Are We Talent?

As 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

In times past, actors, singers and dancers were thought of as... well, a lower class of people. Entertainers, almost selling themselves to make a living. We all know this is not true. These days some of the most powerful people in the world are performers... (no political inuendo intended.) We have movie stars dominating modern culture and although I feel that perhaps their wealth is excessive and their self-pride pitiful at times we cannot simply brush them off as "talent." Performers, of any kind, are artists. They express dynamic emotions and emote powerful responses from their audiences. Watching a show is more than observing people pretending to be characters, we can be transported into the most amazing places. That "buzz" you get when watching a wonderful show (or performing in one) is almost indescribable and this is not created by "talent." Is is created by sensitive individuals, who are truly human and in touch with themselves. I think they deserve a great recognition (all performers - not just the superstars aforementioned) for exposing themselves... opening up to criticism to do justice to a role, or a performance. They deserve a name.

Agreed - but I also think that the term 'the talent' is it is used in a performing arts context has actually taken on further negative connotations than it has traditionally possessed. Today, I think the term is used in the same manner as the term 'human resources' - i.e. as a way of placing performers as a resource to be tapped and utilised in the same way that one utilises production funding and marketing resources. Not that I think that is ever done intentionally, it's just that the people who tend to use the term tend to be involved in the (extraordinarily busy, overworked and underappreciated) production side of things, where they have a dozen aspects of a show to worry about (often things that us performers are barely aware of the existence of) and it seems natural to place locating and managing 'the talent' in the same category as all the other resources.

Of course, I get the feeling that with larger, TV/advertisement/film producers, the commercial resource connotations of the phrase 'the talent', are inserted a lot more intentionally. Frankly, that's hardly surprising - I don't want to sound like a commie here, but it's a simple commercial fact that across most large industries employees are now measured as 'human capital' to be weighed off against other resources - why would the entertainment industry be any different? Then again, accepting the financial/industrial aspect that makes larger entertainment ventures possible is surely part of involving yourself with such ventures, so I'm not sure that one can really complain about it.

Just a few disorded ramblings,
Craig

Personally I've always been fond of being called "The Grand Poobah".

"Can we have The Grand Poobahs on set please..."


Hmm...yes - has a nice ring to it actually :)


Cheers,

Crispy :)

Perhaps we should be thankful for the only mildly derogatory collective moniker 'talent'.

A well established television director with whom I worked would simply announce, "Bring on the meat!"

Just as an aside, I sometimes dream of living back in a time when actors and actresses were thought of as nancy-boys and whores respectively. Methinks it is this newfound reverence for the (successful) performer that encourages those whom one imagines would prefer cleaner work if they could get it. Perhaps a healthy dose of cultural derision would discourage the wannabe 'stars' and help seperate the grain from the chaff.

Parting thought: Do we really want the respect of a culture that makes no qualitive distinction between celebrity and talent? Where a mixture of social ineptitude and dumb luck can make you a television personality? (big-brother) A society so hopelessly sick and utterly lost that we INTERVEIW THE MODELS?

Perhaps we should be thankful for the only mildly derogatory collective moniker 'talent'.

A well established television director with whom I worked would simply announce, "Bring on the meat!"

Just as an aside, I sometimes dream of living back in a time when actors and actresses were thought of as nancy-boys and whores respectively. Methinks it is this newfound reverence for the (successful) performer that encourages those whom one imagines would prefer cleaner work if they could get it. Perhaps a healthy dose of cultural derision would discourage the wannabe 'stars' and help seperate the grain from the chaff.

Parting thought: Do we really want the respect of a culture that makes no qualitive distinction between celebrity and talent? Where a mixture of social ineptitude and dumb luck can make you a television personality? (big-brother) A society so hopelessly sick and utterly lost that we INTERVEIW THE MODELS?

Sorry bout that.

(Goddamm actors, can't even post on a website without screwing it up.)

If you extend the expression to "Talented" it has a much nicer ring!

I've always thought the expression "the talent" was to separate actors from producers; "the money".

Calling actors "the talent" in the same vein as "the cattle" can be taken to be a bit demeaning, but I kinda like it in an "old-school" kinda way.

However, you don't hear the term given to other talented individuals in the industry; like set designers, lighting and sound techs, or directors. All of them talented, but in a less obvious way.

Eliot

JG wrote:
>
> In times past, actors, singers and dancers were thought of
> as... well, a lower class of people. Entertainers, almost
> selling themselves to make a living. We all know this is not
> true.

We like to believe it's not true, and I certainly have no problem with my self-esteem as a performer, but the standard wage for a professionally trained (ie: three year degree) performer is hideously below any other similarly qualified occupation. Performer's rights are constantly undermined as they are taken advantage of, and it does rather point to us as a lower 'class' in many ways.
I'm pushing the Union angle again, but without it it's almost inevitable that exploitation will occur, unless you're of the calibre of a Nicole or a Russel, and can negotiate a better deal. Entertainers DO sell themselves to make a living, though not many of us actually make a living. We sell ourselves short, and many work for virtually nothing.


> ... we cannot simply brush them off as "talent." Performers, of any kind, are artists.... That "buzz" you get when watching a wonderful show is almost indescribable and this is not created by "talent." It is
created by sensitive individuals, who are truly human and in
touch with themselves.


I don't actually have any problem in being called "talent". It's just as general a term as being called "artists". I don't see much difference in the definitions, and I'm just as proud to be called either.

As far as the notion of it being slightly derogatory, when it's used in that context it's just a low-level means of broadly categorising different groups of people, so I don't take offense or even give it that much thought. It's the same as calling everyone else "crew" or "management". It's only derogatory if you choose to look at it that way. The low status implication doesn't come from the word 'talent' in particular, it comes from the imprecise method of pigeonholing people in such a general fashion.


> I think they deserve a great recognition

Can't argue with that. All aspects of the arts deserve due recognition, be it talent, crew, writers, musos...etc.


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

Thanks for such wonderful responses everyone. I must say that being called "talent" doesn't bother me so much, as long as it's in a positive way. Bring on the poobahs... may they reign for ever more!!

Heath Miller wrote:
>
> A well established television director with whom I worked
> would simply announce, "Bring on the meat!"



While I don't find it a particularly friendly term, I thought it was a hilarious image when I first heard models and actors in commercials referred to as "meat puppets".


Cruel? Perhaps. But funny because it's true.


Cheers,
Craig

Please dont refer to urself as "we" it gives people the impression that we all feel the say way. I take being called talent as an honour...think about it!!! TALENT, meaning u have TALENT. Please dont be so ignorant when u post.

How very confusing, I think the point of this discussion may have been misunderstood.

Yes, of course actors etc are talented. There is no question as to that. The fact is that an actor is more than a piece of meat with skill. After all everyone is human and deserves a name and recognition in their artistry. Be it for their performing or for their.. carpentry or whatever.

I have tried in vain not to use the word "we" although Tiger's comments on that rather flummoxed me! :)

Have a good day all!

Tiger wrote:
>
> Please dont refer to urself as "we" it gives people the
> impression that we all feel the say way. I take being called
> talent as an honour...think about it!!! TALENT, meaning u
> have TALENT. Please dont be so ignorant when u post.



Two missing apostrophes, four misspelt words, and one missing punctuation mark...in only four sentences. Please don't avoid proofreading when you post.

[%sig%]

Thankyou JG, you have made a very good statement in rebutal to Tiger's antics.

'We' does not encompass the whole lot of us. It plainly suggests that the majority may feel this way, and, if you will read my original post Tiger, the question I did pose was if the rest of the acting public (ametuer or proffesional) object to be refered to simply as 'talent'.

This isn't a question of 'are we talented'. That we are, no doubt, in some way, shape or form. Personally, I would like to be known by my name, and not as the talent. Tiger may like to be called the talent; possibly suggesting that he is talented, but I would like to be known by my name, suggesting that my previous roles have been memorable enough to recall my name (assuming it is for the right reasons). Entertainer/performers do sell themselves to the audiences; most of us do not even see the fruits of our hard labour; and it takes a lot of guts to get up there and do it. For that I believe that we should recieve some conceivable level of respect from those who enlist our services and 'talent' in the form of personal regognition as opposed to the group label.

Basically, what I am trying to say is I agree with most/all of you who have responded, and that we (or any other group with a talent, for that matter) should receive the regognition we deserve. Even teachers like to be known better than 'sir' or 'miss', so what's the difference?

Cheers

Alan Gill

"I am at two with nature"
- Mark Twain

i didnt know this was a spelling and grammer competition, crgwillms. And you kind of rebutted ur own argument, u said teachers like to be called sir or whatever. Doctors all have names too, but we still call them doctor, maybe they would like to be called by their names also. I'll be sure to ask next time. And arent we all jus peices of flesh and blood...meat, walking around doing things we're good at?

just a few more names we call people other then their actual names...nurse, aunty, uncle, son, joker, mum, dad.

as a side point i'm a she, not a he.

Tiger wrote:
>
> i didnt know this was a spelling and grammer competition,
> crgwillms.

Yes, I know you didn't know.....grammar is spelt with an "a".



>And you kind of rebutted ur own argument, u said
> teachers like to be called sir or whatever.

This wasn't me. You appear to be answering many people as if they were all me...what's the opposite of schizophrenic?


> Doctors all have
> names too, but we still call them doctor, maybe they would
> like to be called by their names also. I'll be sure to ask
> next time.

I don't have any problem with the whole "talent" categorization, and I'm not sure what your point is about the names here. Doctors DO get called by both their title and their name. (I asked.) (Hi, Doctor Blackwell!)

As do performers..! I believe this argument got sidetracked right at the very beginning, when Alan and JG spoke about the word "talent" being used INSTEAD of an individual's name. The same as you might say "the doctor" instead of the individual; the term "talent" is used in a broad categorical sense, not as a substitute for a name, but in ADDITION to.
So in a broad general context, the word can be used, and when specifics are required, individual's names get used. What's the problem?


And judging by the way some of us seem to prefer assuming other names (and other genders, Tigress) it would seem that often people actually DON'T want to be recognised by name, which kind of weakens the concept further.


I've been called many names (not all of them complimentary, but most of them pretty accurate)...that's what happens when you're an actor who plays many roles...


>And arent we all jus peices of flesh and
> blood...meat, walking around doing things we're good at?


Some of us are. The rest of us are pieces that walk around doing things we're NOT very good at.


Cheers,
crgwllms, the famous spelling error






I could endure anything before but a cat, and now he's a cat to me!

I prefer simply "performers" or even ... "cast"

[%sig%]

"As do performers..! I believe this argument got sidetracked right at the very beginning, when Alan and JG spoke about the word "talent" being used INSTEAD of an individual's name. The same as you might say "the doctor" instead of the individual; the term "talent" is used in a broad categorical sense, not as a substitute for a name, but in ADDITION to.
So in a broad general context, the word can be used, and when specifics are required, individual's names get used. What's the problem?" Quothe he, the honourable crgwllms...

I thought this was a most profound paragraph. Kind of what I was thinking, but I just couldn't get it down in a form intelligible to human life forms. Also a brilliant rebuttal to the Tiger's second post.

This is quite an interesting discussion but I must admit I'm going a little cross-eyed reading about it!

Susanna 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%]

Tiger is my name, jus like crgwllms is yours, well part of your name. I'm guessing its short for craig williams? or something of a similar nature.

Seeing as no one who doesnt like being called 'talent' has actually stated why they dont like being called talent,well thats not right, you have tried. But i am still under the impression you're winging about nothing?

Do you really care what someone calls you as long as it isn't something along the lines of...

'Thou surly swag-bellied barnacle!'

...or worse, and i'm sure WE can all think of worse names for actors. You may have even been called those names. I would say, get over it, but i wont.

Tiger wrote:
>
> Seeing as no one who doesnt like being called 'talent' has
> actually stated why they dont like being called talent,well
> thats not right, you have tried. But i am still under the
> impression you're winging about nothing?


Um...Well, as I have both stated my theory as to why OTHERS don't like being called talent, and also proclaimed that I myself have no problem with being called it; I guess I have argued both sides, and so if I WERE whingeing (..?) it must be about nothing.
But I'm not quite sure how you get these impressions of yours, nor how to follow the non-consecutive threads you post them under...? Are you disagreeing with anything I've said?


> Do you really care what someone calls you as long as it isn't
> something along the lines of...
> 'Thou surly swag-bellied barnacle!' ...or worse,


Nope. I think I've made it clear I DON'T care. That was my point, wasn't it?
Go on, call me the worst sort of barnacle you can think of.


Cheers,
Craig or something of a similar nature


O tiger's heart wrapp'd in a woman's hide!

[%sig%]

:D lol, thatÂ’s my point. I donÂ’t care if I get called talent, and I donÂ’t see how anyone can be upset my being called it either.
*Confuzzled look*
I think the plot was lost a while ago... so I'll jus say that you were right and I was wrong...over what though, I'm not sure. It is clear to me that your spelling is far superior to mine, so I shall never hope to achieve any kind of credibility anyway.
*Smiles and skips away*

crgwllms wrote:

>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.

Indeed, the Jenny McNae's comments were made during the adjudicator's presentation, during her comments about Seen and Heard Youth's (SHY)outstanding production of 'Finger Food', where upon a food orientated photographer was dealing/working with his 'talent', thus stemming the comments.


Talent in a title most of us would accept greatfully. It gives us a sense of what we have. Talent. And there is not doubt about that. But as a personal preference I would prefer "Is this Alan Gill?" as opposed to "I assume you are our talent?". Before jumping down my throat yet again both ARE perfectly acceptable and one is even slightly more complementary than the other, but my OWN name, not a label, is what I prefer. Now I see I am more alone that I thought.

Cheers
Alan Gill

"Man was given a penis and a brain but only to use one at a time."
- Robin Williams on the Clinton/Lewinski affair.

well i have been a silent bystander reading different arguments over whether or not actors like being called 'Talent'. i have seen some good arguments and some not so good arguments and here's what i have gathered.
For 1: nobody really cares what they are called unless it is something durogatory.
For 2:Others would like to be called by their first name in order to distinguish themselves from the ordinary or just ''Talented''.

The way i see it and many others see it is this:
We are all talented and we all have first names, but the way in which these two terms are used really depends on how much emphasis you are willing to place on not being called by either. Just to make light of the situation we could be called the Talented Tiger or the Great Craig.

So lets just leave this argument here as it has certainly run its course and brought out the best in all of us talented human beings or peices of meat.

thanks for your precious time and goodnight,
krissy