By Nathan McCoy
What goes on your resume and in what order? It's a general question that follows the mandate of every talent agent and manager: "You need a resume." You may not realize you need one, depending on your relative newness to the acting field, but while there is a myriad of opposing arguments dictating the structure and content of a resume, the one thing that can't be denied is its necessity.
The task of creating one seems simple enough, but once you've seen the face of a casting director as she scans over your acting history with a cursory amusement or annoyance, well, let's just say it's a little unsettling.
Format is supposedly paramount. The top of the page should have your name, followed by personal statistics about your height and girth, or lack thereof. This is followed or is in tandem with your agent's contact information. Obviously, if you have no agent, you will want to place your contact info.
Following that, should be three sections: Film, Commercial, and Theatre (in that order). This is the body of your work that shows your personal prowess in your chosen field of "acting". This middle, meaty section is followed by a brief history of your acting studies, as well as personal abilities or accolades.
Strangely enough, this all seems fairly worthless nowadays. Most people are cast to type, with very little regard to acting ability. "Casting to Type" means hiring someone based on their looks and the archetype of the character in question. I state this as fact, and, before objecting to my cynicism, think back and try to remember all the movies that oozed weak/horrid acting in A-List productions (although some of this is bad directing as well).
My prime example, for the longest time, was Keanu Reeves. His first movie being "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure," for which he was perfectly suited. There are many more examples that can be stated, but this is counter-productive. Sufficed to say that I use this merely to illustrate the Catch-22 regarding an actor's resume.
My question is simply this: Why must an actor's resume follow a specific structure if the structure no longer works?
When applying for a "real job," as my friends like to say, the first thing on your business resume is your most current employer or past job. The reasoning is that it pertains the most to the job currently being applied for. This includes contact info to allow the future boss to pick the brain of your past employer to verify your likely effectiveness within said work environment.
With acting, it's not the same. A new employer would never contact an old one, and even if they did, no one would know information that would have any relevance to the role you're currently auditioning for. The format of your resume itself is rife with worthless bits of information. Commercials are never listed, but always referred to as "available upon request" (although no one ever requests them), and under Film, I've heard sage wisdom to support listing no Background gigs, or listing only a few Background gigs, even if background work is the bulk of the actor's experience. Theatre seems almost completely pointless when auditioning for a film/commercial gig, and vice versa.
So why is the mandatory structure? If the resume has so many moments when it's ineffective in the hiring process, why is its placement and structure argued over between actors, agents, and managers? I liken it to our constitution in many ways: it made sense when referring to the populous of the 1700's, but it connects less and less with todays Americans... times have changed. Don't get me wrong the resume has been adapted over time, too, but it's nothing more than a checklist that shows the actor knows the folklore and respects it, thereby making that actor eligible for the role.
So, what is the resume then? If it only plays a minor part in garnering the actor an audition, what is its purpose and why is it required? Because we as thespians are a dime a dozen. Despite whichever acting school you may have attended, you still have the same genetic make up as your competitors, and though someone is method or another classically trained, if the actor can portray realism with respect to the part in question, then who's to say? It's a toss up. Considering the volume of submissions received when a production company holds auditions, it's no wonder the system of a resume has become less important. Production companies need to spend more time shooting and in post-production (due to more and more special effects and digital requirements for future media), and less time in pre-production.
I have the compounding problem that I also went to film school and know how to work behind the camera. I have been told that acting and crewing resumes should NEVER be mixed-- it just isn't done. I've been behind the table watching my fellow thespians give it their all, or what little they can muster, for the part we've offered for our independent shoots, and the pattern emerges quite innocuously: look at the headshot, flip and scan resume for the acronyms SAG or AFTRA, and then move on. Actors get sifted into piles of "Hopefuls" and "Not-This-Times". I'm embarrassed to admit my own guilt in this matter.
The resume and headshot is a letter of introduction, and a reminder once the actor has left the audition. That's all. I've never had a casting director remember anything I was ever in from meeting to meeting, and I've never been asked to perform a monologue, the mantra of every acting school/class I've ever attended (although, that is a topic for later discussion).
So, for those of you that are getting a multitude of auditions, congratulations and don't change a thing. For the rest of you that are not so fortunate, take time and rethink how your resume presents you. Finally, don't give up on your dream, and be respectfully persistent.
[Nathan McCoy is an actor and member of SAG. He's a graduate of KD Studio Acting Conservatory. He also trained at TVI Workshops and received improv training from Lone Star Comedy Troupe before moving to California to study directing and writing at Los Angeles Film School. He's appeared in numerous shorts, features, and commercials. Nathan is a staff writer for IFLA.]
