Are We Talent?
Tue, 24 Sept 2002, 07:28 pmGilly26 posts in thread
Are We Talent?
Tue, 24 Sept 2002, 07:28 pmAs the lovely Jenny McNae pointed out at the judging of the 2002 Youthfest, actors and models have long been called simply 'talent'. Is this acceptable by todays standards? Personally, I do not believe that those of us taking the stage should be refered to as simply as 'the talent', and we do in fact have names. This is similar to pole run a while ago of how actors should be known as, be it their character name right through a 'hey, you'. The question I am putting forward is how should the actors/model/dancers of today be known? Is 'the talent' simply enough?
Ponder for a while...
Alan
Ponder for a while...
Alan
Re: Talent for an ex-leper?
Tue, 1 Oct 2002, 07:16 pmSusanna Duffy wrote:
>
> I prefer simply "performers" or even ... "cast"
>
Yes, and I think they're the terms that would get used most often. They tend to apply to theatre, or to speaking roles (ie substancial acting roles) on film.
"Talent" is used most often in advertising, (TV and radio commercials) and for non-speaking roles on film. I was asked 'if I was the talent' only the other day at 94.5FM when I arrived to do a voiceover.
The stigma that seems to be attached comes from actors who see themselves as more substancial than just an extra or a bit-part; they object to being lumped in with all the other 'talent' and would rather see themselves with name-billing, like they are used to receiving in the theatre.
The reality is that in the advertising mediums, the director, camera operator, editor, and sound engineer are actually much more influential on how the final product will appear than the performer is; and so from their point of view, even though I'm sure most of them appreciate that 'the talent' has talent (..!) ..."of course you do, that's what we're paying you for"... there is no need for them to be any more specific in their phraseology.
There's no need to be offended by it, it only appears derogatory because it comes from a completely different paradigm. They simply don't give the word as much weight as we do.
I remember a woman who's job description was "hand-talent". Before Jarrod or Dean make any untoward insinuations, what that meant was she had such delicate & attractive hands she was employed in all the close up shots where she was wearing jewellery or holding the advertised product, even if another actor had done the long shot.
Whether you respect that as a "skill" or not, she was earning more from those posters and commercials than any of us do for theatre. Her "talent" was a valuable commodity.
So next time you get called 'talent', remember that's all it means, you're a valuable commodity!
(probably stems from the old name for a coin, hence the Life of Brian reference in the heading!)
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> I prefer simply "performers" or even ... "cast"
>
Yes, and I think they're the terms that would get used most often. They tend to apply to theatre, or to speaking roles (ie substancial acting roles) on film.
"Talent" is used most often in advertising, (TV and radio commercials) and for non-speaking roles on film. I was asked 'if I was the talent' only the other day at 94.5FM when I arrived to do a voiceover.
The stigma that seems to be attached comes from actors who see themselves as more substancial than just an extra or a bit-part; they object to being lumped in with all the other 'talent' and would rather see themselves with name-billing, like they are used to receiving in the theatre.
The reality is that in the advertising mediums, the director, camera operator, editor, and sound engineer are actually much more influential on how the final product will appear than the performer is; and so from their point of view, even though I'm sure most of them appreciate that 'the talent' has talent (..!) ..."of course you do, that's what we're paying you for"... there is no need for them to be any more specific in their phraseology.
There's no need to be offended by it, it only appears derogatory because it comes from a completely different paradigm. They simply don't give the word as much weight as we do.
I remember a woman who's job description was "hand-talent". Before Jarrod or Dean make any untoward insinuations, what that meant was she had such delicate & attractive hands she was employed in all the close up shots where she was wearing jewellery or holding the advertised product, even if another actor had done the long shot.
Whether you respect that as a "skill" or not, she was earning more from those posters and commercials than any of us do for theatre. Her "talent" was a valuable commodity.
So next time you get called 'talent', remember that's all it means, you're a valuable commodity!
(probably stems from the old name for a coin, hence the Life of Brian reference in the heading!)
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···