Stigma surrounding S.A Work

I think the idea is that you list your acting credits.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with SA work and I haven't noticed any snobbery towards it. I've done a bit myself in the past but I make sure not to mention it professionally. The fact is it is not acting work. Essentially you're a prop, decorating the background.

• 12 years ago
• 1

Professionally I have been advised to omit background work, extra and SA work from an acting CV; which I have chosen to do.

I am of the opinion that on your CV less is more and that a Casting Director does not want to trawl through a long list of entries of that ilk.

Would you add stills of you dressed up in your various SA costumes to you show reel?

By all means do the work if you enjoy it but be aware that you may be cluttering up your CV; personally I've done my fair share and I don't really enjoy the way some AD's see it as part of their job to belittle the SA's.

I am actually hoping to see some of them again under different circumstances and I can tell you that I am very tempted to make them wish that I were not working on that particular future production in the capacity that I fully intend. As a cast actor. Just imagine their faces and how they are going to have to address how they have dealt with you in the past.

Nice forum topic by the way and lets hope to see some interesting responses.

• 12 years ago
• 2

[Post has been deleted]

• 12 years ago
• 3

I did SA work whilst at drama school to gain experience of working on set and in front of a camera. When I told other SA's this they ALL said the same thing: Stop doing this if you want to be considered a 'serious' actor. Now, I did stop but only because I wanted to do more than the occasional line or two and walk across the shot as padding. I recently turned down a couple of days on a TV programme when it turned out that the 'featured' role I had been offered was only actually background. When I told the 1st AD this is he said 'well, at least you'll get to hang out with the stars'. Is this the way SA's should be treated, like it's a privilege to be next to stars? It is unfortunate that this stigma is attached to SA work, even more so when I'm led to believe that in the USA it's completely accepted to do both featured AND background. I agree it's better to work in the industry than flip a burger so I guess it's down to personal choice.

• 12 years ago
• 4

Hi Jenson

I must admit I was guilty of a bit of snobbery about SA in the past but I changed my opinion recently.

They were looking for SAs local to me for a big period drama and I thought to myself... why would I turn down the opportunity to be in something with huge production values, great costumes, cast and scenery? I will still be acting, I will still be getting paid and the reason I love acting is partly being involved in the story telling, however small a part I play.

Also I am sick of people asking me 'so what have you been in?'. I have had lead roles in some great little films but none that anyone has heard of! But if I say I've been in Pirates of the Carribean or Sherlock Holmes people will think that is really cool even if I didn't even say a line. And let's face it, Casting Directors also want to know what you have been in and are looking for productions and directors they have heard of.

I know I shouldn't care what others think but hey, I do. I have not had a single audition all year which has seriously knocked my confidence so partaking in a little SA work at least will make me feel I am still acting and remind me why I put myself through all this!

Also if I am writing to Casting Directors and sending my showreel I think there is nothing to be ashamed of mentioning in your cover letter that you were involved in their production and would like to work with them in the future. Who knows, if you did a good job they may even remember you.

Now as for putting it on your resume. If you were given a character to play or a name or a line then I think you should put it on there. If you were literally random person in crowd and didn't make it into the final edit then maybe not or at least be prepared to admit that if someone questions it.

The issue of being featured is a strange one. You could have been given a great named part, great scene with lots of dialogue and then you still might not have made it into the film. Would you leave that role off your resume even though you were cast as and performed that role?

Conversely, some supporting artists can be featured quite heavily in a scene and just because they don't say a line does not neccessarily mean that you can't use the footage in a showreel or stick it in the montage (which we all know should not go at the begining of the reel lol). You might even have you role 'upgraded' and be given a line or two.

Anyway I think you are better off being on that film set in some capacity than sitting at home wishing you were doing some acting.

Jen

• 12 years ago
• 5

"I can categorically state that that's a load of rubbish" Really? One thing I can say categorically state is it will and does affect your casting potential at the high level auditions!

I have also done SA work and am proud of my humble beginnings but if I was asked by any of the gatekeepers of our industry what I have been up to at a audition for the next Bond or Bourne, I sure as hell wouldn't mention some big name production that I was an SA in 'cos they probably cast it and I'd look like a twatoid!

I don't like it any more than anyone else, but it's a fact of life in the business of acting professionally in the UK and it isn't changing anytime soon!

• 12 years ago
• 6

Hi Jenson,

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Err", please feel free to elaborate.

For the moment though I'll take it that you're confused and didn't understand my post.

SA work is potentially useful and flexible as a means to pay the bills. So is flipping burgers, waiting tables and whatever else we might do as actors in order to support the career... but as with 'Burger Flipper' it is generally accepted that one should choose to omit 'Guy in library' from your acting CV.

It adds nothing and does not signify or demonstrate your ability as an actor. That's the whole point of a CV right? Casting directors don't like it - that should be enough of an argument to leave it out. Don't make it easy for them to overlook you!

It's not about snobbery among actors, it's about marketing yourself for castings. We're all at the same game here, we're all fighting for the chance to be seen. A CV full of SA work will shadow over the credits that have could get you noticed.

There's no point in listing information which will be of no use or relevance to the casting process. We all know how famously short casting director attention spans tend to be.

On top of the fact that they don't like it there is also the problem with regard to serial TV work. You could damage your chance at securing an audition if (in the off chance a role came up) it was noticed that you had previously been involved in the production as an extra.

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't do background work - Do it! Do what you want. Just don't list it alongside your professional credits.

• 12 years ago
• 7

Hear hear!

It's money in thge bank, nothing more nothingless! Basic rule of thumb, if you auditioned for it and/or were selected for the role because you had a specal skill that the role needed then its a professional credit! If you were selected from a book of faces and were "walking wallpaper" in the production then it's not! Simples!

• 12 years ago
• 8

Without a background there is no foreground, as pieces of a jigsaw it makes a picture. This is an interesting subject and one that almost every actor sweeps aside, yet, almost every 'actor' I talk to has at somepoint done this work.

• 12 years ago
• 9

I think all your points have validity, Jensen, though you can also play devil's advocate with all of them.

There is certainly what I consider to be a ridiculous stigma attached to actors *doing* SA work that seems to get perpetuated in the modern industry, and I can only assume that it exists because of the divisive and competitive nature of the modern market. The implication that an actor shouldn't *do* such work should it prove lucrative and useful to them because of *principle* is ludicrous (it's not so long ago that it was unthinkable for an actor to 'lower' themselves to filming a commercial as well, and we all know how universal this has now become). I think we can all recognise that there are glorified 'professional SA's' out there who attempt to convince others they have considerable acting experience when they don't (and this should not be encouraged), but a professional actor, who *also* takes on SA work, is a different matter.

I feel that whether an actor wishes to do SA work or not should be a personal choice, if it is being done alongside other, more extensive work in the industry. It doesn't suit everyone: I personally have never engaged extensively with it because I don't like being on a set where other things are happening, whilst I am being prevented from being a 'part of the action' and I don't drive, so it is rarely convenient or cost effective for me to travel to locations without having personal agreements in place with the production company (which tend to only be offered to credited members of a cast), but, you know, different strokes for different folks.

I would also agree that there is sometimes a very 'grey area' about what should count as a credit and what shouldn't: a certain hypocrisy seems to exist whereby three lines on a BBC serial that was auditioned for can be termed a 'featured credit', whilst one line in a big budget blockbuster that was given to you 'on the fly' may only count as SA work, even though the prestige of the work is roughly comparable, and the amount of engagement required of you likely comparable also. I would tend to argue that here relatively arbitrary rules come into play: any part auditioned for is automatically a more formal 'casting' than any part that was given on the spur of the moment - but even this does not serve as a hard and fast rule as to what should be credited or otherwise. I would hazard, then, that the final say has to rest with whether or not the production company *actually* credited the role on screen - and anything formally credited *is* an acceptable credit, regardless of the origination of the part. One perennial issue tends to be that actors will say, in blanket dismissal, that *no* SA work should be credited on a CV; if it was SA work that led to a formal credit, then, of course, you should feel it's an acceptable credit.

Non credited SA work is more problematic, but only, I suspect, because there is a fear (justified or otherwise) that casting directors who perceive the existence of a raft of non-credited parts on a CV may end up questioning an actor's competence should they be listed to the exclusion of more formal credits. Ultimately, I think all SA's, however proud, have to concede this: if a part is not credited, it is because it is of incidental interest to the storytelling of the film or programme, and this tends to equate to the fact that, however much prestige the project itself may hold in the marketplace, your contribution to it can be held to be minimal at best. If it was anything more than that, you would have been given a credit. There can, in fact, be a counter snobbery that actually exists in the industry arguing that an actor who worked as an SA on a James Cameron set for 6 months and whose only contribution to the final cut is that the back of their head appears at the side of frame for one shot has, because of the relative prestige of the production, actually achieved more than an actor who has given a lead performance and sweated solidly for five weeks for a straight to video DVD - I know who I consider to have put in the greater acting performance (and therefore to be more worthy of my respect in performance terms).

Regardless of this, though, I think the option of placing non credited SA work on your CV is always open to you: it is advised against simply because of a perception that it doesn't serve your acting interests well. But, it may be possible that a casting director *will* be more impressed that you worked with James Cameron as an SA than that you have fifteen low budget credits they've never heard of to your account, I suppose. With that said, I think there is nothing worse in this industry than pretending you were credited if you weren't - and I suspect casting directors think likewise. If you are going to promote non credited work, then it should be clearly marked as such: on a separate CV, on a separate section of your standard CV, or simply acknowledged as 'non credited' role on your generic list of credits, if you insist. Practising what you preach should apply: argue for the fact that there is an unnecessary illegitimacy accorded SA credits all you like, but respect your pride in said credits by making sure that no casting director is left in any doubt as to what you have actually been contributing to a set, and let them come to their own decisions about casting you further on that basis.

Is this snobbery? It seems to me it's drawing a necessary distinction. The key difference between SA work and a 'credited' role is that the latter is significant to storytelling, and requires a showcasing of actual acting practice, however minimally, whereas the former is standing around in a costume in the background. This is simply the unvarnished truth, and most SA's recognise it as such by professing not to be actors (the vast majority hold other primary jobs these days, and take on SA work as a 'hobbyist' activity). Equity does so, too, by having a representative committee specifically delegated to negotiating on behalf of SA's and Walk-ons that is distinct from other bodies. I would never say that a casting director would categorically remain unimpressed that you had been undertaking work on major sets to keep yourself occupied as a jobbing actor should you inform them of that, but I would say that they would be singularly unimpressed by using your SA credits as an indicator of any discernible acting talent. The simple truth remains: there are a great many 'actors' now operating in the industry who have no right to claim proficiency in acting, still less reliability and competence, but, even if you are a magnificent actor ordinarily, non credited SA castings will rarely have called forth your most formidable acting contributions, and you cannot blame casting directors (or even fellow actors) for taking that attitude towards them.

As a final point, I will always raise a challenge to anyone who cites the magnificent careers of leading screen lights who were once humble SA's. I don't deny it was once the case that many were, and, indeed, that the stigma attached to SA work in the modern industry seems to be a very recent phenomenon. But context is everything. In the days when actors like Michael Caine or Anthony Hopkins took on 'supporting' work they did so within an environment within which Equity was a 'closed shop' union, and no-one ever got onto a film set unless they were a formal professional affiliated to the union. This meant that SA work was invariably given to jobbing actors, variety artistes and other such performers. Indeed, I believe it was originally termed 'extras' work (a term which now seems to have gone into eclipse, possibly because it became considered derogatory, or perhaps because it is no longer accurate, I'm not sure) because it was seen as a field within which penurious performers could gain 'extra' money by contributing to bigger projects. No stigma was attached in those days, because, in effect, there was never an 'extra' employed who wasn't a working performer on his/her way up, and the work was a form of 'paying one's dues', as I think it still is in the US, where the union hold over the industry remains much stronger than in the UK. It is also true to say, that once upon a time, 'extras' work was generally closer to what we might term 'featured work' than it is often is today (where it literally conduces to the level of 'background work').

As soon as the field of work was opened up to all and sundry, because the 'closed shop' no longer operated on sets, SA work grew to be a 'hobbyist' activity which, it has to be said, is more or less what it is now. I imagine there are some people who consider their entire professional life to revolve around working in SA work, but the vast majority of SA's I have ever spoken to do it an as adjunct to their main career, whatever that may be (anything from being a travel agent to a porn director, in my experience!). Even you, if you are an actor who has a 'sideline' in SA work, are performing as a 'sideline' to your main area of work. This has led to a commensurate attitude on the parts of casting directors, agents and so on that it doesn't take any specialist skill to be an SA (and, let's face it, in most situations, it doesn't) and, more importantly to you as an actor, that being an SA is no indication (which is different to how things would have been forty years ago) that you *have* any specialist skill. If this is to be considered 'snobbery', then perhaps it is, and perhaps it is regrettable in relation to where the industry stood vis-à-vis this kind of work in the past: but it is a 'snobbery' that needs to be contextualised and it needs to be understood that it stems primarily from those who are making casting decisions, not the actors (who simply accept what they hear casting directors tell them). And this is the primary reason why the advice is habitually given to keep your credits separate, as it's now felt one area of work is highly distinct from the other.

• 12 years ago
• 10

My stint as an SA lasted about four hours, one wet windy morning in a field in County Meath. Having turned up at the right place at the right time, and then spent the next aforementioned four hours being ignored by everyone who was anything to do with the project. So, on getting the nod from my equally pissed off fellow SA, I sped off in a cloud of smoke and mud, and have never looked back. Im sure lots of people have very nice experiences of SA work, it no doubt varies from shoot to shoot, but it definitely ain't acting.

• 12 years ago
• 11

Just round the corner from me there's a small company that makes props and sets for theatre and film. It smells like a chemical plant, most of the time the doors are open and everybody inside wears a mask. There is also a dog that is often to be found outside. He doesn't wear a mask and has obviously gone insane. These people work in the industry, they are imperative and part and parcel. However, they are not actors.
Everyone involved in a production has a part to play. It's their choice what that job is.
I can't do Extra work because I'd be frustrated. I can't work in a bar because I'd drink it. I can't flip burgers because because I'd eat them. I'm an Actor.

• 12 years ago
• 12

Succinctly put, Glenn (unlike myself!). As I stressed before, I think the issue of whether or not a piece of SA work that led to a valid credit should be recognised or not is a no-brainer: a credit is a credit. I also think that the cult of promoting a non- credited part to make it appear as if it was a credit is a cheat, and anyone who is proud enough of their work as an SA to stand up for that should be proud enough to draw a distinction between it and their acting work, because the two areas of work are now distinct. Either that, or leave it off the CV altogether, which is about where we came in. For the rest, take it up with the casting directors.

• 12 years ago
• 13

I agree that SA roles should NEVER make their way onto your CV, IMDB, etc. As others have said, nothing to do with snobbery or hierarchy, just they have no place on an acting CV and serve only to mislead, whether that was the intention or not.

Just imagine you're in a high powered casting director/agent/director's office, interviewing and at some point discussing these "credits". While you may be able to talk widely about what the director was like, what the production was like, what do you reckon they're going to think when they check a tape of that film/TV episode (as they always do when casting an important role) and you're not there?

Quick way to get blacklisted for a misleading CV.

• 12 years ago
• 14

I think the problem here is in the definition of a SA. Featured SAs can be quite nice little roles and could even be more screen time than your average commercial. But then there are also the SA roles that are literally villager #330.

If the issue people have is that SA's are not 'trained' actors. Well neither are a lot of people who call themselves actors! Training does not neccessarily equal talent or believability. Whether we like it or not there are plenty of sites that trade on people wanting to be in films and there is no quality control in this industry anymore.

If the other issue is that they are cast based on their photo as opposed to an audition well so are actors. Sometimes your face jut fits and we all know many CDs have made up their mind if they like you before you even open your mouth to audition.

I don't think anyone is saying you should all out lie about the scope of your role or make credits up but come on Mark, actors bend the truth a bit on their resumes all the time! Do you really think agents and casting directors actually have the time and energy to check your credits and call you out on it? The resume is what gets you through the door. I would imagine you are more likely to be blacklisted for being a **** actor at an audition.

It's the same arguement we get with paid and unpaid work. I did an unpaid but lead theatre role in a Terry Pratchett play and Terry came to see it, loved it and it got great reviews. So I put it on my resume. Many people will say that's wrong but if I just said 'oh it was fringe or profit share' or if I had been paid £20 that would suddenly make it okay. The whole thing is so stupid and pedantic really.

• 12 years ago
• 15

Jenna, I don't think anyone would tell you not to put the Pratchett play on your CV. It was a theatre lead, it should go on, no matter of payment. Anyone who saw it can attest to your work.

In regard to people checking your credits, is it really worth the risk??? I don't mean they'd "check" your credits to make sure you were in it, that has a negative association, more that they will often do pull tapes of films/TV to persuade networks, producers etc that you're the one for the job. If it's an important role, yes they most certainly have the time & inclination to do it. Also, if it's a big film/show, there's a good chance they've seen it! They might also call the director to find out what you were like to work with.

Sure, most actors have exaggerated something on the CV at some point, but this isn't exaggerating, it's just lying. This is just my opinion, but if I was a CD/director etc and asked an actor about a credit which they made me think was an acting role, and then discovered (even weeks/months later) that it was an SA role, I'd feel very mislead and not invite them back.

• 12 years ago
• 16

I think I'm sort of with the Forbes camp on this one. I've done a lot of SA and WO work, I had a very happy time on a couple of seasons of Lark Rise to Candleford as a Lark Rise villager, but I wouldn't put it on my CV. My rule of thumb is that it only goes on the CV if I auditioned for the part; for me that makes it valid for an acting CV.

I would agree that there is no stigma to doing this work and I think there's a lot of opportunity to learn about the business by watching and listening.

And it helps to pay the rent...

• 12 years ago
• 17

As a side note! I was fortunate enough to audition for John Landis for a pretty decent role in Burke & Hare! The Casting Director had prepped by printing out my complete CV, not my abridged Spotlight one. John Landis actually went through it randomly selecting credits and asking about my role and how the role fitted into the productions narrative! 40mins later I emerged, slightly awestruck but relieved I hadn't got any fluff in my CV! The role went to David Hayman!

• 12 years ago
• 18

Forbes, a perfect example of what can happen. Amen.

P.S John Landis is the nicest dude in Hollywood!

• 12 years ago
• 19

Following on the Burke and Hare / John Landis theme; I was working on Burke and Hare as an SA.

Mark one the AD's possibly the Third comes into the crowd tent and announces "Right, who's up for a bit of acting?", I of course inform him that I am, along with a number of others.

I wasn't picked for that particular role and it was non speaking in anycase and the SA chosen was lucky enough to have Isla Fisher sit on his knee in that scene.

Another scene was being shot where a ticket tout is selling tickets to the medical students to attend dissection lectures.

It wasn't going well and John Landis was actually being a bit vocal of his displeasure of how the SA who had been picked to do the action of the ticket tout would not follow his direction and was obviously suffering from performers anxiety.

The scene had already been announced by the First AD as being dropped and that we were moving on; and Mark was frantically trying to find a way to save face of whoever had suggested the original ticket tout SA. I was first of all picked out of a line up by costume as having right look along with two other SA's. We were then quickly auditioned by Mark and he made a note that I could do a decent Scottish accent and remebered that I had told him earlier that I was up for a bit of acting. We were then shown to Deborah Landis who was in charge of costume, who turned to John Landis and said I like Stuart; Mark then added that I was Scottish (The truth is I was schooled in Scotland and have Scottish family on my mothers side).

John Landis said OK we use Stuart, we will move on to the next scene and come back to Stuart's scene next, Mark advised me to take some time out to prepare what I was going to do.

Before the scene was shot the First announced to everyone on set "and now back to my favourite scene of the day"; so no pressure on me then ;-)

We shot the scene with two cameras, it was done in one take and before rolling John came up to me and asked me if I knew what he wanted me to do, so I said show me, he showed me how he wanted the tickets held in a certain way so it looked the way he wanted it to on camera and also the exact way he wanted me to take the money from the students (apparently the first ticket tout had been putting his hand out for the students to put the money into his palm). John shook my hand and told me to say whatever I wanted, and I was then mic'd up.

The scene is in the first minute of the movie and can be seen at time code 00:55 to 01:05 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5szSE3Pgkng&list=FLOmGWtNA76-GJtvc76_4JFQ&index=5&feature=plpp_video

I didn't get a credit in the end titles and as such I have not listed it in my CV except to mention it along with my other non credited acting roles in the "About me" section.

I know that in Hollywood there is a general rule that anything under five lines does not warrant a credit; maybe that has crossed over the pond to the British film industry?

I ad libbed the dialogue and after John had cut the scene I was very pleased to here him bellow "That was good! I liked that!"

I concur Joghn Landis is the John Landis is the nicest dude in Hollywood!

• 12 years ago
• 20