comment #1

christian says ...

of course it's he stage background. a lot of "actors" i meet here just want that gig in a sitcom or OC show or lucrative commercials. most have no sense of theatrical history nor intent. the ones that do, don't get as much work.

comment #2

RoyBatty says ...

The short answer is money and laziness.

In the US, the vast majority of actors come not to New York to break into acting, but LA. Invariably, they are the high school goof-offs and dropouts, looking for that overnight success payoff who heard one too many people tell them growing up "Wow, you're really attractive - you should an actor or something!" And unfortunately, there are just enough success stories like that every year to keep the machine running.

Whereas in the UK, even if you end up on a popular TV show or in a film the money is only so-so, but certainly not "fuck you" levels. When Simon Pegg was doing "Spaced" he was still sharing a flat. Mind you, this was after he already established himself with small parts in several different shows. I think English actos understand better that the chances of success are low, so best to actually love it for a reward.

It also probably has to do with English schools, that place more emphasis on diction than US ones. Talk to teachers who worked public schools in the 70's and 80's, many will tell you about continued run-ins with the parents of non-white students who would jump down their throats for trying to "teach my kid how to talk white."

comment #3

AH says ...

Okay, first of all, look at the source. What is The Guardian going to say, that British actors AREN'T as accomplished as their American cousins?

Second, stage acting doesn't work in the movies. Stage is a completely different animal.

Third, and this is the big one, there are as many bad British actors as there are bad American actors. However, we only get to see the good British actors because no one is importing bad British movies and/or TV shows.

I was in England recently and, believe me, there are as many bad movies/shows over there, as there are over here. The only difference is that: (a) we make more product so overall there is more to criticize, and (b) we get to see all the crap that is made here while we only see their cream of the crop.

Sorry for the long response.

comment #4

christian says ...

it's true there is just as much crap over there as here. but the narcissism is more prevalent here.

i was at a la la party once with some struggling actor friends except for one friend who was in construction and at least two agents approached him to see if he wanted to be an actor because he was "so good looking." i felt sad for my other friends who were actually doing it for love.

comment #5

Rich S. says ...

Now that the Bond franchise has been revived, my only regret is that Judi Dench never got to verbally spar with Connery's Bond. That would have been something to see, and hear.

In fact, and I think I've commented on this before, SCTV actually did a skit on this very idea. It was "The Man Who Would Be King of the Popes," starring Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole and Richard Harris. And co-starring Kate Hepburn, as "the only woman whose voice allows her to share a scene with these men without being blown completely off the screen."

comment #6

Cadavra says ...

The preference for looks over talent has also cost us that pool of wonderful character actors who used to enliven any film in the old days. Even SNAKES ON A PLANE would have been vastly improved with a plane full of colorful characters instead of a bunch of stiffs cast solely for their "hotness."

One of the reasons the Harry Potter films are so much fun is because of all the fabulously talented Brits who turn up even in the tiniest parts.

comment #7

christian says ...

it's worse for actresses here. look at the wretched 20-something faux-blonde bimbos that keep getting cast in major films. any jessica comes to mind...

comment #8

T. S. Idiot says ...

As a deep-seated Angophile with a huge collection of British films and telly proggies on DVD, I love English acting. They are much better craftsmen than Americans and less egocentric, but generally they don't convey the nuances of personality as well as the best American actors: Pacino, De Niro, Streep, Walken, Sam Jackson, Depp, etc. There are exceptions, of course, with Tony Hopkins and Hughie Grant being especially American in their neuroses. Of course, Rusty Crowe is the greatest living actor in his prime, but that's another story.

comment #9

jjgittes says ...

They're more accomplished not only due to the theatrical background but because they continue to return to the theater which sharpens their skills.

Only Pacino regularly does theater work in comparison to the the other American male actors of his stature.

It's a source of shame for our actors.

comment #10

DavidF says ...

It's because Americans are suckers for a British accent.

If you heard Helen Mirren or Peter O'Toole read the Philadelphia phone book you'd still be in awe of their diction.

That's not to say they're not better actors and that their stage experience isn't valuable but y'all totally fall for the accent thing.

comment #11

L.B. says ...

It's all in the training. British actors not only tend to have years of it behind them, but have also had to rise up through the ranks of various theater companies based on their abilities. Though she cracks wise to the contrary, Helen Mirren couldn't work her way up to being a lead at the RSC based on good looks alone. With learned skills and technique on top of natural talent, you have a force to be reckoned with. And any intelligent actor knows that when the camera rolls, they don't have to pitch their performance to the back row.

It is true that stage and film acting require different skills. But it's also a common misconception that stage acting is broad and overblown. It is very delicate and subtle as well. It just uses different "muscles" than film does. But great actors adapt to their surroundings. Just as a stage actor knows the difference between playing a 100 seat black box and playing the Met.

Unfortunately, in the States, theater is the treated like the bastard stepchild instead of the fountain of the art. In LA it seems theater is primarily used as a way for a TV or movie actor to "show some range". ("See? I can do drama, too!") But the skill that comes from learning your craft and repeatedly honing it when you return cannot be so easily added.

As sad as it is, it seems Piven's quote from an episode of Entourage sums up the industry's opinion of the stage: "Theater is there so ugly people get to act, too."

comment #12

L.B. says ...

As for "accomplished", yeah, it is a bit more accomplished to have played a score of the finest roles ever created in drama than it is to do the soap opera to sitcom to supporting role to star route. (And even that route is more accomplished than much of what we get these days.

comment #13

hatchetface says ...

"Unfortunately, in the States, theater is treated like the bastard stepchild instead of the fountain of the art."

Well-said L.B., and the reality sucks.
I'm a die-hard film lover, but I've seen live stage performances that were electric and immediate in ways that film cannot be. To be honest, live stage performances used to make me uneasy because - compared to tv or film - in a small, intimate theater, it becomes a nearly confrontational experience. Sharing the same space with living, breathing, sweating players can be strong stuff; strong enough that I think too many people have let themselves get hung up by a couple poor high school productions they groaned through, or vastly expensive, blaring and garishly obnoxious musicals they were subjected to while traveling. It's really a shame.

comment #14

MPNeeb says ...

I don't think it's just theatrical training that creates so many fine British actors. (It helps greatly, but not the whole story.)
Since most British actors have to start in Britain and succeed in Britain, that process weeds out the hacks and pikers because the bad actors won't get noticed enough to make it across the Atlantic. In essence, Britain serves as a talent incubator.
In Hollywood, most performers have more avenues to take and are not quickly eliminated. Example: Pauly Shore- well connected and got lead roles before anyone even knew he was terrible. If he had to start somewhere else, he never would have gotten past the first stoplight.

comment #15

houmas says ...

As has been mentioned, Britain is full of bad actors and wannabes. Most of them are on television or soap operas. Americans will rarely get to see the tedious, one note acting inflicted on the British public in popular soaps like Eastenders and Hollyoaks.

Americans only get to see the "cream of the crop" of British actors. Only rarely do Brits allow their mediocrities to be imported to Hollywood (ie Orlando Bloom, Jason Statham, Vinne Jones, Kiera Knightly).

Americans need to get rid of this inferiority complex. American television is the best in the world at the moment, and that's where the vast majority of first rate American acting talent is residing. The entire (mostly North American) ensemble casts of The Shield, 24, Battlestar Galactica and The Sopranos ect, put most British serial dramas to shame. The Wire has a couple of British actors in major roles, but it's mostly Americans, and every single one of them is fantastic. The movie studios are too interested in building up the lastest pretty boy/girl, instead of nurturing real talent. Hence why the likes of Channing "wooden" Tatum is being pimped to leading man status.

Stage experience can be helpful, but ultimately, I don't think it's essential. If the talent is there, it will come to fruition. I've seen plenty of stage actors who were weak film actors. Conversely, some of the greatest film actors today have very little (if any) stage experience. The British Kate Winslet and Christian Bale have never been stage actors, yet are considered the best female and male British actors of their generation by many. Johnny Depp learned his craft on televsion (21 Jump Street), not stage. For Depp, 4 seasons of a middling cop show was an invaluable training for his future film career.

Bale, like Jodie Foster, was a gifted child actor, who learned his craft on film. But unless you are insanely gifted (like Bale or Foster), learning your craft on film is not a recommended option. It can take awhile to be fully in command of your craft, but in the meantime, millions of people will see every mistake you make, every mediocre performance you give, and ultimately, it can harm the perception of an actors talent. Tom Cruise is a perfect example of a reasonably talented actor who learned his craft on film, and who has never been allowed to forget the shallowness and vapidness of his early performances (ie Top Gun, Cocktail, Days Of Thunder ect).

Television is a great place for young American actors to learn their craft. You see young American talents like Evan Rachel Wood doing 60 episodes of a TV show like "Once And Again". By the time Wood does a movie like Thirteen, she's accrued more than enough professional experience to blow most of her contemporaries off the screen. By the time Kirsten Bell (the lead in Veronica Mars) is finished with her television show and ready to play lead roles on film, she'll be one of the best actresses of her age group.

comment #16

houmas says ...

Having just said a stage background isn't essential to being a great film actor, I don't think it's a coincidence that the majority of the best, gravitas laden American film actors/actresses of the past 30 years, all have early career stage training/experience or an extensive stage background. These include;

Kevin Spacey
Al Pacino
Denzel Washington
Tom Hanks
Samuel L Jackson
Morgan Freeman
Dustin Hoffman
Robert DeNiro
Gene Hackman
Sean Penn
William Hurt
John Malkovich
Don Cheadle

Meryl Streep
Susan Sarandon
Jessica Lange
Glenn Close
Holly Hunter
Laura Linney
Angela Basset
Stockard Channing
Sigourney Weaver

comment #17

Hallick says ...

"By the time Kirsten Bell (the lead in Veronica Mars) is finished with her television show and ready to play lead roles on film, she'll be one of the best actresses of her age group."

Maybe. But Sarah Michelle Gellar went seven seasons in an equally (or moreso) lauded series but she still doesn't deliver much on film. And Bell hasn't registered much in the films I've seen her in either, as much as I like her on VM.