Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

College Theatrical Resume


Replies to: College Theatrical Resume

  • soozievtsoozievt Registered User, ! Posts: 31,535 Senior Member

    As some others have posted, they do not wish the tone of the thread to be adversarial, confrontational, or argumentative. I think all of us, yourself included, are sharing information, experiences, and trying to help others.

    You posted:
    Now, I find this quote of your surprising.
    The point I was making earlier is that you seemed to be saying that printed resumes on the back of a head shot was THE way to go and that staples are antiquated.

    I went back over what I’d posted and I don’t know where you got this.

    As I said, I did get the impression from some of your posts that you felt that printing a resume on the back was preferrable and I also got the impression from some earlier posts that you felt stapling the resume was uncommon and not a good way to do it and old fashioned. I started to think that maybe my kid was the odd one who attaches a resume and asked what others do. I never put down printing it on the back and think that is a cool idea as well and mentioned I haven't thought to run a headshot through the printer. Just as I thought your preferred way was fine, I was trying to suggest that the way my D and others I see doing it with staples or glue sticks is also fine and acceptable, as I thought you were initially saying it was a bad or quaint idea. However, then you came back and said both way are fine and I wrote that we agree, therefore, now that both ways or variations work.

    The reason I got the idea that you thought printed resumes on the back was the right way was due to drawing inferences from some of your statements like these:
    Seriously, if someone from where I live were to use a photo process resume photo and staple a resume to the back, it would look very, very quaint.
    Kat, I find that bizarre. It's the rare audition I attend that doesn't require one to fill out some sort of audition sheet that gets stapled to the resume.
    Once again, I find the practice of physically stapling a sheet of paper to the back of a resume a bit antediluvian in an age when it's so easy to print a fresh resume on the back and not have to risk having the paper become attached.......
    What's next? Requiring the resume to be done on a manual typewriter? Stamping your agent's logo instead of printing it?
    I am happy for this thread, because it tells me that I need to advise local children who are headed for auditions back East that they'll need to forget they live in the 21st century to avoid annoying faculty.

    Wow. Just wow.

    So, forgive me if I misinterpretted you when I said that:
    you seemed to be saying that printed resumes on the back of a head shot was THE way to go and that staples are antiquated.

    When you use words like "quaint," "bizarre," "antediluvian," "what's next?," "forget they live in the 21st Century," or "Wow. Just wow," it did draw me to conclude that you thought that printing on the back was the right way and that staples were not a good idea.

    Once you clarified that both ways were fine....I posted that it seems we then agree.

    However, I feel you did put down Kat when you posted:
    That suggests that it's really NOT OK to print the thing on the back, which I find just ... ridiculous.
    The idea that there would be something WRONG with printing on the back is, to me, absurd.

    You were referring to her ideas as "ridiculous" and "absurd." At the same time, she NEVER said that printing on the back was WRONG. She only mentioned what she preferred (attached resumes) or what she was used to. In reverse, it appeared that you were saying that it was ridiculous to attach a resume by staples in this day and age. She wasn't saying that printing on the back was ridiculous or "NOT OK."

    So.....what I think is that tone is not conducive to sharing ideas and it makes me uncomfortable. I didn't see anyone putting down printing on the back. I saw people sharing what they do. I got a sense that you were putting down stapling but then you came back and clarified that there are many ways to go about it (and there are).

    It is hardly worth arguing about. Share one's own opinions without judging others' opinions.

    In this post, I tried to respond to you, Tarhunt, since you questioned where I got the idea that I thought you were suggesting that printed resumes on the back of head shots were the best or right way, to then explain why I had that arrived at that interprettation at first.

    I certainly think a high school kid should compose their own theater resume. However, often an adult might advise them with it, look it over, etc. The resume is theirs and they have ownership over the decisions. I don't think adults should create it for them. But adults can play a role as an advisor. I have discussed my D's resume with her when she makes changes. The decisions are all her own. I have helped with some formatting issues when we have had trouble with that on the computer and the way things line up, etc. I also help many college applicants with their theater resumes. I do not do their resumes FOR them, just like I never have for my own kid. I start with their draft and make suggestions for revisions. Young people starting out may benefit from advice, even though the piece is their creation and certainly THEIR decisions in terms of content and format.
  • NotMamaRoseNotMamaRose Registered User Posts: 4,090 Senior Member
    Tarhunt, I think you need also to recognize that the *student* actors who populate this list (well, the student actors and their parents, in many cases) are not yet quite at the level of professionalism at which they would easily maintain two or three different resumes and so on. As someone said way upthread (KatMt, it might've been you!:)) it is highly doubtful that most high school seniors who are getting their first headshot for college auditions and creating resumes for that purpose would want to have 100 or so headshots with resumes printed, because their resumes will (we hope) continue to change and change quickly ... in fact, the resumes likely will change more quickly than will the way they look (headshot). So for now and for most kids, the idea of affixing their resumes on the back of their headshots in some fashion (staples being the most obvious), at least for now, seems like a good, practical solution. Also, it might have been the word "antedeluvian" that stuck in some people's craws. ;)
  • KatMTKatMT College Rep Posts: 4,137 Senior Member
    Tarhut -- That is good idea to use cardstock! the only resumes I have gotten printed on the back were on photopaper, which is difficult to write on. Is the card stock matte photopaper on picture side or no sheen cardstock?
  • TarhuntTarhunt Registered User Posts: 2,138 Senior Member
    Tarhut -- That is good idea to use cardstock! the only resumes I have gotten printed on the back were on photopaper, which is difficult to write on. Is the card stock matte photopaper on picture side or no sheen cardstock?

    It can be either. Commercial papers come in all kinds of varieties. They're just like the brochures you might get from a number of sources. Some are glossy and some are matte. I use matte on both sides, but there are people who use papers that are glossy on one side and matte on the other. They tend to be people who are younger than I am and going for juvenile lead/ingenue roles, but it varies.

    Writing on a glossy surface would probably be difficult to do, but I've never seen the back of one of these things be glossy. The matte finish is about the same as writing on a postcard, generally.
  • TarhuntTarhunt Registered User Posts: 2,138 Senior Member

    I don't understand. Using an inkjet printer on the back is just as easy, and I think easier, to make changes to a growing resume as stapling a separate piece of paper. Presumably, both are being kept on a computer somewhere.
  • TarhuntTarhunt Registered User Posts: 2,138 Senior Member

    When I state that stapling a resume to the back of a photo would be very quaint where I live (and note the "where I live"), I was simply making a statement of fact. I think I've mentioned (and I don't know if it was this thread or not) that I sit in on a lot of auditions with a good friend of mine who's a director, and we get those kinds of resumes, but usually not from anyone who's very experienced. Around here, it's just a fact that those kinds of resumes seem quaint.

    All kinds of things change in this business, obviously. I no longer do VO demos, for instance, and hand them out on any kind of medium. My demos are all on file on a website and anyone can listen. Almost all my VO auditions are now over the Internet instead of in person, reading specific copy posted there. Like many other VO people, I now do VO work around the country remotely. And, yes, it would seem a bit antediluvian to go back to the old days of having an agent send out tapes (later CDs) and then going to an audition to read copy.
  • soozievtsoozievt Registered User, ! Posts: 31,535 Senior Member

    I completely understand your points in post #82 because much earlier in the thread I mentioned that it may be different in different markets and also in different branches of the industry. Many folks here are going into musical theater more than film or voice overs or straight theater. As well, many are talking of college auditions and also of professional auditions for musical theater that take place in New York City. Thus, it is not surprising to me that you are sharing some experiences that differ in terms of the type of work you do and where you do it. It is interesting reading of your experiences and the process. I don't think I have read a single person putting down the printing on the back or whatever else you mentioned that you do or prefer or observe. I think others, myself included, mentioned what we have observed and/or prefer in either different regions/levels, and/or for musical theater purposes mostly. I think we all benefit here by sharing these experiences, while at the same time, not putting down the ideas or preferences of others, even if they differ.
  • TarhuntTarhunt Registered User Posts: 2,138 Senior Member

    In looking back over the thread, I think that I did get a bit testy with you because I perceived that you were saying I didn't have a theater background and didn't do theater work. To a theater person, this can be a bit akin to saying, "Oh, you only do that work that doesn't require high levels of acting skills." That set my teeth on edge, I admit. That's why I gave a brief background on my theater experience.

    I recognize that, to a non-theater person, the names of the LORTs I gave you might not be familiar, nor might the A and B+ designations, but I think Kat can vouch for the fact that working in those theaters, let alone playing significant roles in them, is not the easiest thing in the world to achieve.

    So, I inferred from what you were writing that you thought I was just an on-camera actor, which is a bit like telling an opera singer that she's just a torch song belter. It can be read as an attack.
  • soozievtsoozievt Registered User, ! Posts: 31,535 Senior Member
    Tarhunt, I am clearly befuddled by your post #84. I never presumed that you don't have a theater background or do theater work. To the contrary, I have read your posts on CC for a long time and know you have a background in acting and I believe you teach at a university (though I am not sure if you teach theater). I know that you continue to work in acting, including theater. I know you have experience with film and voiceovers. I can assure you I was never remotely questioning your LEVEL of acting skills. I was commenting that many here are discussing MUSICAL THEATER which, correct me if I am in error, is not your MAIN area of acting work. And I was also saying that many here are discussing either college BFA auditions OR professional musical theater auditions in New York. I believe you may be from the western half of the country, is that right? And so I was never dismissing your procedures, nor your experience whatsover. I was sharing what I know and observe and then reading what you know, do, and observe and seeing where there were some differences. I didn't think one way or the other was RIGHT. To the contrary, I believed that both ways are acceptable and used in various types of acting work or markets. I initially got the impression that you were saying staples were a bad idea. I didn't read others saying that your way was wrong. I thought and assumed that we were each sharing our experiences. You also seemed to be putting down the reprinting process that I shared that we used as well. I started to wonder if using Reproductions, which is widely known in the theater industry in NYC, or if stapling the resume, which my own kid does and is what I have observed, was wrong, based on reading your posts considering you are a professional actor.

    I never said or thought what you were doing was wrong or certainly not less experienced. I am not an actor. YOU are. I shared our own experiences and those which I have observed in musical theater, colleges, and in New York. I even said I learned something new from you about putting a resume through a printer at home.

    I also get uncomfortable reading put downs of a college faculty member here and classifying her ideas as "absurd" or "ridiculous" and welcome all experiences, yours too. You also made an assumption that she said printing on the back was "wrong" when she never said that or meant it.

    Now you are also assuming I haven't heard of these LORT theaters and to the contrary, I have indeed heard of them. I don't need anyone to vouch for your experience as I was NEVER questioning it in the first place. In fact, I KNEW you were an Equity actor. I didn't NEED to question your experience. I simply observed that the process you have used or see in your work and where you live may differ than in the East or in Musical Theater and so I was offering another way and got the feeling that you said the way we do things is antiquated and I wasn't sure and started to wonder after that. I never said anything negative about your way and in fact, think both ways are acceptable practices.

    I also would never use "ONLY" in reference to an on camera actor. Why would I think that? Theater acting isn't BETTER than on camera acting! They are just different!

    So, you are making assumptions about what I was thinking when none of those assumptions are truly the case. I apologize if I was misunderstood in some fashion based on what you are now posting that is making me wonder how you got that impression from me but thanks for sharing and I hope I have clarified what I really did mean in my posts. Thank you.
  • BiGismamaBiGismama Registered User Posts: 254 Junior Member
    The changes in business and more frequent electronic submissions were the reason I asked my original question about paper size yesterday. In just a few short years color photos have become the norm for head shots (although OF COURSE black & white are still perfectly acceptable), so I wonder if the norm for the size might change as well. If a casting director asks for (and receives) resumes and head shots electronically, it stands to reason that they might have a need to print them. Standard printer paper is 8 1/2 x 11. Traditional PHOTO paper is 8x10 (that's why head shots have always been 8 x10) 8 1/2 x 11 is what everyone has in their home printers, office printers etc. (No one goes to Office Depot or Staples and buys anything but reams of 8 1/2 x 11 paper stock for their printers, do they?) Surely the casting director will quickly print out the file on the handy office printer and it will be on 8 1/2 x 11 paper. Seems unlikely to me that they would then want to go to all the trouble to trim it to 8x10 size to "match" their other more traditional submissions.

    I suppose my question SHOULD have been: in the digital age, is using traditional 8x10 photo size paper really that important anymore, when everyone has access to their own personal printers! I am hoping not, because that really might be kind of antiquated! LOL

    Disclaimer: I am not intending to ruffle anyone's feathers here with my question. I am asking this question in earnest, to discern if/when the size of the resume/headshot will change, to reflect the massive changes in the (printing) industry which has traditionally produced these materials.

    BTW, I know of no filing system, file folders, etc. in which an 8 1/2 x 11 print would stick out. 8 1/2 x 11 has been a standard business size forever :)
  • soozievtsoozievt Registered User, ! Posts: 31,535 Senior Member
    ^^^ BIGisMama...LOL, I think we may start needing to put disclaimers on our posts! I can see what made you think to do that.

    Hopefully, we get back to discussing resumes, etc.
  • BiGismamaBiGismama Registered User Posts: 254 Junior Member
    Soozie, I know; it was starting to get downright scary on here :eek:

    Kat, Tarhunt (and others with connections to the professional world); I'd love feedback, thoughts, on the question I posed. Thanks!
  • MusThCCMusThCC Registered User Posts: 586 Member
    BIGIs - I think your original theory is correct - if an agent gets an electronic submission, I would be willing to bet if they print it out, it would be on 8 1/2 x 11, and I agree that I doubt if anyone in the office is going to trim it down to make it 8 x 10.

    And Soozie - my point about kids "owning" their resume is not about the typing and the formatting - it's about the content. Labelling a role as (Lead) strikes me as a very parent-ish thing to put on a resume. From my perspective, that is a real turnoff to me, and others with whom I've cast. I want to use people who want to act, not who want to be stars. And, usually when I have seen things like that on the resume, it has been the parents doing it - makes me wonder if I'll hear the "woosh" of the blades overhead. :)
  • soozievtsoozievt Registered User, ! Posts: 31,535 Senior Member
    MusThCC....I'm also saying that the student is the one who decides the content, not a parent. I thought Alliesmom's question was a valid one. My D doesn't have (lead) next to any of the credits on her current resume, even though many of the credits are lead roles. But I can see Alliesmom's question and have wondered the same thing and I see that KatMT who not only teaches in a theater program, is an Equity actor and directs at a summer stock theater, mentioned that for an obscure or brand new show, that she suggests putting (lead) next to the role.

    The idea of CREDITS is to show what you've done. There would be no way to ascertain that the actor had played the lead if just a name of a part is given in a brand new or obscure show. Having lead roles on a resume doesn't mean someone wants to be a "star". Lead roles on a resume speaks to your credits and experiential level. If someone has a background with many lead roles but one cannot determine that on the resume, the impression given in the credits will be different and the resume does serve a purpose in providing credits/background. I think someone who wants to make sure their resume represents their body of experience doesn't imply they wish to be a star. They wish the auditors to have their background which is the reason there IS a resume in the first place and not just an audition. If the roles are hard to discern, it doesn't truly show their experience as well.

    I'm not saying to put (lead) next to an obscure show or role in it, but that Alliesmom's question is food for thought as to how the actor can depict their experience and be clear and make sure it represents their credits and background which is the point behind the resume. I don't have an answer for it but was interested in what KatMT had to say or what others would suggest, if anything. For instance, why does one put down a well known director on their credits? It shows a certain level or experience. Why even list one's role and not just list the shows? The roles show a certain type or level of experiential background. However, if the person reading it has no idea what that show is or how signficant the part was, it is not that useful of informaiton. For example, one of my clients was sharing her theater resume with me and I suggested she order the credits from the most significant on down and we talked about eliminating some and she asked me which to eliminate. Well, there were some plays and parts I had never heard of and had no clue the significance of what she had done in them. On other resumes, with more familiar shows, I can get a better idea.

    I suppose one way to show it is if the part is a lead and quite significant, it will be higher up on the list of credits even though nobody has a clue the show or the part but can infer it must be big if it is above credits that are also leads. Just guessing. I don't think any of that has to do with wanting to be a "star." If you want to act, you need a resume. The resume needs to show what you have done. If the auditors can't tell what those experiences are, it just is less helpful. I don't see Alliesmom's question as being just relevant to a parent asking about her kid's resume but ANY resume and I would expect a student to have asked a similar question about how to show the roles when nobody has heard of the play or the part. Perhaps do nothing. But it is a good question. If the significance of the parts do not matter at all, one could just list which productions they had been in and never list ANY roles. But they DO list roles, for a reason. And that reason is not due to having an objective of being a "star," but rather to show their experiential background and credits, about which the auditors want to know.
  • KatMTKatMT College Rep Posts: 4,137 Senior Member
    BIGIsmama -- based on my experience... if you are printing out the resume and photo I would suggest sticking to the 8X10... I think if you are doing an electronic submission it would not be important since most paper comes in 8 1/2 X 11.... sometimes your material will be printed out on an electronic submissions... sometimes the submission will probably be looked at on-line.

This discussion has been closed.