Stigma surrounding S.A Work

Well in answer to the original post, it sounds like the vast majority of people on here are in agreement that there shouldn't be any stigma attached to SA work but it doesn't have a place on a CV.

Personally I'd agree, although I HATE doing SA work, but that's just a personal preference. I went into it with the same intentions as you did (wanting to be around the action, better that telesales etc) but found myself being completely frustrated. I guess if you want to be racing driver, the novelty of being the guy that gets to wash the cars wears off after a while. I know that might seem a harsh comparison but to me SA work is as relivant to acting as washing the car is to racing, so I found I wasn't gaining anything from it other than money.

I do take a look at some SA roles advertised from time to time and would be open to the idea of doing some if it was very well paid but that would be my only reason to.

For example, there was a mix up a couple of years ago where a company had put me forward for a featured role in a film and the production company must have said no to me for that but wanted me as an SA. So someone else from the company called me back with call times but didn't tell me the change in roles so I turned up on set expecting to be playing this role when, in fact, I was background. Didn't find out until I saw my name on the callsheet next to pub goer #3 or something! It was paying £55 so I just left. Under those circumstances I probably would have left if it was paying £255 as I was furious but I would happily have worked for free for the role I thought I was there for.

I don't look down on anyone who wants to do it and, in fact, I've encouraged people to if they have no experience of being on set etc but it certainly is not acting and the fact you get dressed up and wear make up doesn't change that fact (that's in reference to an earlier post)so it should stay away from your CV.

More importantly than whether we argue if these credits are deserving of being on our CV's is the fact highlighted by many users in this thread, that CASTING DIRECTORS don't want to see them. That should be all that matters regarding the CV question and in this instance I'd agree with the CD's.

• 12 years ago
• 41

It's a shame there aren't any Casting Directors on the forums here. Would love to hear their 2 cents on some of the issues raised.

I have also always wondered how CDs priortize submissions from Castweb vs. Spotlight. e.g. which they would tend to look at first. Sometimes the same job appears via both portals so I never know if I have a better chance submiting myself via CW or let my agent do it via Spotlight.

(Hope CCP don't mind me mentioning CW and Spotlight on here but I think most people rely on additional Casting Services in addition to CCP to find work).

• 12 years ago
• 42

Spotlight submissions will be looked at before any other channel, every single time.

• 12 years ago
• 43

I will chick in my two pennies worth if I may;

As a relatively untrained actor just really starting out in the industry I see SA work only as a good thing in the way it gives you the experience in front of a camera/on stage within a professional production, however small the part. I don't think it necessarily has to be mentioned in your main credits but if you have the experience and ease on set that may have partly been gained through working as an SA. I may, however, only feel like this because I've been in far fewer productions than most actors and am still finding my feet so looking for as much experience, learning opportunity and networking opportunity as possible. (maybe if not networking for contacts as such but spending a lot of time around other actors and gaining their imparted knowledge - like I said, I've only really started getting out there so have a hell of a lot to learn)

I have one 'SA' credit on my CV and that is for a music video. In this case everyone was actually cast as "actors" but we turned up and turned out to be 'moving wallpaper', for which everyone was a bit miffed. Aside from that I still wouldn't list any other extra work as a main credit, but only mention carefully chosen roles when specifically asked by a CD etc

I completely understand the angle that it's better to be on set as much as possible than to be flipping burgers so I think that was a point well made. (mind you I have gained the numbers and emails of two BBC producers and a Hollywood CD through simply chatting to my customers at Starbucks!)

• 12 years ago
• 44

sorry, that should read *chuck, not chick

I guess to sum up what I said is SA work helps, it doesn't make an actor

• 12 years ago
• 45

I don't mean to repeat but I want to direct people back to Lee's post, in case people missed this bit of it or as it was a bit long :-) they didn't read it thoroughly. I think it's important to note the change in the industry.

The perception and treatment of extras in the business has changed because, no longer being a closed shop, anybody can be an extra. It used to be respected more because it used to be only actors who took the work; now anybody who fancies getting close to "the glamorous world of showbiz" can sit waiting for hours, go into makeup, glimpse someone vaguely known from a distance and go home and tell their mates that they met so and so and worked on a big film. Many people are talented actors doing it to survive and I'm not knocking it.

My reasons for not are simple: it makes me feel rubbish to be so close yet so far away from telling a story. Completely personal reason as it upsets me too much to not be involved but I don't consider it a bad choice for those who can cope with the difficulties it involves.
There was however more respect attached to it when it was a jobbing actors way to earn some money on the side.
Well done to those who've gotten lines, roles, credits, screen time out of it and I'm not being dismissive of anything you can do to further your careers, but I've heard too many dismissive comments within the industry to know that it it not considered acting or respected as an actor's job. Many talented actors do this work, but from what I've learned in the industry it might be good financially and for experience but no need to advertise it. That's not actor snobbery but if someone has 20 years of acting experience or is a local cab driver who fancies being close to fame you will be treated the same way by the ADs, the director, everyone involved.
Ramble aside, it's a judgment call how you present it, as you would with your showreel. Is this something I'm proud of and believe in or is it something you want to blag to sound better...

• 12 years ago
• 46

bump

• 11 years ago
• 47

I started out in this business doing extra work. I did it for research/training purposes as well as some extra cash. I made sure of keeping my head down and watched and learned a lot simply by observing the leads go through the process of "direction…rehearse and shoot"

I gained heaps of tips by chatting politely to camera opps…..lighting….and 1st ad's. The info I picked up was invaluable. I steered clear of the majority I considered whining twats who give SA's a bad name. Sadly I found there to be a lot of these on TV sets.

I witnessed plenty of unprofessional behaviour from quite a few SA's ….I also quickly learned that SA's do actually get treated like Dog Poo….I found a lot who asked for it though. Sadly I also found a lot of AD's who just came in to show off in front of SA's having tarred them all with the same brush before they'd had a chance to do anything!

I had to deal with some pretty dreadful Extra agents who told me lies about payments. I had 1st Ad's refusing to make a genuine upgrade having spoken a line ….or having done a bit extra.

It gets worse….I came up against caterers who told me to piss off and get a sandwich from the other truck…as this truck was for the actors….and they got the hot meals! (Stuff that....I made sure I got an appology and I got a hot meal!!)

I knew my time as an SA was at an end! However, the final straw for me…was when I turned up on set to be an assistant to a solicitor or something like that. I was shown what was going to happen by the 3rd AD….and she sort of led to believe that I would have lines…. I was thrilled, and said could I have the script or the lines….she looked at me…laughed, and said: Oh no….the lines would be said by a real actor!!! That was the last days SA work I did.

On the plus side I had an situations such as an afternoon with Elliot Gould giving me fantastic technical camera acting guidance, swapped gags and stories with John Thaw all day long, Chatted at length to people like Francesca Annis on how to go about about the business……and countless other learning curve opportunities came my way.....in amongst the many very boring days!!

A year or two later I was cast in a leading role on a TV add….and guess what…sure enough I met that same 3rd Ad….I rushed up to her, and said….gosh you still a 3rd AD…..I'm a real actor now!! I know that was a bit childish of me…..but by God it put her in her place.

On the business side: ….I also know for a fact Casting dir's do get fed up with actors listing SA work on CV's or over inflating the credit, as it can drop them in it with the director they are casting for. Likewise agents would get told off in no uncertain terms if they submit SA credit packed CV's.
FACT: the roles on a CV do get checked if put in front of a casting assistant or agent.
FACT: it is widely considered best not to put SA work on a CV at all. A CV should only list featured and or auditioned roles.

This has nothing to do with snobbery whatsoever….. it is reality. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can listen to a simple direction or when to look up or look as though you are talking….or when to throw someone a small look a reaction etc etc. Anyone can dress up and hold themselves as a background character……if you think they can't, you are deluding yourself. The snobbery I find….is SA's who consider themselves a cut above the many amateurs/desperado's who are willing to work as SA's for a packet of crisps. Mind you, there are more and more actors doing the same thing, and they weaken the industry for all of us!

What we are surely saying is there are extras who do it for the money, and are reliable decent folk….and who know the basics of how the filming process works. However, that is a mile away from an actor being auditioned 2-3 times for a featured role…and a) presumably have convinced the director they are the best on for that role and have the talent to carry it off and b) withstand the pressure of doing that opposite a leading star, in front of a large expectant crew, a large cast and for a director who is under insane financial and time scale pressure, trusting that actor to get right pretty much from the off.

Full credit to those of you who were thrown a line or two on the day….and delivered accordingly….also not easy.

It took me 3-4 jobs to pick up what was needed to be a reliable and proficient SA. After about a year or so, I could not bear to do it anymore, and in any case I did a casting evening showcase and picked up a reasonable agent who warned against doing the work and or listing SA credits on a CV.

It takes a lot of honest graft, patience and hardship to pick up the experience to start gaining proper credits listed on ones CV. I waited and treated the SA work as a kind of apprenticeship if you will. I'm certainly not ashamed of it….but I do feel its delusion to say SA's can all act….granted there are a few who are good actors earning a few extra quid as an SA.

So should actors who want to be taken seriously do the work? I would never do it again….but if I did…..I'd go disguised and under a different name…and I am not joking!

Is that wrong….most probably, but its the system! I also gather Sa's are taken more seriously in the States….maybe in general they are mostly actors earning some extra cash, like it used to be over here. It is certainly not like that in the UK.

I wish I could, say what I have to say in more bite sized posts!!

I'm not knocking anyone here either, we must all do what we think is right, I simply base my mussings on what I have personally experienced over many years!

Best to everyone....ACTION!!

• 11 years ago
• 48

If you've an IMDB credit it goes on the cv otherwise not.
I used to do supporting artist work (the snobbishness extends to NOT calling it extra work)and usually enjoyed myself as I treated it as a learning experience and was very selective about the gigs I'd do; no mass cattle-market shoots, not outdoors in winter. I was lucky to get the odd line and watch some magnificent actors close up. I worked under my married name and the money was most useful. I had returned to the business after 15 years off for good behaviour (or child-rearing if you prefer!)and was insecure about the ettiquette involved in film or tv work.

My mantra was, "Where am I more likely to find out what's going on? Sitting in my front room waiting for the phone to ring or on a film set?"

Via s.a. work I met someone who introduced me to someone who gave me an audition which lead to my first fringe theatre job.
Now I have an agent, occasionally get paid acting work, do a lot of expenses only narrations and rehearsed readings (which I love) and do a lot of waiting for the phone to ring.
Some days I must admit I do miss the s.a. work (but not the early mornings.)
Some of it was really boring, hanging around for hours in dingy waiting areas.

But then again playing a featured role in a film can also be really boring as the setting up of a scene can take forever. The difference is that as a "named artiste" you get a chair.

When I was acting in the last century, the snobbishness was towards soap operas and commercials; real actors did Theeatah! Nowadays I wonder how many of our so-called successful actor/tresses do have a Shakespeare speech, sonnet, modern and accent piece on the tip of their tongues or can project their voice to the gods or know how to sit upon a sofa in a hooped gown.

• 11 years ago
• 49

"If you've an IMDB credit it goes on the cv otherwise not."

I've seen plenty of IMDb credits that I know for a fact are SA roles.

• 11 years ago
• 50

And I am not waiting for imDb to finally concede that my credit is in fact valid (while - as mentioned in the previous post - people who were SAs on the same film DO have the imDb entry. Yes it IS a sore point for me)

• 11 years ago
• 51

As long as its not passed off as an acting
credit (and I have seen that happen)then there's no reason for snobbishness. Its work after all and more admirable than signing on.

• 11 years ago
• 52

@chris upton

"As long as its not passed off as an acting credit...."

Hello Chris,

Can I just bring your attention to something:

Go to the "Networking" tap and navigate to "On General Release".

If I could just highlight one film currently on release "Now is Good", you will find three CCP memebers listing their role as "Extra", one lists as "Passer by"

Then just scrolling through the other films we get roles listed as "Wedding Guest, Waiter, Diner, Waitress, Prisoner, Shopper, crowd, Man at Bar, Policeman, BUSINESSMAN, Restaurant diner, Girl at Bar etc etc etc.

Best.

Stuart

• 11 years ago
• 53

I generally stay away from S.A work, just for my own moral.
As an extra I feel you get treated quite badly and as if you can't act. I hate the separation between the 'real actors' on set and the 'extras'. Which is why when Im a featured role i always make an effort to talk to the extras, even if other actors don't. They make the film just as much as the others.
Not having it as a credit and it being looked down upon may all be true, but you have to be happy with what your doing and being on a film set and people treating me like a prop and not a competent actor really upset me.
x

• 11 years ago
• 54

@Stuart
****quote start *****
Then just scrolling through the other films we get roles listed as "Wedding Guest, Waiter, Diner, Waitress, Prisoner, Shopper, crowd, Man at Bar, Policeman, BUSINESSMAN, Restaurant diner, Girl at Bar etc etc etc.
****quote end ****

And you know that all of them are not legitimate credits because...?
One of mine is a character without a name and yet I got auditioned for the part by one of the UK's leading casting agencies (went up against people who've been in the business for decades) and worked directly with the director. (Sorry I'm not a fan of name dropping it's on my CV if you really need to know the names). So it seriously pisses me off when someone comes along and tells another actor to "take the SA work off the CV" not knowing whether or not it actually IS an SA role.
Sorry for being a bit off topic and using your post as an example, Stuart.

• 11 years ago
• 55

Christopher's point is a fair one, because many supporting roles in films that *are* fully auditioned for aren't necessarily named as such, and there are certainly situations in the industry where the line of division between what an SA would be required to do and what an actor is required to do are thin. This is not to denigrate what actors are doing: it's simply to note that, in very large scale projects, extremely competent and well trained actors can be reduced to the status of bit players who aren't required to do much more than utter three words of dialogue, or look concerned at another character's actions, or whatever. Yet, there will have been an extremely lengthy, sometimes tightly contested, process of auditioning undertaken to generate their suitability for that role on screen.

And, of course, our industry is always about hierarchy (even when it shouldn't be): an actor who is considered to be a leading fringe player, and who has just starred as the lead in a small film that has won prestigious awards at independent film festivals may still be left playing nothing more prestigious than the two liner 'Third Gunman' in a Spielberg production. It works all along the line, of course: even some of our greatest UK stars are only really allowed to appear in Hollywood films as supporting characters and sidekicks, because their pulling power is not considered sufficient to lure in US audiences, regardless of the fact that they are treated as national institutions in the UK.

I still maintain that the essential difference in *practice* between a professional actor and a (professional) SA is that actors hone their practice of very specific skills with the aim of conveying a believable or engaging character to an audience (to whatever degree they are allowed to do this: on some films, it is known a director will rein in the performance of a 'lesser' actor who is felt to be drawing focus from what the main star is doing); equally, virtually all professional actors (even when not able to make a consistent living from acting alone) consider their profession to be that of actor.

Most SA's are not trained in anything in particular (they may have special skills bases, sometimes, but they are not the sort of people who have devoted their time to a pursuance of acting technique) and most are not full time in any meaningful sense of the word: they do SA work as an adjunct, as and when, to their main line of work. In my extensive previous posts, I went into a lot of detail as to how I feel the profession of SA work has shifted dramtically from the days when Equity was a 'closed shop' and the only 'extras' likely to get onto a set were jobbing professionals looking to 'pay their dues'. But the situation today remains that anyone who fancies it can sign up to an extras agency, and, to a certain extent, SA's get treated as 'hobbyists', patronised on the assumption that they haven't got a clue as to how the practices of screen filming work, accordingly. Although there are many exceptions, it's also true to say that a great many SA's *don't* possess any discernable sense of good screen practice, and so the First AD's aren't always wrong to condescend (though it gets galling to those who *are* well aware, and especially actors who may have only just stepped off sets where they were being asked to carry practically a whole film!).

I still feel that the essential definition of what should and should not be considered a valid credit is simple: if a role is credited as such by the production team in the end credits of a finished project (or even in cast listings on other documentation), then it is a credit, and if it isn't, then it isn't. This is not as difficult to check as some might have you believe; it is all the easier with prominent pieces of work cast by well known CD's, and I honestly believe that, when it matters to them (which may not be always, it's true), CD's really do search these things out with a fine tooth comb, and can spot an inflated credit a mile away.

I sympathise with you, Christopher, over IMDb - there is definitely something up with the issue that you can't get your credit added (even if IMDb is riddled with glorified SA credits). Of course, in an ideal world, it's the production company who adds the listing in the first place, does it diligently, and ensures that it accords with their actual listing of end credits. If they set the parameters, then I am not sure that the listing can be added to by any would be 'editors'. But, frequently, they paste up only the bare bones of the listing for the sake of identification, and the credits have to be added by the actors who are interested in getting their contribution acknowledged.

• 11 years ago
• 56

Hi guys, loads of interesting responses to extra work on here, but I have a similar (but related) query. What are the thoughts on putting 'extra' work on a CV if it's part of the crowd in a theatre production? Is that even counted as extra work, or could it be classed as 'ensemble'? I've been offered some stuff with a big theatre near me and just wondered whether I should put it on my CV or not?

• 9 years ago
• 57

I wouldn't worry what anyone says, SA work can be good fun and yes better than flipping burgers, can get to know other actors and be part of the industry, aim for roles but better to do SA in the meantime than sitting on the sofa ! X

• 9 years ago
• 58

It is a case of needs must sometimes - and the SA work I do pays better than many of the acting jobs posted on CCP! [Got quite a nice day's pay for appearing on a dockside as a fisherman tending his nets as a certain robot passed by in a recent commercial:)]

• 9 years ago
• 59

To be honest when it comes to SA work I think it's a brilliant concept. It pays really well and you can do it at your own discretion if you choose to. I've done it before and on set met some brilliant people and learned a lot. I think though with Casting Directors though it requires a lot more consideration, I mean I have my own ways of dealing with my credits in that regard.

If you want to hear them feel free to Private Message me mate.

• 9 years ago
• 60