And now I feel sorry for television actors...you couldn't pay me enough to do that for a living

[shadowkat]

Was watching some of the dailies of an old television obsession on youtube on a bit of whim, and five minutes into it, I thought - I'm really glad I'm not a television actor because this would really suck. Started to begin feeling sorry for the actors after the tenth take. I mean how many times do you want to throw yourself against a wall and say one line? Imagine that is your job, you come to work - memorize a couple of lines - and get thrown against a wall ten times. Actually you throw yourself against the plaster wall ten times. Oh, bonus? You know that co-worker you despise and sort of would like to smack upside the head? You get to say a line and kiss them fifteen times, after being smashed up against a plaster wall over and over and over again.

This, people, is the reason, television actors are paid as much as they are. Although I'm not sure anyone could pay me enough to do that on a daily basis.

Anyhow in case your curious as to what I'm talking about...go behind the cut:

Watch on YouTube

See, after a television series has ended, someone on the camera crew or in the editing room thinks - hey, I know, I'll release the dailies on youtube, no one will care. Besides, that was a lot of hard work and I'd hate for those shots to go to waste. And guess what? With the internet? They can get away with it. (Goes to show you, with the internet, privacy is sort of up for grabs.)

Dailies are a fascinating and rather eye-opening look into how television is made. And it isn't pretty. Sort of boring actually. And rather brutal. I don't how these actors do it. The director cuts based on lighting issues, the shot being slightly off, or an actor missing a line. The sad thing is -- is often the first take is the actors best, but oops a flare, so they had to do it again.
That's what happened in the above - the best take was when they had a flare and had to do it again.
I could feel the actor's annoyance.

Also, they don't film the whole scene. They film one line or two lines at a time. One punch at a time. So throw a punch. Cut. Throw it again. Cut. Fall against the wall. Cut. Fall against it again. Cut. Kiss the Guy. Cut. Kiss him. Cut. Stimulate sex while fully clothed. Cut. Do it again. Cut.
Kneel on the floor. Cut. Kneel on the floor. Cut.

Afterwards, the editor, often with the assistance of the director and showrunner edits all these separate takes together into one film. I knew a guy who edited television commercials who explained it to me in detail, also read about it. And the commentators often will talk about it in their commentary - Whedon once went into detail on how things are edited in one of his commentaries. I actually recommend Whedon's commentaries over other filmmakers, since he likes to discuss the process. (I'm fascinated by what people do for a living and apparently am able to retain the knowledge.) So, the audience is oblivious to this -- it's a bit a like a magic show. You don't see all the work that goes on behind the scenes to create the magic.

Anyhow, they did all of this with falling plaster, the plaster was falling on top of them and they were breathing it in...which made me wonder was this plaster safe? Had it been abated for asbestos and lead? Because Steve McQueen died because of asbestos inhalation. And isn't that going to throw out the actor's back? No wonder one of them is seeing a chiropractor.

You couldn't pay me enough to do that for a living. It just looked painful. I felt so sorry for them.
And I also felt a little guilty for enjoying the episode as much as I did. Granted I was oblivious, and they are paid a lot more than I am...(and no wonder, hazardous pay, hello), but still.

Comments

[spikesjojo.livejournal.com]

I read an interview with one of the directors talking about how SMG used to keep everyone waiting while she talked on the phone if Freddie called. Apparently she really was a diva toward the end, and it was endlessly irritating and expensive. It could have been her way of getting back at Whedon. He said that the only people who consider this an ensemble show are the fans - anyone who worked there knew this was Sarah's show, and she called the shots. If she wanted to be on the phone forever they had to work around her.

She doesn't seem t have stayed close to much of anyone - but once her career took a dive she warmed back up to Buffy. I always resented the way she let it be known that she wanted nothing to be asked about the show - I can see why an actor wouldn't want to be type cast, but she really took off with it. apparently there was some tension between her and a few cast member's, though she and Allyson had the great make up scene..

I wish Marsters and Whedon hadn't had such a public breakdown after the ingenue remark. I would love to see him in a few Whedon projects.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

SMG didn't have the best rep coming into Buffy. She had a serious falling out with her co-star, soap diva Suzanne Lucie, who played Erica Kane, on AMC. Keep in mind though - that Whedon's first television writing job was Rosanne. And Rosanne Barr fired writers left and right, and sort of took the whole diva thing to new levels. So from Whedon's perspective, Gellar wasn't that big a deal. When asked about it, he'd say, yeah, but I had to deal with Rosanne Barr, this is nothing.

I can see why it happens --- being the lead on a television series is not easy. If the series is successful, you get all the applause, if it sucks, they blame you. Also fandom has a tendency to make the environment a bit toxic for actors. The smart actors stay off line. Gellar did, mainly because she came from soap operas and knew from experience how toxic fandom can become. But, she was also very young when she started on Buffy - Gellar was 17 years old. Everyone else on that show was at least three to six years older than Gellar.

So, you have a 16/17 year old child star, who started in television around the age of 8. With a bunch of adults, who'd graduated from college, had a drama degrees, ranging between the ages of 22-40. Plus a new show-runner, who'd never run a show before, who is about 28.

I think Hannigan was 22, Green was about 20 or 22 (also a former child star -- which is why he and Gellar stayed close and bonded), Brendan was 25 or 26, Marsters was 32, Boreanaz was 26, and ASH was 40 at the time. The only other person who started on that show at a young age was Michelle Trachtenberg at 15, and that's the only one Gellar stayed close to.

The age difference does sort of explain things. I doubt Gellar would have done the things she did back then, now. Plus all of the personal crap that she was going through at the time.

It's not like she was in her late 20s or anything. She was a teenager and young adult.

I think Whedon could have handled things better, but to be fair -- it was his first gig as a show-runner, they brought on David Greenwalt to show him the ropes. And as Whedon stated later, his mistake was making friends and being buddy buddy those first years, when he was supposed to be everyone's boss.