Help!

Ted, I have no animosity toward you either. And I did, indeed, misquote you, although I'm not sure the phrase "has no business being an actor" is much different than "can barely call himself an actor". Still, it was a misquote, I agree.

Since we're talking about misquotes, I don't believe I ever said that Kirk Cameron "succeed[ed] while refusing to kiss anyone other than his wife ". What I said was "Kirk Cameron refuses to kiss anyone other than his wife. " I don't think his refusal makes him less of an actor, do you? I also don't think a person's resume is what makes them an actor. They are actors if they ACT. Good actors, bad actors, whatever. The man referenced in the OP has every right to call himself an actor. Not wanting to do profanity or kissing scenes doesn't make him a less of an actor -- it only makes him less versatile as an actor.

There are many actors who will never be in SAG, or have any aspirations beyond local community theater. I'm not sure what your point was regarding the salaries of SAG actors, but my point is it's not the pay or the number of roles or the budget of the films that qualifies a person to call himself an actor. If this fellow only did a single tiny role, two lines in a single tiny film, as far as I'm concerned he has fulfilled the qualifications. In the same vein, I considered myself a producer after I produced my first short film, as crappy as it was. I considered myself a writer after I wrote my first short story. A director after I directed my 5-minute vampire movie. An editor after I edited that 5-minute vampire movie.

So if this guy IS willing to only work in niche films, and DOES have his own internal moral code which he follows, as far as I'm concerned he is still just as much an actor as anybody in Hollywood......or Wilmington, or Atlanta, or anywhere else. Maybe not as successful or well known, but an actor nonetheless.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Hardly call themselves...barely call themselves...all semantics.

I said it before and will say it again...if an actor limits the parts they will play because the character will do something they themselves won't...they will never develop a range. And an actor with little range, works little!

I would never feed my husband to my demon child but you all know in JDS's film I did. I am not a shrink but played one in another JDS project. I would not throw my husbands stuff out in the street because he worked late but one character I played did. I don't kiss girls but I played a gay woman once who did. I don't eat corn nuts and fluff but a character I played once did. I would never have sex with my stepson but I played a woman who did.

I could list at least 100 things characters I played would do that I never would including certain curse words and attitudes and actions. That IS what acting is about. Playing someone other than yourself! Wearing someone else coat! Walking in someone else's shoes.

Bringing truth to a character who is not you.

And for the record..I adore all of you for sharing your views. Even if we went slightly off topic, we have brought up things many can learn from and possibly challenged a few new actors to think carefully about why they want to do this in the first place!

PS Ted...I am so upset with you...don't you know I was voted most likely to say "Do you want fries with that" in a feature film? Dang dude...take away my pride...ha ha ha. And thanks for clearing up the quoting!
 
Last edited:
Michele Seidman said:
PS Ted...I am so upset with you...don't you know I was voted most likely to say "Do you want fries with that" in a feature film? Dang dude...take away my pride...ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

But it would be a Scorsese film, you'd channel the ultimate McDonald's worker on set, Marty would notice, and cast you in a major role in his next project, for which you'd win an Oscar. Right?

: )

And thanks for clearing up the quoting!
Click to expand...

Chivalry is one of the few things left that only men can enjoy : )

Not that it doesn't have its opposite-gender equivalents, of course : )
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
Ted, I have no animosity toward you either. And I did, indeed, misquote you, although I'm not sure the phrase "has no business being an actor" is much different than "can barely call himself an actor". Still, it was a misquote, I agree.
Click to expand...

Accepted. Thanks.

In my language, the guy *could* call himself an actor, even if only "barely". In your "has no business" rewrite he couldn't. That being more than semantics IMHO, prompted my objection.

But enough about the price of strawberries...
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
my point is it's not the pay or the number of roles or the budget of the films that qualifies a person to call himself an actor. If this fellow only did a single tiny role, two lines in a single tiny film, as far as I'm concerned he has fulfilled the qualifications. In the same vein, I considered myself a producer after I produced my first short film, as crappy as it was. I considered myself a writer after I wrote my first short story. A director after I directed my 5-minute vampire movie. An editor after I edited that 5-minute vampire movie.
Click to expand...

Now we really are talking semantics. If we broaden the "I am a [insert occupation here]" definition to include anyone who has ever done that thing, then every kid who can play "Heart And Soul" on the piano (which is about 50% of all kids, usually in pairs) is a musician, everyone who's ever rolled a ball down a bowling alley is a bowler, etc., etc., etc.

I assumed that when we were talking about 'actors' we were talking about people who actually aspired to *be* one, with the word "be" implying the level of seriousness required to "be" any other occupation, like a teacher, automobile mechanic, investment banker, dentist. And even if merely 'aspiring', a level of seriousness would seem to be implied that evidently was all but entirely lacking in our OP's lead player. Hence my reputedly 'harsh' characterization of him.

Your definition evidently would include what would otherwise be referred to as "hobbyists". Not to knock 'em - hobbies are great - I've got a whole bunch of 'em. But they're not who "I am" in the conventional parlance. That, by the way, wouldn't exactly be "an actor" either. It would be "Music Recording Engineer", which is how I make my living. While I've been pursuing acting work seriously for a number years now, have been cast in starring and other sizable roles in a number of indie features, and have earned a few bucks doing it, honestly I can "barely call myself an actor" as well since I'd starve if that was all I did. In a hurry...

By the way, I have been asked to cuss up a storm in a number scenes, to which I complied, but, sadly, have never been asked to kiss a girl or take off anything more than a jacket. But hey...there's still time : )

But after several thousand dollars in classes, several dozen books and training DVDs and countless auditions it's much more than a hobby for me. Still, only when I can quit my other job and make a living through my work as a thespian will I honestly be able to say "I am an actor". Until then I will still "be" a Music Engineer.

On the other hand, in the spirit of full disclosure, I do refer to myself here and elsewhere as an actor when it seems relevant to a discussion (like this one), as many others, including Stan and Michele, have. But at least in my own case, like I said, while I'm arguably well beyond the hobbyist-actor status, I don't (yet) make my living at it. Stan and Michele will correct me if I'm wrong I'm sure (and hopefully accept my apologies in advance if so), but it's my impression that they don't exactly either. It's a steep mountain, that...

Ahh...I love the smell of semantics in the morning...
:cheesy:
 
Last edited:
Ted

On calling oneself an actor I may have a jaded view. I did a commercial once and they taught me quickly how to tig weld...but I would never call myself a welder even though I did it once. I once stood on stage and read my poetry to strangers but I would never call myself a poet. I have even been published in a book and several magazines and written my first script recently but I don't call myself a writer. I have been teaching myself editing and doing all kinds of projects for no pay or little but I still don't feel ready to call myself an editor.

I think this comes down to old school and new school thinking. But there are variables too.

Old school...until you master a craft, you don't claim yourself by that jobs name. New school, try it and claim it.

HOWEVER on acting, I teach my actors to own it IF they plan on pursuing it. I do tell them to call themselves new actors or actors in training so they don't mislead casting directors, agents and directors.

BUT at the same time I see people who do extra work calling themselves actors though they have never uttered a line. I see people who did one part in one project 20 years ago still calling themselves actors.

I don't want to call them out on it but for someone like me who has devoted the vast majority of my life to being a good actor who has range...it does bother me to see people who don't really do it claim it. It is as if they are saying all my hard work did not matter because all they have to do, is do it once and call themselves actors.

Sort of like your baseball analogy....just because I played catch a few times does not make me a ball player. But if I was going to keep playing catch and try to learn how to play ball I might call myself a new baseball player. But I am old school on these things.

I think you have to do it more than once and prove yourself at it before you can claim it. BUT that is just my opinion.

M
 
PS..one last point on the nudity thing....

Showing your naked body is not the same as showing your face or body in clothing for anyone! So, that line is one I have always understood. The only reason I am even able to do nudity at all (well when i was still young) is because my Mother taught art and I posed nude at Parsons, SVA and FIT for various classes.

BUT...I still never did gratuitous nudity in film. I only did it when it fit the moment in the script and mattered to the over all storyline being true and honest. But I never did and still would not do it just because they want naked bodies in the film to get more of an audience. But that is my line that I refuse to cross. Some folks will do that and I don't fault them for it. I might question their choice but I don't fault them!
 
Simply because that actor's personal 'line' might not be understood, that's no reason to denigrate him as an actor. None of us know who he is or what his experience is.

It's true that many, maybe even most, lead roles may involve kissing scenes. But there's many an actor who's made quite a good career out of playing supporting and character roles. How many love scenes have Jack Elam or Steve Buscemi done? Or Marty Feldman? If someone's never done a lead role, but done tons of supporting roles, then they certainly qualify to call themselves actors. The fellow referred to by the OP might well fall into that category, or at least aspire to it.

It just bugs me to hear someone being maligned for having boundaries that might be a bit different from most. That's all. (And yes, I consider that statement "he can barely call himself an actor" to be maligning.)
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
I consider that statement "he can barely call himself an actor" to be maligning.)
Click to expand...

It really wasn't intended that way. The printed word has a funny way of reading very differently to some other folks than the writer might have expected. And like I reiterated earlier, I did make sure to say that he "might be a great guy and all". I also later made it clear that I largely include myself in the "barely called an actor" category, despite the fact that I have pursued it quite vigorously, seriously, and expensively for quite some time and have a reasonably healthy IMDB resume to show for it by now.

But, if you want to believe I was "maligning" him by calling him out, you're entitled to.
 
Last edited:
Wow, quite a debate going here.

Well, I decided to stick with my actor and I really need to work on him during the rehearsal process but he's coming along really well.

Let me ask you this. Would you accept a non-paying role with around 50 locations that will eat up your summer and fall up with a script that has more monologue ramblings than an Ayn Rand novel? On top of that we both have full time jobs and I didn't have any locations booked or a shooting schedule. I offered the role to two actors with more experience, they took one look at the script and said no way. I chose this inexperienced guy because he was the only one who would dedicate the time to my project.

At the time I posted this we were a week from an important scene that involved a very lengthy monologue and 30 extras. Either I cancel the great location I got, tell the 30 extras sorry and start casting again, or I go with the inexperienced guy who will do anything to be the star in a feature legnth project. I chose the latter.

So 2.5 months later we are about 70% in the can and we got some impressive locations including a courtroom, many boardrooms, a manshion, shooting range, restaurant, and a trailer park. Note, we're pretty much a zero budget production and we've paid very minimal fees. The picture even looks good.

I still have to focus on breaking my actor of things he does that I don't like, and he requires more takes than anyone else but we are getting it done and my movie wouldn't be getting made if I had tried to recast.

With that said, for the kissing scenes we actually are going to switch them around. The problem is his girlfriend cringes at the thought of his lips touching another womans so we are going to cut it from different angles. We are also adding a part where we cut to a quick dream sequence where my character is controlling her on a S&M leash. (The movie and the theme are about control.) Finageling cuts and different angles to miss the lips has ironically made the scenes more erotic. (I was originally just going to have a normal kiss!)

To those who believe that it's the character doing it and not you, you have no idea of the power of boundries. Go rent Psycho and tell me it's not violent, go rent Streetcar and tell me it's not erotic. This boundry of my actor has been an opportunity and I like some of the ideas he's come up with to accomodate his needs. Boundries are what spark creativity.
 
Angelshare1 said:
To those who believe that it's the character doing it and not you, you have no idea of the power of boundries. .
Click to expand...

I was with you until the sentence above. You just maligned me and suggested I don't know the power of boundaries. You could not be further from the truth. This time a boundary worked in your favor. That will not always be the case. There will be times where it screws up the production and costs you money, lost shots, and lack of editing choices.

The power of boundaries swings both ways!

I am glad things are working out, but I did not malign anyone by sharing my opinion on what makes a good actor. You have insulted me with your comment that 'those who believe' as I do...have no idea....

Yes...yes we do!
 
Angelshare1 said:
To those who believe that it's the character doing it and not you, you have no idea of the power of boundries.
Click to expand...
Michele didn't say that. She said "in essence" it's the character. That's an important distinction you seem to have missed. And just what does that have to do with someone's understanding of the power of boundaries?

Angelshare1 said:
Go rent Psycho and tell me it's not violent, go rent Streetcar and tell me it's not erotic.
Click to expand...
Are you alluding to directorial choices made because of MPAA and Legion of Decency censorship or do you think Hitchcock and Kazan made their directorial choices because of actor hangups? If it's the latter, a little research will take you a long way from that idea.

Angelshare1 said:
Boundries are what spark creativity.
Click to expand...
On this I can agree with you whole heartedly.
 
We've all got different tastes when it comes to actors. But I can't respect the argument that we should defend a hack solely on the basis that "nobody can take the fact away that he is an actor."
 
Last edited:
point out to your 'actor' friend that his career is going to be short and sweet if he
expects to go from job to job with all his hang-ups.
Refusing to do a kissing scene or utter swear words? Thats laughable.

As a director & producer - you can do better. You should do better this is a feature length.

80% of the directors job is in the casting. Don't find 3 actors, find 100 and screen them well
before offering a part.
 
stan harrington said:
This is a classic reason for why I believe all directors should take a few very good acting classes ...to understand actors and to cast with a little more discretion...
Click to expand...

Indeed. As an actor and director I have to say it's always odd to me when actors don't read scripts. When I did the Fourth Beast several people got involved with it because of the Christian ideology the film was based around...BUT most of them were believers in pre-trib rapture. My film was blatantly the opposite. There's a whole section of the film that was nothing but theological discussion. How do you miss it?

So one guy calls me (whose also a minister) and tells me he wants his name off the movie. I tell him I'd have to redo the credits and everything. He tells me the movie is "off scripture". I tell him not according to the Bible and got ready for the heated debate I believed would soon follow. We didn't get into that can of worms and he admitted he hadn't read the whole script. But simply he asked me to please take his name off.

I believe I did eventually go through the process of changing the credits, but how do you not read a script when you're in it. Later another person, older female Christian, expressed she didn't agree with the script either, but was okay with it because it was "Christian". But...if..what...? Huh?

I always give my actors the full script because I deal with controversial subjects all the time. One concern is that people like to make sure I'm not saying something politically incorrect in my scripts. Huh? Almost everything I believe is politically incorrect. Even my vampire movie had some people on Facebook pissed when they read the part that I released to the public.

My advice, read the script before deciding to be in a production. If there's something you're asked to do or say you can't live with, then don't and don't take the part. A lot of people get excited about being in a film. But being IN a film actually means...you know...doing what the script says.

-Nate
 
rsbush said:
Michele didn't say that. She said "in essence" it's the character. That's an important distinction you seem to have missed. And just what does that have to do with someone's understanding of the power of boundaries?
.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a distinction. Thank you!

Knoxworth said:
We've all got different tastes when it comes to actors. But I can't respect the argument that we should defend a hack solely on the basis that "nobody can take the fact away that he is an actor."
Click to expand...

I agree!

J Davis said:
point out to your 'actor' friend that his career is going to be short and sweet if he expects to go from job to job with all his hang-ups.
Refusing to do a kissing scene or utter swear words? Thats laughable.
.
Click to expand...

Laughable...not sure about that but you are right, the career will be short lived or very limited at the least.

Nathyn said:
My advice, read the script before deciding to be in a production. If there's something you're asked to do or say you can't live with, then don't and don't take the part. A lot of people get excited about being in a film. But being IN a film actually means...you know...doing what the script says.

-Nate
Click to expand...

Exactly! Read the script and don't take the part if there are things in there you are not willing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top