Hackett

Aitch,
Do you recall an extra called Vic?. He played one of Harold Shands gang in "THE LONG GOODFRIDAY". Slick back hair going a bit gray has a tosh. He looks a bit and I'v seen him play Orientals. Off the top of my head I can remember him as far back in "THE PASSWORD IS COURAGE". The reason I ask is he was in "THE GUNS OF NAVERONE" as one of the German soldiers turned away from the wedding reception party where Peck and Niven are captured and one of the guards on the bridge who is killed and chucked over the side (I'm sure he's not a stuntman). Both scenes looks like they was shot in Greece and not in a studio or back lot. Is it possable he went on location?. Not just as an extra but have another job within the crew.

ChristineCB

Ooh, ooh - this is an interesting point to me. Would a film's so-called "extras" often be part of the crew, some 2nd or 3rd-Assistant Something? And when they needed to fill in a crowd scene, the film's support crew would assume those duties for brief times?

Would this be one of the added duties for location shoots?

Idly curious, that's me.

Steve Crook

I know that Michael Powell used to do that, especially when he was on location. When they just wanted a few more bodies in shot he'd get some members of the crew to do it - or do it himself.

The best example that springs to mind is in 49th Parallel when they were filming in Canada and he got a camera grip (Leslie Falardeau) and the stills photographer (Jack Hynes) to play the part of the seaplane pilots at the Hudson Bay station.

He used to do quite a few fill-in roles himself. Not trying to do a Director's Cameo like Hitchcock, just because it was easier and quicker than hiring someone to do it. He started doing it when he was making his Quota Quickies like Hotel Splendide (1932) and The Fire Raisers (1934) and then he carried on doing it through some of his other films. Even Emeric Pressburger got roped in to pad out the crowd on Nice station in The Red Shoes. He has his back to the camera but I'm assured it's Emeric.

Steve

harryfielder

I was in the biz for 32 years 1966-1998 and got to meet thousands of extras in my time.There were many Vics and Tonys and Berts (and that was just the women)
I think if your Vic was in ''Guns'' out in Greece he could have been a stand/in for one of the main cast ( and production can use you in crowd scenes) for which he would get extra pay. (I did it many times it's called perks of the job.) See my story on The Devils 1971.
I did a few days on The Long Good Friday but all I had to do was drive a police car all over the place. (boring)

C.B.....The crew try not to do this as they have their own work to do. It does happen on rare occations.
I remember on a shoot in London on one of the bridges and we heard by phone that the three A.D.s were in a car smash on a motorway on the way to work at 7am but none were hurt (just shaken) and would be late.
The director was flapping because the tied was going out and he wanted to get at least one shot in.
Now I knew all the crew..sparks/sound/props etc so I said to the director..''Where do you want your first camera position''
By the time the A.D.s turned up we had three shots in the can and everyone was happy

Happy days..

Aitch,

http://www.turnipnet.com/aitch/aitch/gallery.htm

ChristineCB

Yes, that's sort of what I thought - for the expediency's sake. And then there's the Hitchcockian "do it for the lark" comes about.

But when the notion of troupe travel for location shots, I wondered if 'troupes' really existed (as if a producer or director would have a consistent production staff for years or for series of films), then maybe the Hitchcockian notion of For Lark's Sake and Expediency's Sake might merge over time and the crew might see "location shoots require some extras work".

Thanks for these notes.

Steve Crook

Again I refer you to Powell & Pressburger
They called their production company The Archers, but that was really a reference to the whole team. They gathered together a crew that were all at the top of their game and the same people were used on many of their films. They were all just hired for each film so sometimes some of them weren't available and people would come and go from the team. But it's quite common to see the same names in the crew (& cast) on quite a few of their films over a period of quite a few years.

In fact it's almost true to say that if someone worked with The Archers for just one film then they probably weren't very good or weren't as flexible as was required.

Steve

ChristineCB

"Weren't very good" or "weren't flexible enough in work schedules". Yes, I can imagine.

Do you think such "work troupes" were more prevalent in ages past or now, in the present?

A few years ago, Clint Eastwood was in town for a film festival, and he discussed "his" production crew being with him for 25 years or so, using so many of the same people "although often heads of departments would change" - he would end up with the same grips, lighting techs, craftsmen, etc. And an abundance of the same support actors, too.

In a Studio System, I imagine a work-troupe mentality will occur because they are employees to the Studio and are assigned (or re-assigned upon a film maker's request) to a project.

But as the formalized studio system changed (and well before the Clint Eastwood Production Company occurred), some film makers obviously maintained this "work troupe" mentality.

I can imagine today's younger film makers don't have the power to insist on such a thing, OR are too new to the game to reject ideas about working with other folk (maybe the money-providers insist on their daughter or son be employed, after all).

Still, I would imagine the "work troupe" would give a film-maker more freedom for HIS job because he could have some assurance that the other tasks would be performed as they "always had been". Is this a correct assumption?

At the same time, production crews aren't making a film-maker's fortune and could need to fill their months and years with other work, thereby inserting the "scheduling flexibility" issue into it.

Or maybe this should be a whole other thread...except I wonder how many supporting character actors and/or extras can work with frequency. One out of 10? One out of 50?

Steve Crook

I think it was always difficult to set them up and maintain them, even when crew were employed by the studio. Even more so when they were all independent. As you say, if someone was working on another project it would have been difficult to drop that and go and re-join the "work troupe".

But it does seem to have worked well whenever I've heard of it being done. As you say, it lets everyone, especially the director and producer, get on with what they're good at and want to do, knowing that the other departments will do a good job.

Steve

harryfielder

Or maybe this should be a whole other thread...except I wonder how many supporting character actors and/or extras can work with frequency. One out of 10? One out of 50?
***************
In life it's who you know not what you know
I know of one guy who went into the biz in 1955 and still gets the odd jobs.
He has collected call sheets from day one and I have tried to buy them off him but he won't sell.
Now that is a lot of film history.
A lot of my contacts in the biz have passed on but I'm happy sitting in my house out in the sticks of Hertfordshire with the same lady I married in 1963.
I've still got the memories....

Aitch,

http://www.turnipnet.com/aitch/aitch/gallery.htm

ChristineCB

The phrase "The Richest Man In Town" comes to mind. From your website, that's what I often think, and it's great for you and so many others here to share the wealth.

I know most of the stars' names and faces, but in the past 5 or 6 years, it's a fascination with linking the supporting cast that charms me about films.

Moor Larkin

I have an old Movie mag which has an article from 'Location' for a Kirk Douglas movie (I forget which). A big part of the feature is about his son, Michael, who has taken time-out from College to be on-set with his dad.........

Kirk comments that he has to have his son go off-set when he does kissing scenes because Michael's presence makes him too self-conscious........

Different times..........

[code]http://www.flickr.com/photos/29487363@N02/sets/72157606700675506/code]

Hackett

Kirk comments that he has to have his son go off-set when he does kissing scenes because Michael's presence makes him too self-conscious........
To be an actor don't you have to be self-conscious?.

smiffy

I presume michael had the same problem when he was filming DISCLOSURE with Demi Moore.......very different times...........

I May be getting older ,but I refuse to grow up

Steve Crook

Well thanks to Mark (penfold), we now have the article from Picture Post, January 14, 1939 online.

See A Day In The Life Of An Extra.
That purports to show what life was like for an extra in 1939.
Although there are a few things in the article that we know are wrong so it might have all just been a scheme to show some pictures of young women in their underwear and to help promote Korda's films

Steve

D Cairns

"To be an actor don't you have to be self-conscious?"

Actually, no, most of the time self-consciousness in actors is fatal. Consciousness is the director's job! Knowing the director is watching and will stop them looking stupid, actors become free to behave naturally and create a lifelike, charismatic performance. If they feel the director isn't paying proper attention or doesn't have good taste, they start judging their own performance, which starts to interfere with giving of their best...