Why do people lie in their bio's/resumes?

[Mrs B]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 2:57pm

Was reading William Michals'snew bio in WHO'S WHO on here. He claims he starred as Javert in LES MIS on the tour. He was only a cover.

To be fair, he did not submit his own info, but why do performers lie about stuff like this? Do they think being "only an understudy" is beneath them?

I worked in a casting office and my boss would always throw people's resumes in a "do not use" pile if he knew they were lying. The boss always liked people to say "understudied and performed" for roles.

Any thoughts?

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 3:03pm

Lying on bios is the only fun part of writing them!

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 3:20pm

One word: EGO!

People are stupid to think that they will not eventually be found out. This buisness is too small. Someone will know someone. I knew an actor who put a false credit on his resume only to end up auditioning for the director of that production! Talk about embarassing. No, he was not cast. And, yes, that credit was taken off his resume.

[Amneris]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 3:32pm

I guess once you perform the role a few times some people say you then have the right to list that you "starred" rather than covered because it does sound better. For instance, one of the chorus girls in Saturday Night Fever went on as ANNETTE *ONE* time and in her bio wrote that she played the role of annette on bway. So...maybe it's an ego thing or maybe it's just to make the resume seem "more professional"

[luluhed]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 4:04pm

Another reason forlying on an acting resume, or 'stretching the truth' is to make it appear that you have experience when you're just starting out. You can't exactly have an empty sheet on back of your 8x10, right?

Anyway, I learned the hard way to remove every single 'stretch' from mine. I had claimed on my resume that I was actually 'in' a regional production of Rocky Horror. The truth was that I lip-synched the part while the movie was on the screen with the rest of the 'pretend' cast. This entry was on my resume for so long that I forgot about it. Well, when the Broadway production was being cast, an agent informed me that I was being submitted. Oh boy, besides being middle aged now, and not a singer nor dancer, I told the agent I doubt if I could do it. He reminded me that it was on my resume. Well, hamina, hamina (think the Honeymooners)..........

[BrdwyThtr]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 4:22pm

I think it's stupid! The casting directors should be looking at you based on your talent, not by what a piece of paper says.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 4:27pm

Well, experience is important to try and gauge someone's abilities based on MORE than what they do in a minute long audition. An audition may not be as representative of someone's 'talent' as they or the producers might like it to be and a resume helps fill in the blanks a little better.

It's still pot luck but it's good to know if someone's been given the ball before when putting a good amount of time and money into them.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 5:19pm

I have a favorite story about lying on bio's:

Many years ago I was in a dinner theater production of SOUTH PACIFIC and my friend Amy was playing one of the nurses. She had a few lines and so she was given her bio in the program. In that bio she listed the part of "Bonnie" in APPLAUSE at a the Airport Playhouse. I was IN that very production of APPLAUSE and knew very well that another friend, Ricky Lynn, played "Bonnie". I didn't say anything to Amy. Instead, I invited Ricky Lynn to see SOUTH PACIFIC as my guest. Ricky read the bio and grew furious. When the show was over she accosted Amy and one helluva catfight broke out in the restaurant. Tables were actually overturned and I think the management is still sweeping up hair that was pulled from both scalps.... I stood by in amused silence.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 6:18pm

As far as Understudy vs. played the role, I think that they should say that they understudied the role. I have always said that it takes more talent to understudy a lead role than it does to play the role full time.

ALTHOUGH, if you want to get into technicalities, when you think about it, if they were an understudy with performances, they DID PLAY the role on Broadway so it really isn't lying, but stretching I guess. Updated On: 7/11/03 at 06:18 PM

[Mrs B]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 7:06pm

My point exactly, broadwayguy2. They may have PLAYED it but they were not CONTRACTED to only play that role. If I sing "I Dreamed A Dream" while standing on Broadway and 53rd, do I have the right to say I sang Fantine on Broadway?

It also bothers me the way the word "Starred" is bandied about. With no offense to any performer, unless their name is OVER THE TITLE and they are the main reason tickets are sold, I do not think the term "Starred" or "Star" is valid.

Some chorus guy from MAN OF LA MANCHA was recently doing a concert and his press release read "MOLM Star to Appear at..."

I am sure that was news to Brian Stokes Mitchell.

I think any performer who makes it to Broadway in a time of limited employment opportunities should be happy to be able to claim what they DO do and not lie about their position in an attempt to make themsleves feel more important.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 7:10pm

The term 'star' apllies wether or not it is above the title. If a person is billed as "starring" or "also starring", thet ARE cosidered a star of the show.

[DofB5]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 7:25pm

People do the same sort of thing in "mundane" life as well. It always gives me a chuckle when you check up on someone who managed a McD's and turns out he/she was on the clean up crew.

Well, it sounds good on paper anyway.

:)

D

[luluhed]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 7:39pm

The worst I ever knew about was a guy who listed the films he was an extra in, as film roles.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 8:10pm

Job seekers lie on their resumes, or stretch the truth, in every profession. It's not a question of validity its a question of ethics. We'll neve stop it, why even discuss it?

Yours for a better Broadway!

[TheaterBaby]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 10:23pm

It's pretty well known that Bernadette Peters lied on her resume when she was starting out. She claimed to have starred as Dainty June when she really played a Hollywood Blonde and Understudied Dainty June. It wasn't until years later (when she did concerts and was well established as a leading Broadway Actress/Singer) that she fessed up.
It's not hurting anyone by fudging your resume a little bit. What other chance is there in this business (without sleeping with someone in charge)?

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 10:52pm

It's all in the wording on bio's and there's lots of room for intrepretations on this subject.

I handle a lot of press kits and bio info. and it can get kinda tricky. In William's case, if he was the cover/understudy for Javert and went on once,or a dozen times in the role, it's safe to list that he " played the title role". But if that were the case, it's not fair to say he "starred" in Les Miz as Javert if he was not cast as the principal in the title role. One little word "starred" can mislead a reader.

Last month, I met up with and interviewd William and also met Carolyn, a very nice lady, who posted the who's who's. The posting is taken directly from his credits on his website. So William should be aware of the wording. I will see William on Fri. but I doubt I would mention this. It just doesn't seem that important an issue.

What is important is that you not "let your nose grow too long" by listing gross exxagerations or worse yet listing shows you've never been in. People will know and they will rat you out!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/11/03 at 11:33pm

My two cents: =)

Using the word "starred" when you didn't get that kind of billing is wrong. There's no way to stretch that when "starred" implies name on Marquee or above title. Javert isn't even the starring role. That just sounds silly.

However, if you played the role, you played the role--and I think you have every right to say "I played Javert on Broadway" if, in fact, you did. It's not a lie or a stretch. You learned the part. You did the part. You had the experience. Contracts are for money matters while resumes & bios are for promoting one's experience. I could see someone arguing that you should only list on your resume as things were listed in the program and/or contract. But, I don't see it as lying or stretching--unless you never went on. And, perhaps for a long running show, it is seen as obvious that if you understudied, you inevitably went on. But, yes, getting to list that you played Javert on Broadway says one is probably ready to play lead roles. And, an actor has to do everything they can (honestly) to get cast. (and as have been mentioned--even dishonesty got some people where they are. I wonder if the casting directors or directors even cared as long as the person was good).

Your talent is important--but WHO you are can be even more important. Do you think that casting/auditioning is really "fair"? That the best person who auditions will get the part? Some of the "best" people audition everyday--and will never even get a call-back when there is a star, or performer with an agent or connection or bigger credits (esp Bway) heading into to audition as well. It's just the hard knocks of this biz.

:)

Updated On: 7/11/03 at 11:33 PM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/12/03 at 1:52am

to industry people, 'starred' does not imply above the title or marquee billing. Every pricipal in HAIRSPRAY is billed as 'starring' and they are all below the title and not on the marquee. "Starring" and "also starring" only imply that you were a pricipal.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/12/03 at 11:06am

That's a good point broadwayguy2. =)

[sabrelady]

Posted: 7/13/03 at 5:57pm

Hey I've seen people list themselves as "stunt" performers when they've never done ANYthing in that area. It's real simple. GET THE JOB!!! then u can fudge fake or stare in wonderment (don't know WHAT your talking about).