaining power.
As you say, the union need to emphasize quality, not quantity.
My Aunt Olga, now 89, has done dozens of extra gigs, 3 of which were SAG, and
she does it for the fun of it. She could qualify for SAG, but she knows
she's not an actor. Fortunately, she can bypass the "must-join" Taft-Hartley
rules and regs. She'll never pretend to be an actor.
edhooks wrote:
It would be nice, wouldn't it, if SAG worked like a real guild of
apprenticeship, guided by mentors? Well, it ain't gonna happen for a while,
Ed. Politics. Numbers. Film acting will never take up the much stiffer
qualifications of Equity for stage.
Break a leg,
Bill
--
THE ACTING STUDIO
http://gvtg.com/theactingstudio
edhooks
> Like you, I voted against SAG's assimilation of S.E.G. (Screen Extra's
> Guild), even though I understood that SAG needed the numbers to strengthen
> their negotiating position.
The inside poop I had on the SAG/SEG merger is that the SEG was on the
ropes, and the Teamsters were about to take it over if SAG did not. I
never heard anything about how adding the extras would improve SAG's
negotiating power. From the get-go, adding the extras was a net minus.
The producers laughed up their sleeves at the move. As you'll recall,
the producers had veto power over the merger. Their terms for allowing
it included taking extra wages into the bottom of the toilet. That
became the new negotiating line.
Now SAG boasts all the time about the huge percentage gains in extra
wages. Well, of course! They were in the toilet! Any gains will show
up in high percentages. The big problem of course is that gains given
to the extras are taken OUT of the wages of actual actors. These
negotiations are always a shell game. The producers have put SAG in the
position of negotiating mainly for extras, in my view. The Guild
significantly downgraded itself by taking in the extras. Union meetings
in San Francisco now are dominated by extras and their complaints about
bad meals, cold sets, whatever.
I don't think SAG should be involved with extras at all. Period. Let
the state law take care of protecting extras. There is close to zero
market value on the services of extras. Their inclusion in SAG's ranks
only hurt actors.
Ed Hooks
edhooks
>
> So what to do about this? Well, here's a thought: since they negotiate
> in tandem anyway, perhaps extras could fall under the purview of AFTRA,
> rather than SAG.
Interesting idea, but I don't think it flies. AFTRA wouldn't want to be
saddled with the extras either. This is SAG's fuck-up.
.... "living
> furniture" (I have to take offense to that term, by the way, but that's
> a seperate discussion)...
Agreed. It is not necessary to disparage extras as human beings. The
issue is a labor bargaining one.
> The life of a non-union extra is one no one wishes on any serious actor,
> and yet one most of us have had to endure. It would also, in some way,
> provide Chandler's "training ground" or apprenticeship provision for SAG
> membership...
Extra work is not a training ground for acting. Acting is an art.
Extra work is an activity. Your grandma Tilly can do it, and probably does.
...They would have to earn
> scale points, from deep background to featured, and then there would be
> a body of work to judge their merits on.
I will support enthusiastically any kind of merit program for SAG
membership. But I just don't see how extra work figures into it at all.
I have worked as an extra, and I have worked as a principal player.
They simply have nothing at all in common with one another except that
they both happen on a movie or tv set. Principal players have as much
in common with the caterers as they do with the extras, and I don't
think caterers ought to be allowed into SAG either.
Ed Hooks
de Valois
edh...@best.com wrote:
> Extra work is not a training ground for acting. Acting is an art.
> Extra work is an activity. Your grandma Tilly can do it, and probably
does.
>
>
I disagree. I think that you can learn some very valuable things working
as an extra. After all, a carpenter's apprentice often doesn't do
anything except carry lumber for his first couple of jobs. And believe
me, my grandma Tilly could do that, as well. Probably could kick Grandpa
Halmer's ass, come to think of it...
Art has its disciplines and its technical side, just as carpentry does
(cabinetry and finish carpentry being the more artistic side) and you
cannot create art without the framing and context it needs to be in.
Extra work does work, in this context, as an apprentice-training
function.
Carl
kurtz
> de Valois wrote:
> >
> > So what to do about this? Well, here's a thought: since they negotiate
> > in tandem anyway, perhaps extras could fall under the purview of AFTRA,
> > rather than SAG.
>
> Interesting idea, but I don't think it flies. AFTRA wouldn't want to be
> saddled with the extras either. This is SAG's fuck-up.
>
> .... "living
> > furniture" (I have to take offense to that term, by the way, but that's
> > a seperate discussion)...
>
> Agreed. It is not necessary to disparage extras as human beings. The
> issue is a labor bargaining one.
>
> > The life of a non-union extra is one no one wishes on any serious actor,
> > and yet one most of us have had to endure. It would also, in some way,
> > provide Chandler's "training ground" or apprenticeship provision for SAG
> > membership...
>
> Extra work is not a training ground for acting. Acting is an art.
> Extra work is an activity. Your grandma Tilly can do it, and probably does.
>
> ...They would have to earn
> > scale points, from deep background to featured, and then there would be
> > a body of work to judge their merits on.
>
> I will support enthusiastically any kind of merit program for SAG
> membership. But I just don't see how extra work figures into it at all.
> I have worked as an extra, and I have worked as a principal player.
> They simply have nothing at all in common with one another except that
> they both happen on a movie or tv set. Principal players have as much
> in common with the caterers as they do with the extras, and I don't
> think caterers ought to be allowed into SAG either.
>
> Ed Hooks
what if the caterer is identifiable, on-camera, with the product?
The Starmaker
two thousand extra for a war movie, he would provide one thousand extras
and the other thousand were stuffed dummies. Then he would bill them for
two thousand extras. He told the live extras to shake the dummies.
The Starmaker
Is this off topic?
Drama Queen
>
> Bill491 wrote:
>
> The inside poop I had on the SAG/SEG merger is that the SEG was on the
> ropes, and the Teamsters were about to take it over if SAG did not. I
> never heard anything about how adding the extras would improve SAG's
> negotiating power. From the get-go, adding the extras was a net minus.
> The producers laughed up their sleeves at the move. As you'll recall,
> the producers had veto power over the merger. Their terms for allowing
> it included taking extra wages into the bottom of the toilet. That
> became the new negotiating line.
>
> Now SAG boasts all the time about the huge percentage gains in extra
> wages. Well, of course! They were in the toilet! Any gains will show
> up in high percentages. The big problem of course is that gains given
> to the extras are taken OUT of the wages of actual actors. These
> negotiations are always a shell game. The producers have put SAG in the
> position of negotiating mainly for extras, in my view. The Guild
> significantly downgraded itself by taking in the extras. Union meetings
> in San Francisco now are dominated by extras and their complaints about
> bad meals, cold sets, whatever.
>
> I don't think SAG should be involved with extras at all. Period. Let
> the state law take care of protecting extras. There is close to zero
> market value on the services of extras. Their inclusion in SAG's ranks
> only hurt actors.
>
> Ed Hooks
You might think there is zero value in the services of extras, but try to make a movie
without them. Up here, the majority of extra work is done by trained, skilled and
temporarily unemployed actors, and they do make a big difference. I happened to be chatting
with a CD a few weeks ago who had been shooting a mini-series out of town. They were so far
out of Toronto, that their contract with ACTRA didn't require them to hire union members to
be extras. They ended up bringing a whole bunch of ACTRA extras (interpret actors) from
Toronto, and paid for their hotel stay for 10 days, because having real actors working as
extras made such a difference to their scenes. You know my feelings on the subject. With so
many out of work actors at any given moment, I think trained, skilled actors should be able
to work as extras in between acting jobs without any stigma attached. That's the way it
works up here in Toronto, as well as in New York, but for some reason in LA, there is this
snobbery that insists actors should instead work as waitors precluding them from earning
health insurance and other benefits within their industry. Go figure!
Janice
due to it, and wonder if the times I do mention it whether or not the person
will instantly label me. I would rather do extra work to fill gaps in
employment than waiting tables. Having done both, I feel like with extra
work, I can maybe meet felow people in the Biz - even if they are "merely" a
cameraman or a gaffer - and gain a contact. Waiting tables, all you get is
people thinking you are their complete servant and a really big mess to
clean up. God forbid you mess up an order, as who knows what some jerk will
do to the booth or your tip!
I've had pretty good experiences on the sets I did extra work on. Maybe it
was just the director or the production company.
--
Janice
~~~~~~~~~~
"You lure men to their deaths like a spider with flies!"
"Flies are where men are most vulnerable."
kurtz
> I don't think SAG should be involved with extras at all. Period. Let
> the state law take care of protecting extras. There is close to zero
> market value on the services of extras. Their inclusion in SAG's ranks
> only hurt actors.
>
> Ed Hooks
what's the current market value on the services of SAG principles in
commercials? zero.
why, all of a sudden, are you willing to apply market value to your discussion
of an actor's worth? or, is this only in respect to background extras?
de Valois
steelmount...@earthlink.net wrote:
> what's the current market value on the services of SAG principles in
> commercials? zero.
> why, all of a sudden, are you willing to apply market value to your
discussion
> of an actor's worth? or, is this only in respect to background
extras?
Hey, Craig Eisenberg? What's the market value of your asinine opinions?
Zero.
So why all of a sudden are you willing to apply market value to your
discussion of an actor's worth? Or is this only in respect to background
extras?
Once again, you demonstrate why you have earned the nickname
Ignoranus...
Bill491
edhooks wrote:
> Bill491 wrote:
> > Like you, I voted against SAG's assimilation of S.E.G. (Screen Extra's
> > Guild), even though I understood that SAG needed the numbers to strengthen
> > their negotiating position.
>
> The inside poop I had on the SAG/SEG merger is that the SEG was on the
> ropes, and the Teamsters were about to take it over if SAG did not.
This is what I recall as well.
> I never heard anything about how adding the extras would improve SAG's
> negotiating power. From the get-go, adding the extras was a net minus.
> The producers laughed up their sleeves at the move.
You're correct. What I should have written was that it was the SAG/SEG merger
committee that RECOMMENDED the merger, adding the "argument" that the increase
in membership would have three effects: 1) increase the membership numbers
nationwide; 2) increase the "take" for membership fees upfront and the
twice-a-year-annual dues. 3) Increase negotiating power.
Well, #1 and #2 did happen. Did it strengthen SAG's negotiating power?
Absolutely not. It was a perception, a selling point; and yes, producers were
very much amused.
At the my local's monthly meeting, the discussion went something like this....
the then Exec. Director and the local SAG prez announced that National wanted
the merger approved. A minority expressed some reservations: Most S.E.G.
members were L.A. based.... what is the impact of increasing L.A.'s voting pool
against the rest of the locals? Do we want non-actors, in one move, to gain our
rights, benefits and "prestige."
Ah, "prestige," what a word. Before the merger, you had to at least earn one
SPEAKING role in a SAG project. And it was never made fully clear that after
the merger, all it would take would be three vouchers for background work to
"earn" one's SAG card.
(snip)
> The big problem of course is that gains given
> to the extras are taken OUT of the wages of actual actors. These
> negotiations are always a shell game.
Hmmm, I recall one SAG actor arguing during our local's meeting on the matter
predicting that "inducting" S.E.G. into SAG (he refused to call it a merger
among equals) would amount to creating a welfare program within our own union.
And the "counter" was that extra who only do a handful of gigs a year would
never qualify for benefits.
Hindsight, being 20/20, it would have been nice if someone had seen through the
rhetoric and perceived the argument flaws and accurately predicted the outcome.
SAG is a weaker organization at the negotiating table than a decade ago.
> I don't think SAG should be involved with extras at all. Period.
Agreed, on principal. But I cannot imagine SAG's national power brokers backing
down and ridding itself of all future "extra" inductees. It would be a sign of
weakness, especially in the midst of a 5 month strike, and the pending
negotiations and likely 2001 strike.
> Let
> the state law take care of protecting extras. There is close to zero
> market value on the services of extras. Their inclusion in SAG's ranks
> only hurt actors.
The 50 states and D.C. and Puerto Rico and whatever domains or commonwealths
have little incentive to protect extras.
Ethically, SAG has to "grandfather" the extras inducted since the merger. After
the strikes are settled, I would like to see SAG "toughen" qualification
standards. And by all means, let extras, BG's and "wallpaper" affiliate with
the Teamsters.
edhooks
> I think that you can learn some very valuable things working
> as an extra.
Yup. You can learn that you don't want to be an extra.<g>
Seriously, Carl, the only educational value extra work offers is that it
allows one to watch the actors act. Maybe. The caterers can get just
as close as the extras, maybe closer.
After all, a carpenter's apprentice often doesn't do
> anything except carry lumber for his first couple of jobs.
The carpenter's apprentice is being trained to be a carpenter. An extra
is dealt with like a necessary fifth wheel. It is very significant that
extras are herded into "holding pens" between takes. That alone would
keep me off the set!
> Art has its disciplines and its technical side, just as carpentry does
> (cabinetry and finish carpentry being the more artistic side)
Bad analogy. Extras on a movie set are not being trained for anything
at all. If they try to pick up a box of nails and carry them for the
actors, they'll be fired.
Ed Hooks
edhooks
>
> what if the caterer is identifiable, on-camera, with the product?
Then he gets to become a member of Screen Actors Guild and is, I
presume, an actor.
Ed Hooks
edhooks
>
> You might think there is zero value in the services of extras, but try to make a movie
> without them.
Let me re-phrase what I said: There is close to zero MARKET value for
extras. Producers don't give a good squat about them. Producers are
perfectly happy to hire a bunch of homeless people off the street to be
extras. Indeed, we actually had that very situation a while back in San
Francisco. Producers on a movie figured they would do a good thing by
hiring homeless people to portray homeless extras in a scene. SAG said,
"Nope. Need to hire union members." And so the producers hired SAG
members to dress up like homeless. Big deal. The homeless would have
been just as good and could have used the bucks. My point is that the
producers just don't care! They do not consider extra work to be a
skill, and they are absolutely correct. All you have to do to be an
extra is show up on time and be able to move from point "A" to point "B"
on "Action!"
Up here, the majority of extra work is done by trained, skilled and
> temporarily unemployed actors, and they do make a big difference.
It may make a difference to the trained, skilled actors, but the
producers could care less.
>I happened to be chatting
> with a CD a few weeks ago who had been shooting a mini-series out of town. They were so far
> out of Toronto, that their contract with ACTRA didn't require them to hire union members to
> be extras. They ended up bringing a whole bunch of ACTRA extras (interpret actors) from
> Toronto, and paid for their hotel stay for 10 days, because having real actors working as
> extras made such a difference to their scenes. ...
I doubt seriously that importing extras made any difference. The
liklihood is that they couldn't fine enough extras locally.
You know my feelings on the subject. With so
> many out of work actors at any given moment, I think trained, skilled actors should be able
> to work as extras in between acting jobs without any stigma attached.
Fine with me. If actors want to work as extras, go for it. But let's
get past this blurring of distinction about function. Acting is an art.
Extra work is an activity. The fact that an actor may work as an extra
does not make extra work into an art.
Ed Hooks
edhooks
> ... I don't often mention having done extra work
> due to it, and wonder if the times I do mention it whether or not the person
> will instantly label me. I would rather do extra work to fill gaps in
You are wise not to mention it, Janice. Extra work is not an acting
credit. It is not worth talking about, and it doesn't belong on your
resume. It is a way to spend a long day, nothing more.
>Having done both, I feel like with extra
> work, I can maybe meet felow people in the Biz - even if they are "merely" a
> cameraman or a gaffer - and gain a contact.
Contacts made this way will likely do you no good. When you are met on
a set, working as extra, you are labeled as an extra. If you want to be
playing principal roles, you need to sell yourself that way.
>Waiting tables, all you get is
> people thinking you are their complete servant and a really big mess to
> clean up.
I'll be willing to bet that more actors have gotten their Big Break
after waiting tables than from working as extras. I know many stories
about waiters and waitresses who happened to wait on a director who
happened tobe casting something and happened to call them in, and they
wound up playing roles. I rarely hear that kind of thing about extras.
Ed Hooks
edhooks
>
> edhooks wrote:
>
> > I don't think SAG should be involved with extras at all. Period. Let
> > the state law take care of protecting extras. There is close to zero
> > market value on the services of extras. Their inclusion in SAG's ranks
> > only hurt actors.
> >
>
> commercials? zero.
Huh? That's not so.
> why, all of a sudden, are you willing to apply market value to your discussion
> of an actor's worth? or, is this only in respect to background extras?
I was talking about extras and the value that producers place on their employment.
Anyway, we should make a distinction here between commercials and
theatrical. In commercials, producers like to hire everybody as extras
and then, in the editing room, decide who to upgrade. That's not how
things work on movies and tv shows. I generally advice my acting
students to go ahead and do extra work in commercials for this reason,
but to avoid it in movies and tv shows.
Ed Hooks
kurtz
but would he be allowed into your hypothetical Screen Actors Guild? i
mean, you're claiming that acting is an art, i would agree. but the
Guild treats acting as a commerce, and accordingly accepts membership
from any person able to earn money 'acting.' this includes
individuals, with no apparent acting skill, who have been identified
on-camera with a product. would athletes be accepted? my point is
simply that, like it or not, there isn't much acting skill necessary
for most of the commercial principle roles. as athletes and models
prove on a daily basis, almost anyone can do it. you should look at
the work of a group of swedish directors working here in the states.
they are famous for using real people in their spots. two of their
best known campaigns are 'Discovery.com aaaaaahhh!!! atmosphere.
aaaaaaahhhh!!!,' and C-Net's spots with the guys in T-shirts in the
yellow room. i think if you want quality control within the guild,
the guild would have to be divided, not only between principles and
extras, but also between commercials and theatrical.
ed, since you seem to be the most rational and knowledgeable member of
this newsgroup, i have a question. isn't there an 'interactive'
contract with SAG? i seem to recall being called to do a cd-rom a few
years ago, and asked to look at the SAG interactive agreement. is
there one? and, if so, why wouldn't internet advertising fall under
that contract?
Drama Queen
>
> Drama Queen wrote:
> >
> > You might think there is zero value in the services of extras, but try to make a movie
> > without them.
>
> extras. Producers don't give a good squat about them. Producers are
> perfectly happy to hire a bunch of homeless people off the street to be
> extras. Indeed, we actually had that very situation a while back in San
> Francisco. Producers on a movie figured they would do a good thing by
> hiring homeless people to portray homeless extras in a scene. SAG said,
> "Nope. Need to hire union members." And so the producers hired SAG
> members to dress up like homeless. Big deal. The homeless would have
> been just as good and could have used the bucks. My point is that the
> producers just don't care! They do not consider extra work to be a
> skill, and they are absolutely correct. All you have to do to be an
> extra is show up on time and be able to move from point "A" to point "B"
> on "Action!"
Sorry, but in your specific example of portraying homelessness, I've seen some damned fine
art coming from background performers. So much so that on one of the final episodes of "The
City" shooting downtown, a Meals on Wheels type van stopped to enquire whether 'Santa Hank'
(can't remember his real name) had eaten that day and ended up walking right into the shot.
He is so convincing as a homeless guy, that he occasionally fools his fellow performers and
crew. It happens all the time, to the point where people will walk up and drop money in his
hat. He's gotten to the point where he stops refusing it because to do so occassionally
interferes with the shot.
>
> Up here, the majority of extra work is done by trained, skilled and
> > temporarily unemployed actors, and they do make a big difference.
>
> It may make a difference to the trained, skilled actors, but the
> producers could care less.
Thats where you're wrong. Producers may not care in LA or SF, ...but I guarantee you they
care up here in Toronto. They also get away with alot more here in Toronto, than they do in
LA or New York. What alot of union extras do up here would in most cases be given to an
under 5 in LA, only without the dialogue, ...that's why we have so many upgrades this side
of the border. We also have alot of background performers who both work on, and refine the
physicality of some of their character roles (homeless, hookers, etc.,) doing background
work.
>
> >I happened to be chatting
> > with a CD a few weeks ago who had been shooting a mini-series out of town. They were so far
> > out of Toronto, that their contract with ACTRA didn't require them to hire union members to
> > be extras. They ended up bringing a whole bunch of ACTRA extras (interpret actors) from
> > Toronto, and paid for their hotel stay for 10 days, because having real actors working as
> > extras made such a difference to their scenes. ...
>
> I doubt seriously that importing extras made any difference. The
> liklihood is that they couldn't fine enough extras locally.
My goodness Ed, your disdain for those who will do background work is really showing. Is it
because those who do strictly background work do not pay for classes from you? The truth of
the matter is, they were overrun with locals who wanted to do it, ...but they needed the
actors who understood the degree of subtlety required for different shots as well as how to
cheat, as well as an understanding of continuity. The truth of the matter was they started
out with non-union extras, they decided to bring in the union extras and pay for their
hotels because they felt they needed them. After they did that, they stated they noticed a
BIG difference and were quite happy with the investment they chose to make.
>
> You know my feelings on the subject. With so
> > many out of work actors at any given moment, I think trained, skilled actors should be able
> > to work as extras in between acting jobs without any stigma attached.
>
> Fine with me. If actors want to work as extras, go for it. But let's
> get past this blurring of distinction about function. Acting is an art.
> Extra work is an activity. The fact that an actor may work as an extra
> does not make extra work into an art.
>
> Ed Hooks
It may not make it into an art, ...but it does make it an activity that must be provided for
under the agreement, and whose workers must be accorded the dignity they deserve as actors.
Up here there is no big controversy about negotiating fair and reasonable conditions for
background workers in our agreements with producers because the ranks of background
performers are filled by actors. Our contracts are negotiated to ensure we get fair and
equitable treatment when we work in whatever capacity we work.
de Valois
edh...@best.com wrote:
>
>
> I'll be willing to bet that more actors have gotten their Big Break
> after waiting tables than from working as extras. I know many stories
> about waiters and waitresses who happened to wait on a director who
> happened tobe casting something and happened to call them in, and they
> wound up playing roles. I rarely hear that kind of thing about
extras.
And yet, many of the most famous ones have done precisely that.
de Valois
Drama Queen <drama...@home.com> wrote:
> My goodness Ed, your disdain for those who will do background work is
really showing. Is it
> because those who do strictly background work do not pay for classes
from you?
Deeq, I did say I'd return the favor in kind... :(
Drama Queen
>
> I don't think SAG should be involved with extras at all. Period. Let
> the state law take care of protecting extras. There is close to zero
> market value on the services of extras. Their inclusion in SAG's ranks
> only hurt actors.
>
> Ed Hooks
That was ACTRAs approach to nonactor (read non-union) extras. The agreements didn't cover
them at all, and their wages were determined by provincial minimum wage laws. Alot of
resentment started to brew when they had to witness ACTRA members being subbed or when ACTRA
members went into overtime or double time, or even triple time making $54/hr to their $7/hr.
Up here to get into the union, one has to be an actor having accumulated at least 6
principle credits on union sets. No amount of extra work could get you in. This approach
does however leave an area of jurisdiction uncovered and open to a raid by other unions
looking to beef up their numbers. This of course leaves the nonACTRA extra in the unenviable
position of being just a pawn to someone else agenda.
de Valois
edh...@best.com wrote:
> > Art has its disciplines and its technical side, just as carpentry
does
> > (cabinetry and finish carpentry being the more artistic side)
>
> Bad analogy. Extras on a movie set are not being trained for anything
> at all. If they try to pick up a box of nails and carry them for the
> actors, they'll be fired.
Ed, I'm surprised at you, demeaning your argument in this way. From
Craig, I'd expect it!
There are technical aspects of acting on camera that one cannot possibly
learn in a class. Period. A class can't teach you how to deal with
crowds in a location shoot. A class cannot teach you how to deal with
the interminable delays on set, and the inherent frustration. A class
cannot teach you how to hit your mark with an incoherent director
shouting that you have to "Move left! NO, your OTHER left!"
In other words, there are real life applications that being an extra
allows you to observe, up close and personal, that all the learnin' in
the world won't give you.
So we agree to disagree, correct?
Drama Queen
>
> de Valois wrote:
> > I think that you can learn some very valuable things working
> > as an extra.
>
> Yup. You can learn that you don't want to be an extra.<g>
>
> Seriously, Carl, the only educational value extra work offers is that it
> allows one to watch the actors act. Maybe. The caterers can get just
> as close as the extras, maybe closer.
>
> After all, a carpenter's apprentice often doesn't do
> > anything except carry lumber for his first couple of jobs.
>
> The carpenter's apprentice is being trained to be a carpenter. An extra
> is dealt with like a necessary fifth wheel. It is very significant that
> extras are herded into "holding pens" between takes. That alone would
> keep me off the set!
You and me both. <g> That's why you only do the type of background work where you are the
only BG performer on the set, ...or one of a few.
>
> > Art has its disciplines and its technical side, just as carpentry does
> > (cabinetry and finish carpentry being the more artistic side)
>
> Bad analogy. Extras on a movie set are not being trained for anything
> at all.
And that sticks in your craw doesn't it Ed? No one's paying for your lessons!
Opus (:>
> principle credits on union sets. No amount of extra work could get you in.
>
for something, meaning you've worked your ass off to get there. I get
kind of sore when people yell that only those in SAG are capable of
offering quality acting, while at the very same time, their own SAG is
doing dumb deals like offering free membership if you've lugged a stupid
sign for 80 hours. To me, membership should stand for the glorious and
difficult accomplishment that it took to get there, like it used to.
Now it just means you're heat tolerant.
--
Opus (:>
I was fired from my job at a Howard Johnson's when somebody asked me the
ice cream flavour of the week and I said, "chicken". --Mike Nichols
Opus Graphics-- http://members.home.net/coble/OpusGraphics
Alt.Acting FAQ-- http://www.acmecity.com/scoobydoo/witchdoctor/345
Drama Queen
>
> I was talking about extras and the value that producers place on their employment.
>
> Anyway, we should make a distinction here between commercials and
> theatrical. In commercials, producers like to hire everybody as extras
> and then, in the editing room, decide who to upgrade. That's not how
> things work on movies and tv shows. I generally advice my acting
> students to go ahead and do extra work in commercials for this reason,
> but to avoid it in movies and tv shows.
>
> Ed Hooks
So what does a NonSag extra do when they are used in a commercial, then upgraded on set,
...if SAG isn't involved with extra work? How can SAG walk away from a jurisdiction and
leave it's members uncovered? You can't have your cake and eat it too. A union either
represents and protects ALL workers in their jurisdiction, or they find they'll soon have no
jurisdiction or members to protect.
But then again, ...maybe that's too Canadian a concept for you. <g>
Drama Queen
>
>
> I'll be willing to bet that more actors have gotten their Big Break
> after waiting tables than from working as extras. I know many stories
> about waiters and waitresses who happened to wait on a director who
> happened tobe casting something and happened to call them in, and they
> wound up playing roles. I rarely hear that kind of thing about extras.
>
Have you heard of uh, ...Tom Cruise?
Samuel L Jackson, Jenny Garth, ...just to name a few.
Drama Queen
> really showing. Is it
> > because those who do strictly background work do not pay for classes
> from you?
>
>
> Carl
=8^0) Huh? You lost me.
Or are you saying that you'd be willing to dress up in leather chaps,
tie Ed up, and whip him like the bad boy that he is, in exchange for lessons. <g>
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
de Valois
Carl
In article <39DA2583...@home.com>,
Drama Queen <drama...@home.com> wrote:
> edhooks wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'll be willing to bet that more actors have gotten their Big Break
> > after waiting tables than from working as extras. I know many
stories
> > about waiters and waitresses who happened to wait on a director who
> > happened tobe casting something and happened to call them in, and
they
> > wound up playing roles. I rarely hear that kind of thing about
extras.
> >
> > Ed Hooks
>
> Have you heard of uh, ...Tom Cruise?
> Samuel L Jackson, Jenny Garth, ...just to name a few.
>
> Drama Queen
> --
> "Intellectuals cause a great deal of trouble trying to do it all with
the mind.
> It is the heart that counts." -- Louise Bogan
>
--
Drama Queen
Drama Queen
de Valois wrote:
>
> Some guy named Hoffman, Dustin Hoffman, I think...
>
> Carl
>
> In article <39DA2583...@home.com>,
> Drama Queen <drama...@home.com> wrote:
> > edhooks wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll be willing to bet that more actors have gotten their Big Break
> > > after waiting tables than from working as extras. I know many
> stories
> > > about waiters and waitresses who happened to wait on a director who
> > > happened tobe casting something and happened to call them in, and
> they
> > > wound up playing roles. I rarely hear that kind of thing about
> extras.
> > >
> > > Ed Hooks
> >
> > Have you heard of uh, ...Tom Cruise?
> > Samuel L Jackson, Jenny Garth, ...just to name a few.
> >
> > Drama Queen
> > --
> > "Intellectuals cause a great deal of trouble trying to do it all with
> the mind.
> > It is the heart that counts." -- Louise Bogan
> >
>
> --
> If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
de Valois
Carl
In article <39DA307C...@home.com>,
Drama Queen <drama...@home.com> wrote:
> Never heard of him. Who is he? <g>
>
> Drama Queen
>
> de Valois wrote:
> >
> > Some guy named Hoffman, Dustin Hoffman, I think...
> >
> > Carl
Drama Queen
I thought his name was Gene. <g>
Drama Queen
de Valois wrote:
>
> I dunno...some guy in the rain, man....
>
> Carl
>
> In article <39DA307C...@home.com>,
> Drama Queen <drama...@home.com> wrote:
> > Never heard of him. Who is he? <g>
> >
> > Drama Queen
> >
> > de Valois wrote:
> > >
> > > Some guy named Hoffman, Dustin Hoffman, I think...
> > >
> > > Carl
>
> --
> If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
de Valois
Drama Queen <drama...@home.com> wrote:
> Did he sing & twirl an umbrella?
> I thought his name was Gene. <g>
>
Yea, that's it! Kelly Bundy!
The mind wobbles!
Karen Horn
: HEY! That's insulting to a very intelligent breed of dog!
:
: Carl
ah, c'mon, Carl. Setters are marginally brighter than a box of rocks.
Had one once. Gorgeous to look at, affectionate---but definately
on the low end of the bell curve in canine smarts.
Karen
:
: In article <8r8ftj$1dav$2...@thoth.cts.com>,
: Karen Horn <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote:
:> edhooks <edh...@best.com> wrote:
:> :
:> : The union will be on firmer ground -- but not by much -- when we go
: out
:> : on strike next summer against theatrical producers.
:> :
:>
:> Ed, do you think I theatrical strike would be last nearly as long as
:> a comercials strike? I say this because while you may slide by for
:> a while by stockpiling commericials and shooting the sort of thing
:> you just need a pretty "face" for with
: not-necessarily-a-lot-of-skill---
:> it's TERRIBLY hard to 'hide' a gee-what-a-face-but-the-brains-of-an-
:> Irish-Setter on stage.
:>
:> Karen
:>
:
: --
Bill491
> edhooks wrote:
>
> > Bad analogy. Extras on a movie set are not being trained for anything
> > at all.
>
> And that sticks in your craw doesn't it Ed? No one's paying for your lessons!
DQ....
Reputable acting coaches don't want "wanna-be" extras in their classes or workshops. There's
nothing to teach. A couple years ago, someone was plugging the definitive "Everything You
Wanted to Know About Being an Extra," for $15. An actor faxed it to me.... it included good
tips on being on time, dressing as required, not talking to actors on the set and bringing a
book so that you had something to do during the "hurry up and wait" periods. TWO PAGES,
double-spaced. Wow, what a deal.
I get regular inquiries every week about extra work as a coach, and I automatically read them
the phone numbers of the agencies in my market that "handle" extras. And to make the task
easier, I pass on this piece of advice: "Bring a polaroid, proof of age and be prepared to
spend 5 minutes filling out a simple form." That's all the training I offer over the phone
(though I do it with a smile.) Then I hang up.
Scams like Powers and Casablanca's make a big deal of extra work, spending 2-3 full sessions
on this stuff, when it can be summarized in 3 minutes.
I respect that ACTRA members will do BG work, but you're in a different market, operating
under different rules. More than anything, I respect that ACTRA's eligibility rules are much
more demanding than SAG's.
Like I said, reputable acting coaches don't work with extras.
As a coach, I do work with actors who occasionally do extra work.... as Ed mentioned, for
commercials.
My Studio was the location last night for shooting a commercial for the web for a local
two-year technical college. Two principals and two non-speaking extras. Read: 4 actors.
The extras had action and activity, neither are union and both are stage-trained. And no,
they did not have close-up's or reaction shots, but they were on a film set for the first
time in their lives. A good educational experience. In my market, it might be worth
mentioning on one's resume, but you don't list it in L.A. or N.Y., unless it's a national
spot.
I'm not arguing with you or anybody else on this thread.
But I observe that the standard for one market are very different from another.
Bill491
> >So what does a NonSag extra do when they are used in a commercial, then upgraded on set,
> ...if SAG isn't involved with extra work? How can SAG walk away from a jurisdiction and
> leave it's members uncovered?
I've seen two upgrades on a film set in several decades. Both were virtual accidents, and were
handled smoothly. The director said, "I want that 'actor'" and either an agent or an AD
contacted SAG local, and within half-an-hour arrangements were made.
Up until the end of the 80s, a day player's scale almost paid for the membership fee and the 1st
6 months of dues. SAG dues have necessarily increased.
The way to get one's SAG card.... well, it just makes more sense to audition for speaking roles.
> You can't have your cake and eat it too. A union either
> represents and protects ALL workers in their jurisdiction, or they find they'll soon have no
> jurisdiction or members to protect.
Well, we're stuck with it in the USA, DQ, because SAG members inducted S.E.G. for political
reasons that only real red neck Amehrikuns could possibly understand.
> But then again, ...maybe that's too Canadian a concept for you. <g>
Then I propose that the USA and Canada merge.... and maybe we'll average out each other's
idiosyncracies, just like American SAG and SEG did. <g>
An observation: Extra work is the least of the worries in any nation, USA or Canada. More
relevant is the effect of globalization among working actors (and other performing artists) who
have always wanted to cross international borders... in a very elite sense, of course.
Bill491
> In article <39DA0EA9...@best.com>,
> edh...@best.com wrote:
>
> Ed, I'm surprised at you, demeaning your argument in this way.
> There are technical aspects of acting on camera that one cannot possibly
> learn in a class. Period. A class can't teach you how to deal with
> crowds in a location shoot. A class cannot teach you how to deal with
> the interminable delays on set, and the inherent frustration. A class
> cannot teach you how to hit your mark with an incoherent director
> shouting that you have to "Move left! NO, your OTHER left!"
Beg to differ, Carl.
I won't speak for Ed, though I know him to be one of the top acting coaches
in S.F. Many independent acting workshops showcase. Showcase, hmmm, as a
verb, what does that mean? Merely a recital, and in some cases a simulation
of something approaching performance values.
Two weeks ago, my Studio produced "Shakespeare's Women -- 9 actors doing 9
scenes in front of a sell-out house (tickets were very cheap) and a talent
agent who was scouting and a theatre critic who was not reviewing the show,
rather taking some time to see actors at various skill levels. Two TAS
actors were signed by the talent agent.... a nice side benefit to what we
were working on.... conquering iambic pentameter.
By the way, I'm copying two acting coaches who also showcase
periodically.... Andy Garrison from Kansas City and Lissa Renaud from
Oakland.... neither subscribe to alt.acting. Lissa does two or three
showcases a year which culminate the best work of her best actors, and she
brings in guest artists (I was one.) Andy, a friend and frequent
collaborator is staging this week his new play, "The Family Flea," casting
some of his Studio actors and other K.C. talent. Anna Hadzi who studies
acting at my Studio staged the first staged reading of the play in Colorado
and is now is K.S., co-producing the show with Andy.... and guess what,
Carl.... the actors are salaried.
Last night my Studio was the location for a commercial shoot for a local
tech school.... a simple deal I negotiated with an instructor for a film
production class. No pay for ANYBODY.... just a showcase... everybody gets
a dub of the demo, and it'll air on the web.... simply as a sample of
creative work, not as a commercial..
And believe me, Carl, both the film production class instructor and yours
truly did SHOUT, "Move left! NO, your OTHER left!".... as needed. It being
a non-union showcase, (I am a union actor, but this is sanctioned as an
educational project via my Studio and the film production class from the
tech school)... we had an actor/tech crew that was willing to cover all
"roles."
A showcase, it was run as a professional shoot. Sometimes even acting
coaches aspire to re-create pro standards for actors and crew. And by the
way, we only went 15 minutes over our schedule, but we shot under budget.
Sometimes training in a pro studio leads to paying work, directly or
indirectly.
Drama Queen
>
> In article <39DA397B...@home.com>,
> Drama Queen <drama...@home.com> wrote:
> > Did he sing & twirl an umbrella?
> > I thought his name was Gene. <g>
> >
>
> Yea, that's it! Kelly Bundy!
>
> The mind wobbles!
>
> Carl
<Hee hee>
I may be a brunette, but I can play blonde with the best of them.
Drama Queen
Drama Queen
>
> Drama Queen wrote:
>
> > edhooks wrote:
> >
> > > Bad analogy. Extras on a movie set are not being trained for anything
> > > at all.
> >
> > And that sticks in your craw doesn't it Ed? No one's paying for your lessons!
>
> DQ....
>
> Reputable acting coaches don't want "wanna-be" extras in their classes or workshops. There's
> nothing to teach.
That's my point. Ed can't get to their money, and therefore no reason to have any concern
for them. Just dismiss them outright.
> A couple years ago, someone was plugging the definitive "Everything You
> Wanted to Know About Being an Extra," for $15. An actor faxed it to me.... it included good
> tips on being on time, dressing as required, not talking to actors on the set and bringing a
> book so that you had something to do during the "hurry up and wait" periods. TWO PAGES,
> double-spaced. Wow, what a deal.
If someone wants to know how to be an extra, there's "Into the Background" by Bill Tarling.
It is substantially more than TWO pages.
When Bill first told me he was writing a book on how to be a Background Performer, I was
shocked. Knowing what a man of character and integrity he was, I chose to reserve judgement
until I had an opportunity to read what he'd written. I'm glad I did. he tells it like it
is, ...at least in the Toronto market. It was well worth the retail price
>
> I get regular inquiries every week about extra work as a coach, and I automatically read them
> the phone numbers of the agencies in my market that "handle" extras. And to make the task
> easier, I pass on this piece of advice: "Bring a polaroid, proof of age and be prepared to
> spend 5 minutes filling out a simple form." That's all the training I offer over the phone
> (though I do it with a smile.) Then I hang up.
Any extra who tries to get work in Toronto with just a polaroid is going to want to get as
far away from extra work as possible. It will get you cattle calls from hell!!!
>
> Scams like Powers and Casablanca's make a big deal of extra work, spending 2-3 full sessions
> on this stuff, when it can be summarized in 3 minutes.
>
> I respect that ACTRA members will do BG work, but you're in a different market, operating
> under different rules. More than anything, I respect that ACTRA's eligibility rules are much
> more demanding than SAG's.
>
> Like I said, reputable acting coaches don't work with extras.
But reputable acting coaches can teach actors a thing or two that they will be able to take
with them when they do work in a featured BG capacity.
>
> As a coach, I do work with actors who occasionally do extra work.... as Ed mentioned, for
> commercials.
>
> My Studio was the location last night for shooting a commercial for the web for a local
> two-year technical college. Two principals and two non-speaking extras. Read: 4 actors.
> The extras had action and activity, neither are union and both are stage-trained. And no,
> they did not have close-up's or reaction shots, but they were on a film set for the first
> time in their lives. A good educational experience. In my market, it might be worth
> mentioning on one's resume, but you don't list it in L.A. or N.Y., unless it's a national
> spot.
Up here in Toronto, extra work of any kind should NOT be listed on the resume.
There are also differences between jurisdictions. I've noticed that in commercials, ACTRA
extras do less than their SAG counterparts, ...and in Film & TV, ACTRA extras do way more
than their SAG counterparts.
>
> I'm not arguing with you or anybody else on this thread.
>
> But I observe that the standard for one market are very different from another.
That's definitely true.
Drama Queen
>
> Drama Queen wrote:
>
> > ...if SAG isn't involved with extra work? How can SAG walk away from a jurisdiction and
> > leave it's members uncovered?
>
> I've seen two upgrades on a film set in several decades. Both were virtual accidents, and were
> handled smoothly. The director said, "I want that 'actor'" and either an agent or an AD
> contacted SAG local, and within half-an-hour arrangements were made.
Tell that to Kevin Bacon who in earlier years had to fight for his upgrade on a Pepsi
commercial when he was first starting out.
Upgrades are not always handled smoothly, ...especially when you are dealing with relatively
low-budget MOWs or production service companies where the PMs like to keep the differences
between the budget and the actual expenses incurred.
Larger sets, or more reputable producers never have a problem giving people their due.
A girlfriend of mine just recently started doing extra work. She went to visit a friend on
the set of "Soul Food" and the director took one look at her and asked her to say a few
lines. She decided she might as well join an extra agency. The next set she went on, she was
bored out of her tree. The next set she went on, the director picked her out and asked her
to say a few lines. So far she has only been on a total of 4 different sets in a week and a
half, and already she has two credits. In terms of her ability to "act", I won't comment on
that, ...but she's been doing promos on the radio for a while and has enough tape of herself
to break into voice work.
Since saving enough to purchase my BMW last fall, I've significantly cut out the BG work,
...but even I have been upgraded on a few sets this year. I know how to pick & choose my
assignments. In Toronto, BG are more than just moving furniture. Now that you've got me on
the topic, ...I think I will start doing more of it. If there is an all out theatrical
strike next spring, I want my bank account to be as fat as can be.
> Up until the end of the 80s, a day player's scale almost paid for the membership fee and the 1st
> 6 months of dues. SAG dues have necessarily increased.
>
> The way to get one's SAG card.... well, it just makes more sense to audition for speaking roles.
>
> > You can't have your cake and eat it too. A union either
> > represents and protects ALL workers in their jurisdiction, or they find they'll soon have no
> > jurisdiction or members to protect.
>
> Well, we're stuck with it in the USA, DQ, because SAG members inducted S.E.G. for political
> reasons that only real red neck Amehrikuns could possibly understand.
>
> > But then again, ...maybe that's too Canadian a concept for you. <g>
>
> Then I propose that the USA and Canada merge.... and maybe we'll average out each other's
> idiosyncracies, just like American SAG and SEG did. <g>
Ya right, that would go over *real* smoothly, ...kind of like an elephant and a mouse
sharing the same bed.
>
> An observation: Extra work is the least of the worries in any nation, USA or Canada. More
> relevant is the effect of globalization among working actors (and other performing artists) who
> have always wanted to cross international borders... in a very elite sense, of course.
>
> Break a leg,
> Bill
From where I'm sitting on this side of the 49th, ...it doesn't look like much of a problem
to me ;^)
Janice
cracked.) (To any idiots, that's not a drug joke!) (Guess now I've really
OPENED MYSELF UP!!!!)
--
Janice
~~~~~~~~~~
"You lure men to their deaths like a spider with flies!"
"Flies are where men are most vulnerable."
Janice
extras that were hired for one of the movies I did had trouble with getting
from point A to point B when they were supposed to, much to the frustration
of the smarter extras on the set as well as the director and AD's. A lot of
people don't listen well and don't take direction well. A well-trained
actor does, therefore a shoot will take less time using people who have had
some acting experience. They can also repeat a performance as many times as
necessary, making continuity problems low.
edhooks
> ....you're claiming that acting is an art, i would agree. but the
> Guild treats acting as a commerce...
You are correct, unfortunately.
>... my point is
> simply that, like it or not, there isn't much acting skill necessary
> for most of the commercial principle roles. as athletes and models
> prove on a daily basis....
Correct again. I teach audition technique for commercials and get
non-actor students all the time. Many of them go on to do commercials.
Commercials are mainly about sense-of-life, bright-eyed-bushy-tailed
people, likability. Commercials generally have no conflict, which is,
of course, a basic requirement of the drama.
>... i think if you want quality control within the guild,
> the guild would have to be divided, not only between principles and
> extras, but also between commercials and theatrical.
Yup. Well, my opinion is that SAG is on the verge of becoming a
dinosaur. The Guild is functioning on a 1950's mind-set in the cyber
age, and it's a big mistake. Many serious actors are disgusted with the
union. Me personally, I've stood by the union for many years and will
continue to do so until the situation is totally hopeless. I beleive in
the union and think it serves a valid function in the market place. But
Screen Actors Guild is supposed to be a Guild for ACTORS. And acting
is, as you and I agree, an art. An interpretative art, to be specific.
In the United States, art and commerce are intermingled. They are one
and the same. Art here has no value at all unless it sells tickets or
product. This is a sign of our decline as a culture, and it makes me
very sad.
> ... isn't there an 'interactive'
> contract with SAG? i seem to recall being called to do a cd-rom a few
> years ago, and asked to look at the SAG interactive agreement. is
> there one? and, if so, why wouldn't internet advertising fall under
> that contract?
There is indeed an interactive agreement, but SAG has had its head up
its rear when it comes to the Internet. The Guild does not have a
contract for the Internet. Advertisers are refusing to even talk to SAG
about the Internet, and I suspect theatrical producers will take the
same tactic in their turn. Clearly, the future of the entertainment
industry is in cyberspace, and the producers see their opportunity to
make it a union-free environment. And, if SAG/AFTRA absolutely MUST be
present, then the best thing from the producers' perspective is to make
sure the unions keep busy representing extras and not actors.
It's a mess, no kidding.
Ed Hooks
edhooks
>...I've seen some damned fine
> art coming from background performers.
Oh, give me a break. Define art. What you saw was well dressed extras.
Look, I appreciate that the main work in your city is extra work, and
you want to make the best of it. That situation exists all over the
place, and I am not insensitive to it. My Christmas wish for you is more
actual acting roles. However, it is time to draw a line. Extras are
NOT actors, and that is just the end of it. Your seeing art in the
background does not make it art. SAG calling them actors does not make
them actors.
I have a new book coming out next spring, Drama Queen, entitled "Acting
Strategies for the Cyber Age" (Heinemann), and I put in a special
chapter about the growing confusion over what is and is not acting. I
researched SAG's history on the subject, which is damn near
schizophrenic. I hope you read it.<g>
Ed Hooks
edhooks
>
> And that sticks in your craw doesn't it Ed? No one's paying for your lessons!
That is an utterly idiotic thing to say, especially to me.
Ed Hooks
edhooks
>
> In other words, there are real life applications that being an extra
> allows you to observe, up close and personal, that all the learnin' in
> the world won't give you.
>
> So we agree to disagree, correct?
Oh sure, I agree with all those things. However, none of those things
equate to acting. EVERYBODY on the set -- grips, caterers, costumers --
hear the director yelling "action!" and learn what the little flashing
red light means. Big deal. It's not acting.
Ed Hooks
edhooks
>
> Have you heard of uh, ...Tom Cruise?
> Samuel L Jackson, Jenny Garth, ...just to name a few.
The fact that actors have worked as extras does not mean that extra work
is acting. I have worked as an extra, too. So what? It's not acting.
Extra work is an activity.
Ed Hooks
edhooks
> They can also repeat a performance as many times as
> necessary, making continuity problems low.
Oh wow. Great. Let's hear it for them. And, no, I am not a
"patrician". I have defined my terms. I have explained very patiently
why I believe that extra work is not an art and why it is not acting. I
have nothing whatever against people who work as extras. My objection
is with Screen Actors Guild.
Ed
de Valois
<biting tongue very VERY hard>
Carl
--
Read my lips: NO NEW TEXANS!
de Valois
edh...@best.com wrote:
> The fact that actors have worked as extras does not mean that extra
work
> is acting. I have worked as an extra, too. So what? It's not
acting.
> Extra work is an activity.
And acting is an activity, unless you take it seriously.
Ed, really, that's what this is all about: if an extra treats his camera
time (even on deep background) as a chance to work at his craft, then he
only enhances a scene. If he treats it as face time, then that's
precisely what will come across.
And you can see this difference if you watch a movie with any sizable
crowd. There will be some background people who move very conscious of
the camera, and some who act a role. Those are the people you want as
background (usually they're union), and not the folks who stop and check
the camera angles. Might as well drag the crowd that's watching you film
into frame...
de Valois
"Janice" <jb...@hot.rr.com> wrote:
> You think you're such the patrician, don't you, Ed? And a good chunk
of the
> extras that were hired for one of the movies I did had trouble with
getting
> from point A to point B when they were supposed to, much to the
frustration
> of the smarter extras on the set as well as the director and AD's. A
lot of
> people don't listen well and don't take direction well. A
well-trained
> actor does, therefore a shoot will take less time using people who
have had
> some acting experience. They can also repeat a performance as many
times as
> necessary, making continuity problems low.
I find many parallels between Ed's reasoning for extras and Ignoranus's
position regarding commercial actors.
Very disturbing parallels...
de Valois
Drama Queen <drama...@home.com> wrote:
> Ya right, that would go over *real* smoothly, ...kind of like an
elephant and a mouse
> sharing the same bed.
Ah, you got that nude GIF I sent you, Minnie...
de Valois
I'm glad that you were able to do this. Tell me, is this a regular
feature of your classes? From the way it sounds, it seems as if this was
a one-off.
So how many hundreds of actors have passed/will pass thru your doors
without this training? And when will you do the outdoor version,
complete with people snapping flash photographs? Or in the rain? Or with
a crew that is at each other's throats? All of which I've encountered
over the years.
Carl
In article <39DA618B...@ix.netcom.com>,
Bill491 <Bil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Last night my Studio was the location for a commercial shoot for a
local
> tech school.... a simple deal I negotiated with an instructor for a
film
> production class. No pay for ANYBODY.... just a showcase... everybody
gets
> a dub of the demo, and it'll air on the web.... simply as a sample of
> creative work, not as a commercial..
>
> And believe me, Carl, both the film production class instructor and
yours
> truly did SHOUT, "Move left! NO, your OTHER left!".... as needed. It
being
> a non-union showcase, (I am a union actor, but this is sanctioned as
an
> educational project via my Studio and the film production class from
the
> tech school)... we had an actor/tech crew that was willing to cover
all
> "roles."
>
> A showcase, it was run as a professional shoot. Sometimes even acting
> coaches aspire to re-create pro standards for actors and crew. And by
the
> way, we only went 15 minutes over our schedule, but we shot under
budget.
>
> Sometimes training in a pro studio leads to paying work, directly or
> indirectly.
de Valois
edh...@best.com wrote:
> de Valois wrote:
> >
> > In other words, there are real life applications that being an extra
> > allows you to observe, up close and personal, that all the learnin'
in
> > the world won't give you.
> >
> > So we agree to disagree, correct?
>
> Oh sure, I agree with all those things. However, none of those things
> equate to acting.
Acting as an art, no. Acting as a craft, most certainly.
Carl
de Valois
Karen Horn <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote:
> ah, c'mon, Carl. Setters are marginally brighter than a box of rocks.
> Had one once. Gorgeous to look at, affectionate---but definately
> on the low end of the bell curve in canine smarts.
>
And you named it Drama Queen, no doubt....<g,d,r>
edhooks
>
> And acting is an activity, unless you take it seriously.
Acting is an art, like music and painting. You can take carpentry and
brain surgery seriously, too, and that does not make either of them an
interpretative performing art. When an actor acts, he is saying to the
audience, "I understand this about this character." When the audience
applauds, it is saying, "I see what you mean. I have not looked at it
that way before." The communication is between actor and audience, back
and forth, and it has roots in ancient shamanism. Extras, regardless of
how seriously they take themselves, are a background against which
actors (shamans) play.
Again, I want to urge you and anybody else in alt.acting not to take
personal offence by my assertion. I am restricting my comments to art
and function. I do not intend to put people down for doing extra work
(although I occasionally get drawn in and pissed off by people who
persist in calling extras actors).
> Ed, really, that's what this is all about: if an extra treats his camera
> time (even on deep background) as a chance to work at his craft, then he
> only enhances a scene.
How precisely is it that you think an extra is working on "his craft"?
Where is the role? An extra, by defnition, is prohibited from
communicating with the audience. If he tries it, he will be fired.
Extras are hired for -- and belong in -- the background. That's why
they're called background players. They are not actors. Actors are up
front, the point of focus.
I appreciate that some extras, hopefully ALL of them, take their work
seriously. If they are playing Roman soldiers, I hope they read up on
their subject and do a wonderful job. That does not make extra work
acting. Extras, despite all proclomations to the contrary, are not
extras, nor will they ever be.
Ed Hooks
The Starmaker
> (Guess now I've really
> OPENED MYSELF UP!!!!)
SHE REALLY IS A TRUE BLOND!!!!
de Valois
edh...@best.com wrote:
> de Valois wrote:
> >
> > And acting is an activity, unless you take it seriously.
>
> Acting is an art, like music and painting. You can take carpentry and
> brain surgery seriously, too, and that does not make either of them an
> interpretative performing art.
But carpentry *can* be an art, just as acting *can* be just an activity!
I've done enough cabinet making to know that both are equally valid
forms of carpentry.
When an actor acts, he is saying to
the
> audience, "I understand this about this character." When the audience
> applauds, it is saying, "I see what you mean. I have not looked at it
> that way before." The communication is between actor and audience,
back
> and forth, and it has roots in ancient shamanism.
Glad I could help you see acting in a new way, Ed. I'm not sure I agree
with this perspective, but some of it rings true. As an actor, I am
selfish: I give a rat's ass about the audience applause. It's nice, but
ultimately, I rate my performance based on how it affected me doing it.
Perhaps it's my Method background. Perhaps I'm just egocentric. :)
> Again, I want to urge you and anybody else in alt.acting not to take
> personal offence by my assertion. I am restricting my comments to art
> and function.
On this we agree: extra work has very little art involved, unless the
actor is dedicated enough to push himself to really create a character
in background. However, when he does, the moment can come across
beautifully on camera.
>
> How precisely is it that you think an extra is working on "his craft"?
> Where is the role?
He creates it. Certainly, when I've done extra work, I've taken the time
to hang clothing on the small piece I've been given.
An extra, by defnition, is prohibited from
> communicating with the audience.
Directly, yes. However, he can (and many directors I've worked with,
both as a principal and extra, encourage this) create life behind the
scene, so long as he doesn't distract from it. It's a very fine line
to walk, and one that I would argue does involve some art.
The Starmaker
> That is an utterly idiotic thing to say, especially to me.
>
> Ed Hooks
I think they call it "blasphemy."
Opus (:>
>
> However, when he does, the moment can come across
> beautifully on camera.
>
So can furniture.
> > Where is the role?
>
> He creates it.
>
There's a very fine line here, but I disagree. He's not being given
specific instructions to improvise in the literal or academic sense of
the word. He's being given specific instructions to either bark, sing
or look really upset in this next shot.
For me personally, the distinguishing factor, lies within the fact that
the principals, in creating their roles, have a through-line of action,
of thought, a sense of emotional continuity to what they're doing. Even
improv actors need that through-line in order to hang the character off
of, so you couldn't even really say it's improv work. When a background
player is not given that by a director, he's not being asked to hone
anything. He's being asked to dress in a Yankee uniform and lay dead
all over the ground for the next scene, dress in a victorian dress from
the 1860's and pretend to be window shopping while walking down the
street or dress in a prison uniform and eat lunch as an inmate.
Eating. Shopping. Dying. In this sense, it's not acting because the
director doesn't really care where you look, how you put that food into
your mouth, or what your internal monologue is while you're doing it.
It's filler from which the principals may play, so that with the visual
ambiance, we the audience may believe in his situation. That's all it
is; visual ambiance and like Ed, I do not intend to bash those who do
it. But I too have strong feelings about its nature and where it lies
within the scheme of things.
--
Opus (:>
I was fired from my job at a Howard Johnson's when somebody asked me the
ice cream flavour of the week and I said, "chicken". --Mike Nichols
Opus Graphics-- http://members.home.net/coble/OpusGraphics
Alt.Acting FAQ-- http://www.acmecity.com/scoobydoo/witchdoctor/345
edhooks
> But carpentry *can* be an art, just as acting *can* be just an activity!
> I've done enough cabinet making to know that both are equally valid
> forms of carpentry.
Carpentry cannot be a performing art. There is artistry in carpentry,
as there can be in any trade, but you need a character to play if it is
to become a performing art. The performing arts are very specific in the
transaction that happens between actor and audience.
> Glad I could help you see acting in a new way, Ed. I'm not sure I agree
> with this perspective, but some of it rings true. As an actor, I am
> selfish: I give a rat's ass about the audience applause. It's nice, but
> ultimately, I rate my performance based on how it affected me doing it.
> Perhaps it's my Method background. Perhaps I'm just egocentric. :)
This, Carl, is the topic for a new thread. You are correct. It IS your
method background. You are enunciating one of the problems with 20th
century acting training. The focus has shifted away from the
actor-as-storyteller, and Lee Strasberg is largely to blame. Have you
read "Stanislavsky in Focus" by Sharon M. Carnicke? I strongly
recommend it. She explains very clearly how the emphasis shifted when
Stanislavsky's System became Strasberg's Method.
Acting involves a communication between actor and audience, regardless
of what you were taught in method class. That is the way it has been
for thousands of years. Acting is, in fact, a close relative of
religion. Peter Brook points out that an actor must maintain three
tension lines: one between himself and himself (this is the one you
worked on so much in method); one between himself and the other actors
in the scene; and one between himself and the audience. If any one of
those tension lines goes slack for even an instant, the theatrical
transaction is broken.
Your emotions, no matter how important and thrilling they are to you,
are not theatre. Acting requires theatrical intent, i.e. an intent to
communicate with an audience. If you are not bringing that to the
party, you are involved in something else entirely.
> On this we agree: extra work has very little art involved, unless the
> actor is dedicated enough to push himself to really create a character
> in background. However, when he does, the moment can come across
> beautifully on camera.
What character is the extra working on? Where's the script? You are
suggesting that the extra is making up a character on his own and having
a swell time acting his heart out for himself. Well, that's fine.
However, if an extra tries to take that performance to the audience, he
will be fired immediately. The audience is not supposed to be watching
the extras.
I'm starting to catch on to your logic, Carl. You don't think an
audience is necessary for acting, thanks to your method acting training.
That's where you're dropping the ball, and it is the source of your
confusion. You're far from alone on this. If the audience is not
involved, however, you have some sort of emotional masturbation going
on. It ain't acting.
> ....he (THE EXTRA) can (and many directors I've worked with,
> both as a principal and extra, encourage this) create life behind the
> scene, so long as he doesn't distract from it. It's a very fine line
> to walk, and one that I would argue does involve some art.
Nope. It's an activity. It would not become art unless the audience
was involved, and the extras are not supposed to come to the attention
of the audience.
Ed Hooks
Bill491
Drama Queen wrote:
> Bill said:
> > Reputable acting coaches don't want "wanna-be" extras in their classes or workshops. There's
> > nothing to teach.
>
> That's my point. Ed can't get to their money, and therefore no reason to have any concern
> for them. Just dismiss them outright.
I've met Ed, a couple TAS actors have studied with him and I've enjoyed many a public and private
post with him. So.... I am inclined to give him more credit than you on this matter of extras.
Ed speaks for himself (and usually eloquently) and I won't speak for him. But I will say that when
SAG "merged" with SEG a decade ago, the end effect was tot immediately lower standards for
membership. Oh, sure, a speaking role in a SAG film still gives you the opportunity to join the
union and a second speaking role becomes a "must join" situation.
But it's now that case that an actor can "earn" a card with three vouchers for BG work. I object
to this strongly, for a number of reasons. It's as much as back-door entry to SAG as buying an
AFTRA card, then wait for a year, and then pay SAG membership dues without EVER having done a
speaking role on camera.
Ed mentioned that producers were amused when SAG "inducted SEG." Well, talent agents and casting
directors are equally "amused" when reading the resume of a SAG member whose only credits include
extra work. How on earth can such a resume give producers, agents or CD's any confidence that such
an actor can handle a part that requires lines..... even a bit part for a 7-11 counter person who
only has to say, "Sorry, we're out of Marlboro Menthols."?
I've also had some heated debates with Ed on the issue. Ed has worked in NY, LA and now does his
stuff in SF. I've worked in NY and LA and now do my stuff in Denver. And in Colorado, doing an
extra job does not have the same stigma as on the West Coast.
On a selective basis, I will encourage the theatre trained actor to take an extra job for film or
commercial, especially when the talent has never been on a film set. Call it an educational
experience that might help the actor when auditioning for agency representation, or for an
on-camera speaking role.
And there is STILL the matter of whether to mention that on one's resume. If you're a newbie and
have no other credits, then by all means cite that you were an extra in a SAG film, or an AFTRA
project, or a student film. You've got nothing to lose. But, if you're a theatre actor breaking
into film/video work, then by all means, mention that you've been on a film set, or have done
on-camera training.
Remember, DQ, that I've said many a time that I would rather that SAG's membership policies
approach ACTRA's minimum qualifications. And it ain't gonna happen, especially during the 2000
strike, and certainly not during the anticipated 2001 strike.
And I also understand that Toronto's acting market is much different from Denver's or San
Franciso's
> If someone wants to know how to be an extra, there's "Into the Background" by Bill Tarling.
> It is substantially more than TWO pages.
> When Bill first told me he was writing a book on how to be a Background Performer, I was
> shocked. Knowing what a man of character and integrity he was, I chose to reserve judgement
> until I had an opportunity to read what he'd written. I'm glad I did. he tells it like it
> is, ...at least in the Toronto market. It was well worth the retail price
I won't buy it, DQ, 'cause I make my living in a different market. But you are persuasive that
this works for your market. Consider sharing the key tips with your American cousins.
> Any extra who tries to get work in Toronto with just a polaroid is going to want to get as
> far away from extra work as possible. It will get you cattle calls from hell!!!
Yet it works in my market, especially when we're talking about gathering 3,000 extras for
"Asteroids" a tv-mini series that was shot in Colorado, and also "Centennial" and other projects.
Let's please, DQ, understand that some projects need actors and some need bodies. I'm a consultant
on a project that needs 200 folks for 2 days.... the contractor is a government bureaucracy, and
they will hire "real" actors and also non-actors. Real actors bring in their headshots....
non-actors either bring in a polaroid, or one is taken.
Standard procedure in Colorado. Different, I gather, from YOU market, DQ.
> But reputable acting coaches can teach actors a thing or two that they will be able to take
> with them when they do work in a featured BG capacity.
I do, DQ. And I'm sure Ed does, as well.
> Up here in Toronto, extra work of any kind should NOT be listed on the resume.
Glad I am that you reminded me that you're north and northeast of me, and in a different country.
I've already stated my exceptions. You can speak for Toronto, Ed can speak for S.F. and I can
speak for Denver.
And on the extra issue, it would be grand if other markets could express their own prejudices.
Opus (:>
> tension lines: one between himself and himself (this is the one you
> worked on so much in method); one between himself and the other actors
> in the scene; and one between himself and the audience. If any one of
> those tension lines goes slack for even an instant, the theatrical
> transaction is broken.
>
finished it yet.
de Valois
"Opus (:>" <opus...@bloomcounty.com> wrote:
> > Glad I could help you see acting in a new way, Ed.
> >
Not according to his post. He seemed to imply a new way of communicating
his theory.
>
> > However, when he does, the moment can come across
> > beautifully on camera.
> >
> So can furniture.
>
Furniture doesn't have moments, Carla, except in a psychotic dream, or
under the influence of a hallucinogenic.
> > > Where is the role?
> >
> > He creates it.
> >
> There's a very fine line here, but I disagree. He's not being given
> specific instructions to improvise in the literal or academic sense of
> the word. He's being given specific instructions to either bark, sing
> or look really upset in this next shot.
An extra that is being given specific direction is not an extra,
therefore by Ed's definition, he is an actor. An extra creates without
direction, if he's a good conscientious actor, because he understands
the scene and wants to enhance it.
An extra's direction in a scene usually takes the form of this: "OK, you
hear a car screech to a halt here, react to it. Then you see a man in
14th Century garb walking past you. Notice him."
With that type of direction, the extra can either a) turn quickly and
pantomime leaning towards the car and then blink and open his eyes
widely, glaring at the alien, or b) take the moment to choose how
someone who is doing what he was doing in the "moment before" would
react: say he was reading the paper on a bench. He'd hear the screech,
look up, freeze for a moment, strain to see what happened, perhaps even
go towards the car, where he runs into the man in medieval costume, and
suddenly stops, shakes his head as if he had seen an illusion, and then
finally realize that something very weird is going on, and either get
out of the place, or find out what's happening.
The second scenario is what an actor would do. The first is what you
believe an extra should do. Which is better for the scene as a whole?
>In this sense, it's not acting because the
> director doesn't really care where you look, how you put that food
into
> your mouth, or what your internal monologue is while you're doing it.
> It's filler from which the principals may play, so that with the
visual
> ambiance, we the audience may believe in his situation.
But it is acting IF THE ACTOR CARES! And ultimately, that's what acting
should be about: does the actor care enough to want to give as full a
performance as he or she can, no matter the circumstances.
I've avoided saying this, but you force me to, Carla: there are no small
roles, only small actors. But according to you, and to some degree Ed,
there are small roles. I think you do actors the world over a disservice
in this approach.
Carl
--
Read my lips: NO NEW TEXANS!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm a Frisbeetarian. I believe when you die, your soul flies up and gets
stuck on the roof. - CASalonen
de Valois
edh...@best.com wrote:
> de Valois wrote:
>
> > But carpentry *can* be an art, just as acting *can* be just an
activity!
> > I've done enough cabinet making to know that both are equally valid
> > forms of carpentry.
>
> Carpentry cannot be a performing art. There is artistry in carpentry,
> as there can be in any trade, but you need a character to play if it
is
> to become a performing art.
Never did cabintery, didya, Ed? <g>
Creation, Ed, is the very soul of acting. You don't "get" a character
assigned to you like some high-school essay: you create it from the
given circumstance. You saw it and sand it, chisel it out of a block of
woodpulp paper, and with a few finishing flourishes, you've created a
character. Whether that character exists in the mind of the director or
scriptwriter is irrelevant: an actor will create one if he's a good
actor. And it will show in the background, and if the actor has done his
job with his best intentions, it will enhance and add meaning to the
scene.
>
> > Glad I could help you see acting in a new way, Ed. I'm not sure I
agree
> > with this perspective, but some of it rings true. As an actor, I am
> > selfish: I give a rat's ass about the audience applause. It's nice,
but
> > ultimately, I rate my performance based on how it affected me doing
it.
> > Perhaps it's my Method background. Perhaps I'm just egocentric. :)
>
> This, Carl, is the topic for a new thread. You are correct. It IS
your
> method background. You are enunciating one of the problems with 20th
> century acting training. The focus has shifted away from the
> actor-as-storyteller, and Lee Strasberg is largely to blame. Have you
> read "Stanislavsky in Focus" by Sharon M. Carnicke? I strongly
> recommend it. She explains very clearly how the emphasis shifted when
> Stanislavsky's System became Strasberg's Method.
On your recommendation, I will go pick it up.
>
> Acting involves a communication between actor and audience, regardless
> of what you were taught in method class. That is the way it has been
> for thousands of years. Acting is, in fact, a close relative of
> religion. Peter Brook points out that an actor must maintain three
> tension lines: one between himself and himself (this is the one you
> worked on so much in method); one between himself and the other actors
> in the scene; and one between himself and the audience. If any one of
> those tension lines goes slack for even an instant, the theatrical
> transaction is broken.
Did you study any Method at any time, Ed? I mean, as a student rather
than a scholar? I'd say that good Method teachers (which I've
fortunately been blessed with) will incorporate all three of these into
their teachings. The trap of Method acting, to be sure, is that it can
create some godawful self-centered performances, but those are poor
talents and poor training on display. A Method actor properly trained
learns that his character is dependent on the other characters in the
scene (and even not in the scene) and that his performance is for an
audience, that the reason he is indulging his emotional memories is so
that an audience can identify with them. BUT THAT IS NOT THE PRIMARY
MOTIVATING FORCE! The primary motivating force is an exploration of art.
>
> Your emotions, no matter how important and thrilling they are to you,
> are not theatre. Acting requires theatrical intent, i.e. an intent to
> communicate with an audience. If you are not bringing that to the
> party, you are involved in something else entirely.
>
Agreed, and not inconsistent with what I said above.
> What character is the extra working on? Where's the script? You are
> suggesting that the extra is making up a character on his own and
having
> a swell time acting his heart out for himself. Well, that's fine.
> However, if an extra tries to take that performance to the audience,
he
> will be fired immediately. The audience is not supposed to be
watching
> the extras.
>
An actor who understands the circumstances and creates a character
relevant to those circumstances is not going to be fired. He may be more
interesting than the principles, but the director is then going to
appreciate that extra all the more, because at least *someone* is
getting it.
Now, before you jump ugly on that I'm not suggesting mugging to the
camera, and if you take that away from that comment, you do me signal
disrespect, given all that I wrote about acting prior to that last
paragraph. Please keep this in context, Ed.
> I'm starting to catch on to your logic, Carl. You don't think an
> audience is necessary for acting, thanks to your method acting
training.
See above. Don't disrespect me or my training, Ed. I'm a very good
actor.
> Nope. It's an activity. It would not become art unless the audience
> was involved, and the extras are not supposed to come to the attention
> of the audience.
Never heard the word "subliminal" (or "subliminable," for my Republican
friends), Ed? Who are you to tell the *audience* how to "get" a
performance?
de Valois
Bill491 <Bil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> It's as much as back-door
entry to SAG as buying an
> AFTRA card, then wait for a year, and then pay SAG membership dues
without EVER having done a
> speaking role on camera.
>
Clarification: you can't do this, and never could. SAG rules make no
distinction between AFTRAns and non-unions when it comes to joining,
except that SAG will waive the initiation fee for AFTRAns. An AFTRAn
still has to perform one principle role (it can be in an AFTRA
production, rather than SAG, tho) or qualify under the "three waiver"
rule.
edhooks
>
> Was that in The Shifting Point that this was mentioned? I've not
> finished it yet.
Either that or "The Empty Space". I'll have to look it up. You
enjoying "The Shifting Point"?
Ed
edhooks
> An extra that is being given specific direction is not an extra,
> therefore by Ed's definition, he is an actor....
The DGA rules provide that the 1st AD, not the director, talks to the
extras. I realize some directors talk directly to the extras, but many
do not.
Ed Hooks
edhooks
>.... A Method actor properly trained
> learns that his character is dependent on the other characters in the
> scene (and even not in the scene) and that his performance is for an
> audience, that the reason he is indulging his emotional memories is so
> that an audience can identify with them. BUT THAT IS NOT THE PRIMARY
> MOTIVATING FORCE! The primary motivating force is an exploration of art.
The primary motivating force is to communicate with the audience.
Anyway, it sounds like you are starting to acknowledge the necessity of
an audience. Next thing you know, you'll begin to understand why it is
that extras aren't actors.<g>
And, oh yes, I have studied acting. With many people. I've even been
in Method classes.
Ed Hooks
Opus (:>
> his theory.
>
> Furniture doesn't have moments, Carla, except in a psychotic dream, or
> under the influence of a hallucinogenic.
>
Hey, I've seen some DAMNED fine work coming from footstools pretending
to be ottomans......
> An extra that is being given specific direction is not an extra,
> therefore by Ed's definition, he is an actor. An extra creates without
> direction, if he's a good conscientious actor, because he understands
> the scene and wants to enhance it.
>
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this one.
> With that type of direction, the extra can either a) turn quickly and
> pantomime leaning towards the car and then blink and open his eyes
> widely, glaring at the alien, or b) take the moment to choose how
> someone who is doing what he was doing in the "moment before" would
> react: say he was reading the paper on a bench. He'd hear the screech,
> look up, freeze for a moment, strain to see what happened, perhaps even
> go towards the car, where he runs into the man in medieval costume, and
> suddenly stops, shakes his head as if he had seen an illusion, and then
> finally realize that something very weird is going on, and either get
> out of the place, or find out what's happening.
>
> The second scenario is what an actor would do. The first is what you
> believe an extra should do. Which is better for the scene as a whole?
>
I say it doesn't really matter, since the likelihood of anyone actually
seeing it in the finished product is almost nil.
> But it is acting IF THE ACTOR CARES!
>
Hmmmn. I think we're getting into shaky ground with this. I disagree
with this too. People can care about cooking, but it doesn't make them
cooks who have the skill to do it.
> I've avoided saying this, but you force me to, Carla: there are no small
> roles, only small actors. But according to you, and to some degree Ed,
> there are small roles.
>
Not at all. I don't view the background player's job as a role at all.
They are ambiance.
> I think you do actors the world over a disservice
> in this approach.
>
I understand exactly what you're saying and why, but the only way I can
see myself doing a disservice to the world of acting, is if I went in
and did extra roles, while still retaining these ideas about it. I
haven't had to do extra roles in over 4 years. And I'm hardly big
enough a star yet to affect anyone the world over, let alone actors.
Opus (:>
Well, so far I've only gotten into it a few chapters, but from what I've
read thus far, I'm loving it. Written from a truly obsessed and sold
out actor of his craft, and that is the refreshing part. In a way, it
reminds me of "Improvisation for the Theatre" and "Respect for Acting".
I hope to read "Stanislavski in Focus" next.
The Starmaker
I'm tired of all this extra talk.
You might as well just say,
extras are not necessarly actors as well as stars are not necessarly
actors.
One is a backgrond player, the other is a frontground player.
That also means a supporting actor is only a backgrond player for a
lead
actor.
Once you got a star for a movie, everyone else is an extra.
As the casting directors say, "The producers provide the stars, we fill
in the blanks."
So Ed Hooks, you teach actors how to become the blanks, and I teach
them
how
to become, ...Stars.
The Starmaker
--
> Is there no end to this madness who calls himself The Starmaker? --
> blank
Eric Jarvis
> de Valois wrote:
> >.... A Method actor properly trained
> > learns that his character is dependent on the other characters in the
> > scene (and even not in the scene) and that his performance is for an
> > audience, that the reason he is indulging his emotional memories is so
> > that an audience can identify with them. BUT THAT IS NOT THE PRIMARY
> > MOTIVATING FORCE! The primary motivating force is an exploration of art.
>
> Anyway, it sounds like you are starting to acknowledge the necessity of
> an audience. Next thing you know, you'll begin to understand why it is
> that extras aren't actors.<g>
>
> And, oh yes, I have studied acting. With many people. I've even been
> in Method classes.
>
the important point being that studying acting is all about things like
the character's motivation...actually doing it is all about the
audience...because if it isn't they'll be out of there
--
eric
"the show's not over till the brass section reach
the bar"
The Starmaker
It's very rude to change other people's subject headings.
Unbecomming of someone who is *trying* to put together a FAQ.
If you wish to start a new discussion, there is plenty of space on
this newsgroup to start one.
If I catch you doing that again I'm going to have to disipline you.
Remember, I told you nicely.
Next time, I won't be so nice.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
>
> Texans are OK, ...just NOT in the White House!!!
Jews are OK, ...just NOT in the White House!!!
Blacks are OK, ...just NOT in the White House!!!
Women are OK, ...just No Bitches in the White House!!!!!
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
> you really want to make me happy, ...mail me a vibrator that doesn't konk out.
I never konk out. I just keep going on and on and on and ....¿¿¿
Mail me!!! I'll pay for postage.
I just don't understand these chicks with vibrators! Not only that, they
got all
kinds of shapes and sizes and all kinds of electonic devices.
Whatever happen to women and their own hands? I don't get it?
There is nothing like a woman putting her hand down your pants.
I didn't change the subject.
> > Your seeing art in the
> > background does not make it art.
Extras are the "atmosphere" of the background.
And I've seen some great atmospheres.
I love to draw and paint trees.
I love landscape art.
For an artist, there is great work to be done with background art.
A lot of movies have backgrounds you never forget.
The best art in cartoons is the backgrounds.
The trees and flowers are the background to life.
The people I see in the streets are extras of my life.
If life is a dream then the strangers are the extras of that dream.
Sometimes I will go to one of these extras and ask them,
"Do you know where the Post Office is at?"
They seem to become awake, I'm a stranger to them.
She stumbles and says "It's two blocks down"
I tell her, "Have we met before?", ...that extra becomes a star in my
dream.
Another, How To Pick Up Chicks story.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
>
> I was hoping someone would get that I was making a pun. It wasn't very
> good, but I tried. I'm a little rusty, I guess.
>
> "Opened myself up" was in caps because I was talking about being cracked....
> Oh, never mind.
I'm getting blue balls!
Drama Queen
>
> You guys SO crack me up! (But that's not too hard - I was already a little
> cracked.) (To any idiots, that's not a drug joke!) (Guess now I've really
> OPENED MYSELF UP!!!!)
I'd be careful if I were you, ...both Carl AND Starmie are in the room! <g>
Drama Queen
--
"Intellectuals cause a great deal of trouble trying to do it all with the mind.
It is the heart that counts." -- Louise Bogan
Drama Queen
>
> In article <yByC5.39376$3y3.7...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,> <biting tongue very VERY hard>
>
> Carl
<LOL> Don't bust a gut Carl, ...go ahead and say it.
>
> --
> Read my lips: NO NEW TEXANS!
Texans are OK, ...just NOT in the White House!!!
Drama Queen
Drama Queen
>
> Janice wrote:
> > (Guess now I've really
> > OPENED MYSELF UP!!!!)
>
Bwahahahaa Starmie, ...you are soooo bad! <g>
Drama Queen
>
> Drama Queen wrote:
> >
> > Have you heard of uh, ...Tom Cruise?
> > Samuel L Jackson, Jenny Garth, ...just to name a few.
>
> The fact that actors have worked as extras does not mean that extra work
> is acting. I have worked as an extra, too. So what? It's not acting.
> Extra work is an activity.
>
> Ed Hooks
So why shouldn't actors be covered and protected by their union when they engage in this
"activity"?
Drama Queen
>
> de Valois wrote:
> >
>
> Acting is an art, like music and painting. You can take carpentry and
> brain surgery seriously, too, and that does not make either of them an
> audience, "I understand this about this character." When the audience
> applauds, it is saying, "I see what you mean. I have not looked at it
> that way before." The communication is between actor and audience, back
> how seriously they take themselves, are a background against which
> actors (shamans) play.
>
> Again, I want to urge you and anybody else in alt.acting not to take
> personal offence by my assertion. I am restricting my comments to art
> (although I occasionally get drawn in and pissed off by people who
> persist in calling extras actors).
>
>
> > Ed, really, that's what this is all about: if an extra treats his camera
> > time (even on deep background) as a chance to work at his craft, then he
> > only enhances a scene.
>
> How precisely is it that you think an extra is working on "his craft"?
> communicating with the audience. If he tries it, he will be fired.
> Extras are hired for -- and belong in -- the background. That's why
> they're called background players. They are not actors. Actors are up
> front, the point of focus.
You ought to come up to Toronto to see how many extras *ARE* indeed the point of focus.
That's why out IPA (Independent Production Agreement) defines an actor role as "a performer
engaged to speak or mime 5 or fewer lines of Dialogue, or whose performance constitutes an
individual characterization notwithstanding the absence of dialogue) ACTRA/IPA Article A301.
The standard for this definition was recently lowered from 11 lines of dialogue or less to
be more consistent with SAG's performer definitions. The inclusion of the mimng portion was
to address the exploitation that occured when performer's were hired as BG, but asked to
give specific reactions while miming dialogue, that would later be dubbed in post.
>
> I appreciate that some extras, hopefully ALL of them, take their work
> seriously. If they are playing Roman soldiers, I hope they read up on
> their subject and do a wonderful job. That does not make extra work
> acting. Extras, despite all proclomations to the contrary, are not
> extras, nor will they ever be.
>
> Ed Hooks
Getting a little ahead of yourself are you?
Look Ed, I'll grant you that a bunch of extras cheering at a simulated rock concert, or
sporting event, may not be acting, ...but a strong, virile, twenty year old, hobbled over,
shuffling around like a demented, drunken, and derelict homeless old man *IS*, ...with or
WITHOUT the dialogue. I've seen better character acting in scenes that didn't involve the
vocal instrument on some actors working as BG, than I've seen from the stars of some big
budget features. "Shanghai Surprise" immediately comes to mind. Acting is not just about how
many lines are spoken, or if lines are spoken, ...there is also a physicality to bringing a
character to life, and I'm quite surprised that *YOU* as an acting coach has appeared to
have forgotten that. Ever tried being a woman 8 1/2 months pregnant? I've seen more
convincingly pregnant extras, than their principle counterparts even without the dialogue,
...and I've seen many a director pull a talented "actor" who happened to be working as BG
from the crowd to continue whatever they were doing with prominence and the addition of
adlibbed lines.
GAWD Ed, ...don't be such a snob. We might have to throw you in the dungeon. <g>
Drama Queen
>
> The performing arts are very specific in the
> transaction that happens between actor and audience.
Agreed.
> Acting involves a communication between actor and audience,
Agreed.
> Acting is, in fact, a close relative of
> religion. Peter Brook points out that an actor must maintain three
> tension lines: one between himself and himself (this is the one you
> worked on so much in method); one between himself and the other actors
> in the scene; and one between himself and the audience. If any one of
> those tension lines goes slack for even an instant, the theatrical
> transaction is broken.
Agreed.
>
> Your emotions, no matter how important and thrilling they are to you,
> are not theatre. Acting requires theatrical intent, i.e. an intent to
> communicate with an audience. If you are not bringing that to the
> party, you are involved in something else entirely.
In total agreement.
>
> > On this we agree: extra work has very little art involved, unless the
> > actor is dedicated enough to push himself to really create a character
> > in background. However, when he does, the moment can come across
> > beautifully on camera.
>
> What character is the extra working on? Where's the script? You are
> suggesting that the extra is making up a character on his own and having
> a swell time acting his heart out for himself. Well, that's fine.
> However, if an extra tries to take that performance to the audience, he
> will be fired immediately. The audience is not supposed to be watching
> the extras.
That's where we disagree. It is completely dependant upon the scene.
In some cases, if the background distracts from what is taking place in the foreground, they
should be fired, because they are not doing their job. However, there are some scenes where
the extras (or non-speaking performers) are very prominent in the foreground, and/or are
required to interact with the principles. They had better know how to act, and how to bring
to life a performance without the assistance of dialogue, because up here in Toronto, we are
frequently called upon to do just that.
>
> I'm starting to catch on to your logic, Carl. You don't think an
> audience is necessary for acting, thanks to your method acting training.
> That's where you're dropping the ball, and it is the source of your
> confusion. You're far from alone on this. If the audience is not
> involved, however, you have some sort of emotional masturbation going
> on. It ain't acting.
I too believe the audience must be involved.
>
> > ....he (THE EXTRA) can (and many directors I've worked with,
> > both as a principal and extra, encourage this) create life behind the
> > scene, so long as he doesn't distract from it. It's a very fine line
> > to walk, and one that I would argue does involve some art.
>
> Nope. It's an activity. It would not become art unless the audience
> was involved, and the extras are not supposed to come to the attention
> of the audience.
>
> Ed Hooks
This is probably the source of our disagreement. I will state that in the instances where
extras are merely engaging in an activity, they aren't suppose to come to the attention of
the audience, ...but quite frequently this side of the 49th, extras are required to on
occasion do just that. That's probably why we are disagreeing so much. These are the type of
background roles I am willing to occasionally accept, because these are the most interesting
as far as BG work goes, and by far the most likely assignments on which one can flex their
acting muscles or stand a chance of being upgraded on.
Drama Queen
>
> de Valois wrote:
> > learns that his character is dependent on the other characters in the
> > scene (and even not in the scene) and that his performance is for an
> > audience, that the reason he is indulging his emotional memories is so
> > that an audience can identify with them. BUT THAT IS NOT THE PRIMARY
> > MOTIVATING FORCE! The primary motivating force is an exploration of art.
>
> Anyway, it sounds like you are starting to acknowledge the necessity of
> an audience. Next thing you know, you'll begin to understand why it is
> that extras aren't actors.<g>
Tell you what Ed, ...why don't we agree on this...
Not all extras might be actors, ...but some actors might occasionally be extras.
Drama Queen
>
> Drama Queen wrote:
> > art coming from background performers.
>
> Oh, give me a break. Define art. What you saw was well dressed extras.
>
Give me a break Ed! By what authority do you define what I've seen with my own eyes? Were
you there? Did you see the performance to which I refer? Were you aware the actor in
question was a "Gemini" nominated actor? (Canada's equivalent to an Emmy) What audacity! Or
are you simply hoping to get pummeled?
> Look, I appreciate that the main work in your city is extra work, and
> you want to make the best of it.
That's where you're wrong! The main work in Toronto is *NOT* extra work.
That's a whine I hear constantly from those who have crappy agents who can't get them
auditions. The fact of the matter is ACTRA allows American producers to bring in 3 top
names, ...that's it. The border is closed. Those who want to film here, must cast their
films with Canadian actors and there are tons of us working. At the same time, you also need
to understand that for years, there was not this level of Film & TV activity going on in
this city, so the majority of actors were willing to bite the bullet and work in a BG
capacity. There is no stigma attached up here. As a result we have damn fine actors filling
the ranks of BG when otherwise unemployed, as they do in New York as well. It sure as hell
beat waiting tables.
> That situation exists all over the
> place, and I am not insensitive to it. My Christmas wish for you is more
> actual acting roles.
Thanks for the wish Ed, but at the rate I'm going, I don't know how I would handle it. If
you really want to make me happy, ...mail me a vibrator that doesn't konk out.
> However, it is time to draw a line. Extras are
> NOT actors, and that is just the end of it.
Oooooh Ed, ...are you stomping your feet yet? You got your hand on your hips? I can just see
you now. I bet you're probably getting all red in the face too.
> Your seeing art in the
> background does not make it art.
And your disdain for actors who would engage in extra work is unwarranted.
> SAG calling them actors does not make
> them actors.
Like I said before, not all extras are actors, but some actors do occasionally do extra work
and as a result will raise the bar.
>
> I have a new book coming out next spring, Drama Queen, entitled "Acting
> Strategies for the Cyber Age" (Heinemann), and I put in a special
> chapter about the growing confusion over what is and is not acting. I
> researched SAG's history on the subject, which is damn near
> schizophrenic. I hope you read it.<g>
>
> Ed Hooks
I'm sure you hope everybody reads it. Gotta earn those royalties somehow.
Drama Queen
>
> There is indeed an interactive agreement, but SAG has had its head up
> its rear when it comes to the Internet. The Guild does not have a
> contract for the Internet. Advertisers are refusing to even talk to SAG
> about the Internet, and I suspect theatrical producers will take the
> same tactic in their turn. Clearly, the future of the entertainment
> industry is in cyberspace, and the producers see their opportunity to
> make it a union-free environment. And, if SAG/AFTRA absolutely MUST be
> present, then the best thing from the producers' perspective is to make
> sure the unions keep busy representing extras and not actors.
>
> It's a mess, no kidding.
>
> Ed Hooks
Ed, I think you're letting your personal prejudices cloud your judgement of the situation.
Last I saw, the guild was not on strike over extras, but over commercial actors and the
internet.
Drama Queen
>
> edhooks wrote:
>
> > That is an utterly idiotic thing to say, especially to me.
> >
> > Ed Hooks
>
> I think they call it "blasphemy."
How so, ...he's not God. Where've you been, ...Jack Rooney is. <g>
Drama Queen (Sorry Jack, but I couldn't resist, ...you make it so easy)
Drama Queen
>
> Dear DQ,
>
> Drama Queen wrote:
>
> > Bill said:
> > > Reputable acting coaches don't want "wanna-be" extras in their classes or workshops. There's
> > > nothing to teach.
> >
> > That's my point. Ed can't get to their money, and therefore no reason to have any concern
> > for them. Just dismiss them outright.
>
> I've met Ed, a couple TAS actors have studied with him and I've enjoyed many a public and private
> post with him. So.... I am inclined to give him more credit than you on this matter of extras.
Not having met the man myself, I'll defer to your judgement for the time being.
> Ed speaks for himself (and usually eloquently) and I won't speak for him. But I will say that when
> SAG "merged" with SEG a decade ago, the end effect was tot immediately lower standards for
> membership. Oh, sure, a speaking role in a SAG film still gives you the opportunity to join the
> union and a second speaking role becomes a "must join" situation.
>
> But it's now that case that an actor can "earn" a card with three vouchers for BG work. I object
> to this strongly, for a number of reasons.
I can understand that resentment there. The standards for entry do seem to be ridiculously
low.
> It's as much as back-door entry to SAG as buying an
> AFTRA card, then wait for a year, and then pay SAG membership dues without EVER having done a
> speaking role on camera.
I wouldn't go that far. I believe you do have to have worked as a principle performer in
AFTRAs jurisdiction first.
>
> Ed mentioned that producers were amused when SAG "inducted SEG." Well, talent agents and casting
> directors are equally "amused" when reading the resume of a SAG member whose only credits include
> extra work. How on earth can such a resume give producers, agents or CD's any confidence that such
> an actor can handle a part that requires lines..... even a bit part for a 7-11 counter person who
> only has to say, "Sorry, we're out of Marlboro Menthols."?
It can't. And if someone wants to put extra work on their resume, ...they do so at their own
peril (unless it's a resume for extra work).
>
> I've also had some heated debates with Ed on the issue. Ed has worked in NY, LA and now does his
> stuff in SF. I've worked in NY and LA and now do my stuff in Denver. And in Colorado, doing an
> extra job does not have the same stigma as on the West Coast.
I've worked in LA and Toronto, although I will admit I have never done any extra work in LA.
I have however heard alot of disparaging remarks about extras in LA compared to Toronto's by
directors and stars alike. Not having done extra work in LA, I cannot compare or comment as
to the truth or untruths about these remarks.
>
> On a selective basis, I will encourage the theatre trained actor to take an extra job for film or
> commercial, especially when the talent has never been on a film set. Call it an educational
> experience that might help the actor when auditioning for agency representation, or for an
> on-camera speaking role.
Watching a theatre trained actor auditioning for on-camera work is an entertaining diversion
not to be missed. <meow>
>
> And there is STILL the matter of whether to mention that on one's resume. If you're a newbie and
> have no other credits, then by all means cite that you were an extra in a SAG film, or an AFTRA
> project, or a student film. You've got nothing to lose. But, if you're a theatre actor breaking
> into film/video work, then by all means, mention that you've been on a film set, or have done
> on-camera training.
>
> Remember, DQ, that I've said many a time that I would rather that SAG's membership policies
> approach ACTRA's minimum qualifications. And it ain't gonna happen, especially during the 2000
> strike, and certainly not during the anticipated 2001 strike.
That might be the case, ...but I have to ask you this: Even if the entry requirements into
SAG were stiffened up, ...or if all current SAG members who got their cards by doing 3 extra
jobs were expelled from SAG, ...would those remaining 'actors' who *ARE* willing to engage
in extra work be at least afforded the dignity of protection on sets. Is it the fact that
the majority of those engaging in extra work in LA are not trained professional actors (as
yours & Ed's messages lead me to believe) that has everyone up in arms about SAG protecting
their rights and affording them decent wages?
>
> And I also understand that Toronto's acting market is much different from Denver's or San
> Franciso's
We too have extras that are just pulled off the streets. We have some people who troll
supermarkets looking to sign them up. I can assure you they take a back seat to FULL ACTRA
members when it comes to work and are only called upon for cattle calls from hell! They are
used on the kind of sets that the professional actors will not work as BG on.
>
> > If someone wants to know how to be an extra, there's "Into the Background" by Bill Tarling.
> > It is substantially more than TWO pages.
> > When Bill first told me he was writing a book on how to be a Background Performer, I was
> > shocked. Knowing what a man of character and integrity he was, I chose to reserve judgement
> > until I had an opportunity to read what he'd written. I'm glad I did. he tells it like it
> > is, ...at least in the Toronto market. It was well worth the retail price
>
> I won't buy it, DQ, 'cause I make my living in a different market. But you are persuasive that
> this works for your market. Consider sharing the key tips with your American cousins.
I personally know the book's author Bill Tarling to be a man of character and integrity. His
editor Peter Messaline who also contributed additional material to the book is a sometime
contributor to this newsgroup. I wouldn't want to make him blush so I'll refrain from
speaking of him in glowing terms, but I'm sure most of you have already formed your opinions
about Peter.
A bit about the authors, From the books Foreward:
About William McColman Tarling III.
Bill, was one of those serious children who sit in their rooms and take things apart.
A self-taught electronic wizard, he started by rigging microphone bugs in soft toys, and
will now take your computer apart and put it back together, improved, if you take your eyes
off it for a moment.
Almost as soon as he became a fulltime Extra, he took time out to run an Extras agency.
By working single-handed an insane number of hours a week, he rescued the failing agency and
started building his current reputation among extras on set.
In the last years, he has been a regular background performer on "War of THe Worlds",
"Friday's Curse", "Top Cops", Kung-Fu", and "Forever Knight" His longest Extra job was
twenty-two days (250 paid hours) on Millenium, his most concentrated work period was four
continuous days on three rotating shoots back to back (to back), sleeping only on the bus
from set to set.
And people can't understand why he looks so relaxed playing an upgrade or one of his many
principle roles.
Bill was an ACTRA Toronto Branch Councillor, and then Chair of the Background Performers'
Committee. He continues to take an active part in ACTRA politics.
While he now has Extras agents again, and a principle agent, Bill thinks he is more devoted
to his career than anyone he has met, and has no intention of giving up steering the boat.
This book started as a collection of dog-eared notes Bill had made to remind himself of
clear answers to common questions. After the questions became requests for the notes, this
book became a dream, and then a pile of manuscript, and after editors and computers and too
many late nights, this book.
About Peter Messaline, the Taxpert, trained as a geologist, worked as a theatre carpenter,
became an actor with the Royal Shakepeare Company, performed on three continents, and came
to Canada pursuing Miriam Newhouse (with whom he co-authored "The Actor's Survival Kit" and
"The Canadian Performer's Tax Kit"). He has worked on stage from Vancouver to Montreal, and
from Niagara Falls to Fort McMurray. His media work includes a series lead on MacPherson,
many educational and industrial videos, radio drama across the country, and Extra, Actor,
SOC, principal and Guest Star roles on commercials and episodic television.
These are the men who bring you "In The Background" 238 pages of useful, relevant
information. I don't want to commit a copyright infringement, so I will leave you with two
reviews. The first from Amazon.com where the book retails for $15.75 US Dollars
December 2, 1996
An ideal guide for beginning or veteran extras!
Bill Tarling provides expert advice on being an extra. This book tells you how to find work
as an extra, and how to act like a professional on the set. There is also invaluable advice
on how to search for, secure, and work with an agent. The "Toolkit" section of In the
Background provides invaluable worksheets to help you develop into the kind of extra that
casting directors love to hire, and that agents love to represent. Simon & Pierre is pleased
to be the publisher of In the Background. The response to this book has been tremendous - we
constantly receive calls from people who want to get ahold of the book!
In the Background is a significant contribution to the acting community.
And from Chapters.com where it retails for $17.99 Canadian Dollars:
Published in January 1995
In the Background is a book of advice for the aspiring extra.
It suggests courses and ways of getting cast as well as preparation techniques and ways of
exploring emotion on the movie or television set.
Information is included on wardrobe, taxes, files, resumes, and other details.
Average Reader Review: 5 Stars
1. SOLID ADVICE!
By: The ACTOR'S RESOURCE CENTRE from British Columbia
Date: 4/7/99 2:20:39 AM
Whether you're looking to get into work as a Film Extra, or planning on bigger things;
this book will give you a solid foundation towards building your career.
>
> > Any extra who tries to get work in Toronto with just a polaroid is going to want to get as
> > far away from extra work as possible. It will get you cattle calls from hell!!!
>
> Yet it works in my market, especially when we're talking about gathering 3,000 extras for
> "Asteroids" a tv-mini series that was shot in Colorado, and also "Centennial" and other projects.
Sheesh Bill 3,000 extras is *BEYOND* a cattle call from hell!!!!
> Let's please, DQ, understand that some projects need actors and some need bodies. I'm a consultant
> on a project that needs 200 folks for 2 days.... the contractor is a government bureaucracy, and
> they will hire "real" actors and also non-actors. Real actors bring in their headshots....
> non-actors either bring in a polaroid, or one is taken.
>
> Standard procedure in Colorado. Different, I gather, from YOU market, DQ.
It's the same here too. But if you're going to do BG work in Toronto, you better have a
headshot, and you better know how to act, ...or you will end up on cattle calls from hell,
...or beyond! =8^0) <shudder>
>
> > But reputable acting coaches can teach actors a thing or two that they will be able to take
> > with them when they do work in a featured BG capacity.
>
> I do, DQ. And I'm sure Ed does, as well.
>
> > Up here in Toronto, extra work of any kind should NOT be listed on the resume.
>
> Glad I am that you reminded me that you're north and northeast of me, and in a different country.
<VBG> For a change huh? <giggle>
> I've already stated my exceptions. You can speak for Toronto, Ed can speak for S.F. and I can
> speak for Denver.
>
> And on the extra issue, it would be grand if other markets could express their own prejudices.
Or lack thereof?
Janice
good, but I tried. I'm a little rusty, I guess.
"Opened myself up" was in caps because I was talking about being cracked....
Oh, never mind.
--
Janice
~~~~~~~~~~
"You lure men to their deaths like a spider with flies!"
"Flies are where men are most vulnerable."
Drama Queen
>
> Bill, at the risk of sounding incredibly condescending in cyberspace,
> I'm glad that you were able to do this. Tell me, is this a regular
> feature of your classes? From the way it sounds, it seems as if this was
> a one-off.
>
> So how many hundreds of actors have passed/will pass thru your doors
> without this training? And when will you do the outdoor version,
> complete with people snapping flash photographs? Or in the rain? Or with
> a crew that is at each other's throats? All of which I've encountered
> over the years.
>
> Carl
Or worse, with a bunch of snot nosed Ad's who haven't got the first clue what people can or
cannot do in relation to the lenses being used. How to cover an AD's or even director's ass
on set is something not even the BEST acting coaches can teach you.
Drama Queen