The Decline of the American Actor

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 12:46pm

Very interesting and compelling lead about how we really have no exciting American actors under the age of 40.  I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but it's still a great read.

The Decline of the American Actor

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 1:55pm

It's not about the actor, it's about the movies. Below are the top 10 from last week. The best acting opportunity was voice-over work in a Pixar movie. The reason that the last generation of young actors were "great" is because they got into the business during the American film renaissance in the 70s. And as he mentions, TV is currently offering a great number of terrific roles for fantastic young actors. TVs new golden age is giving actors all sorts of great opportunities. The medium's just changed.

 

1). Jurassic World 

2). Inside Out 

3). Spy 

4). San Andreas 

5). Dope 

6). Insidious Chapter 3 

7). Pitch Perfect 2 

. Mad Max: Fury Road 

9). Avengers: Age of Ultron 

10). Tomorrowland 

[Kad]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 1:58pm

The last generation almost all had their start in theatre, or in theatre training.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 2:26pm

Yeah, that list looks like the top 10 grossing box office mid-summer hits from virtually any year.  Summer has never been a big bonanza for the plumb acting performances other than comedic supporting roles.  Those films aren't usually released until the holidays.

As for the article.  Eh.  It's so long-winded and rambling, it sounds as though nothing will really satisfy him other than a time machine.  He lists numerous actors he feels are good and then starts disqualifying them for new reasons, or determines only certain types of films actually count, regardless their performances.  It's all over the place.

If non-American actors are being cast in American roles over equally or better qualified American actors, it's really a question for the directors.  I've seen so many wonderful performances, both expected and surprising, from young American actors in all kinds of films (even recent Oscar-nominated films and roles), but I couldn't tell you if they were the right person for another film, or how they would have tested against another actor, or their availability, etc.  The casting of certain (and relatively few) roles over the past couple of years isn't indicative of the quality or training of American actors under 40.  It's just not.

And though she's more widely known for fluff and/or musicals (Mean Girls, Mamma Mia, Les Miserables), I'd keep an eye on Amanda Seyfried.  Her work on the series Big Love was extraordinary.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 3:00pm

But...speaking with people who represent actors (agents, managers and lawyers), there is a very strong, concerted effort to sign Brit actors because of the very pervasive perception in the industry that the Brits are simply better.  Better trained, more reliable, possessing far more range than their American counterparts.  Whether it is indicative of a decline in the training of American actors, I don't know.  But it is a very real thing that's occurring in the business right now.  

[javero]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 3:02pm

What about under-40 actors from Australia and New Zealand?

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 3:13pm

That's becoming more prevalent as well...but the fact is the ease of access to London (particularly from the East Coast) makes the Brits far easier to court.  But one of my friends is now building at least 2-3 trips a year to Australia to meet with actors down there.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 3:19pm

I also remember this being a rather common perception in the 80s and 90s.  If it's truly affecting the industry in a substantial way, it seems it may have more to do with the higher level of exposure to British television series in the past decade that has gained popularity in the US.

As for training...among those more frequently cast, I do believe this may be true.  Hollywood has always had a love-affair with "discovered" talents since the dawn of the industry.  But I could definitely see reliability being a deal-breaker with serious directors.  The ego-centric bratty entitled persona perpetuated in Hollywood (and much of L.A.) is the Frankenstein's monster of the major studios.

[javero]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 3:25pm

Is actor compensation a factor?  I mean, do the Brits, Aussies, et al work for less?

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 4:19pm

Apparently, this author has never heard of:

Oscar Isaac

Zachary Quinto

Chris Pine

John Gallagher, Jr.

Thomas Sadoski

Aaron Paul

Ben Foster

Corey Stoll

Adam Driver

Jake Gyllenhaal

Ryan Reynolds

Channing Tatum

Ryan Gosling  (sorry, Canadian.... ah well)

Paul Dano

Anthony Mackie

Jesse Eisenberg

Jonah Hill

Robin de Jesus

Dule Hill

Bradley Cooper

Steven Boyer

Taylor Trensch

Brian J. Smith

Billy Magnussen

Michael Shannon

Matt Bomer

Wes Bentley

Updated On: 6/22/15 at 04:19 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 4:24pm

Ryan Reynolds?  Oh girl...let's not hold him up to the light.

Compensation is only a factor in that this is newer talent that wouldn't command the crazy quotes of the current Hollywoood A-list.  But the intent is to get them to that level.  Again, the people I've had discussions with work on the representation side (not creative).  But they work very hard and go to considerable effort to sign Brit actors for many of the perceptions discussed here.  

[Kad]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 4:29pm

The writer rhapsodizes about Gyllenhaal quite a bit, actually.

And to be fair- a great many of those actors have not had star turns on screen. And Michael Shannon is now 40+.

I'm frankly surprised the article didn't really delve into how the Marvel superhero film complex is snatching up actors.

[darquegk]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 4:33pm

Demographic changes have a lot to do with it too. During the 1970s, an actor in his early to mid thirties read as "middle aged," and there was a gravitas, a stoutness of being, that permeated manhood at that time.

Today, people are younger longer. This means that a sort of adolescence of being lasts longer. For mankind as a whole, this is a damn good thing. People are living longer, so the stages of life are stretching out. For actors under 40, it means that the weighty roles are going to people still in the prime of their life, but in a further point of their prime. People who read older because they are older.

 

[javero]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 4:48pm

I'm really impressed with the work of Rami Malek.  He completely knocked it out of the park in the MR ROBOT pilot on the USA Network.

@henrikegerman you had me until Channing Tatum.  If that dude makes anyone's a-list, then we are truly living in the End Times.  Even Channing has remarked that he hasn't quite figured out acting.  Head-butting a mirror in the most boring Hollywood feature film ever released is not likely to raise the bar much.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 4:57pm

I didn't mean that everyone I listed, off the top of my head (so, yeah, perhaps there's one or two slightly on the other side of 40) would nec. be to everyone's taste.

I merely meant that there were more than enough examples to undermine the thesis that there's a lack of talent.

So, if anyone wants to, for example, trade a Tatum for a.... let's see, whom did I leave off?  many, but off the top of my head James Franco or Joseph Gordon-Levitt or Ezra Miller or Emile Hirsch.... be my guest.

Having said that, SonofRobbie, I was, in fact, completely won over by Reynolds's performance in Woman in Gold.  

Updated On: 6/22/15 at 04:57 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 5:06pm

Because these days they choose solely on looks rather than on acting ability. 

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 5:06pm

Chris Pine and Billy Magnusson are great American actors?  Oh-kay.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 5:08pm

As I said, you may not like everyone I mentioned.... it was merely a list to show that there are indeed....

oh, now I'm just repeating myself.

(Not for the first time, not for the last.)

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 5:14pm

I think Oscar Isaac and Adam Driver have the most potential to recall the heyday of DeNiro, Pacino and Hoffman.  They both have that vaguely ethnic appearance about them, they're making names for themselves as intense 'actors' and...well...they're both reaching for wider acclaim with THE FORCE AWAKENS.  Oy.

The 'oy' is about the fact that our best, most interesting actors are all trying to brand themselves in a franchise.  Now...I wouldn't turn it down, either.  But when you look at THE AVENGERS and realize that Ruffalo, Downey, Jr. and Renner are all Oscar-nommed for smaller, quirkier performances, it does make one think, 'What would they be doing if the studios were making stronger mid-sized pictures.'  

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 5:21pm

I'm still on the fence regarding Driver, but I think Oscar Isaac is the real deal.  The question is, will he be a box office draw without signing on to some Hot Franchise?

This is what bothers me about American attitudes toward acting and actors, both in the industry and not:  It's all about the designer label.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 5:29pm

I'm not sure what it will take to bring back the 'off' leading man.  De Niro was kind of hot, but Hoffman and Pacino?  John Cazale?  Of course, De Niro and Pacino have gotten a little calcified in their performances and/or personas (De Niro far more than Pacino).  I think Sadoski is pretty great, but I'm not sure film is where he's going to make a huge mark.  Gyllenhaal is probably the closest we have right now.  He often chooses really interesting projects both on stage and on screen and he delivers.  

[StageManager2]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 5:51pm

I think it's bullsh!t about British/Aussie actors being better-trained. Once upon a time they may have honed their craft on the stage, but these days a lot of them get their start on TV/soaps. I think it's about foreign actors being cheaper, but they're just trying to justify it by saying that they're better-trained. It's a form of outsourching. It's not just for blue-collar jobs anymore. Just like Disney recently laid of hundreds of tech workers at its California/Florida theme parks and replaced them with immigrants (mainly from India) on temporary visas, Hollywood is bringing in foreign actors (mainly Brits and Aussies who can perfect an American accent) at cheaper pricess. I think SAG-AFTRA should get involved. Actors' Equity would never allow this outrage on Broadway!

The US has some of the best drama schools (e.g. Yale, Juilliard, Tisch, ACT, Actors Studio), so I find it very hard to believe that they can't find new talent here, especially since the UK (63 million) only has 1/5 the population of the US (325). In fact, the combined population of the UK, Australia (23), and Canada (35) is only a little over 1/3 !

Nevertheless, the biggest money-makers tend to be American actors per Quigley's Publishing, which has long been regarded as one of the most reliable barometers of a movie star's box-office power. Every now and then, a Brit or Aussie sneaks in. In the past ten years, Hugh Jackman (2012 at #8, 2011 at #3), Christian Bale (2008 at #3), Daniel Craig (2008 at #10), Russell Crowe (2007 at #6), and Sacha Baron Cohen (2006 at #10) were the only foreigners on the list. 

 

http://www.quigleypublishing.com/MPalmanac/Top10/Top10_lists.html

Updated On: 6/22/15 at 05:51 PM

[javero]

Posted: 6/22/15 at 6:05pm

"During the 1970s, an actor in his early to mid thirties read as "middle aged," and there was a gravitas, a stoutness of being, that permeated manhood at that time."

I think you nailed it.  The drugs, booze, playboy lifestyles, body hair, and the occasional stache also made them look like men as opposed to lifelong hs drama club members.

No one could ever see 28 year old Zac Efron starring in A FIST FULL OF DOLLARS or DIRTY HARRY in a few years like Clint Eastwood did between the ages of 30 and 41.  Yeah, Clint is 6' 4" to Zac's 5' 8".  But, Charles Bronson was only 5' 9" and he pulled off what used to be called "a man's man" on film.

I never thought of Eastwood or Bronson as stellar actors but both cut a larger than life image on screen.  In fact, it could argued that they were somewhat one-note but both could carry a film during their heyday.  Unfortunately, many of their biggest hits were fueled by our national blood lust for violence on screen.

ETA: I wasn't slamming drama club members.  It's that when some actors today in their late 20's/early 30's take on maturer roles, they look like they're playing dress up.  Some in that age range read juvenile like Robbie Amell who is still playing high schoolers.

Updated On: 6/23/15 at 06:05 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/23/15 at 10:22am

Because these days they choose solely on looks rather than on acting ability. 

"These days"?!?!  I think the only person who could state that seriously would be too young to form sentences.  Or perhaps was born and raised in a bunker and only released to the outside world in 2013.

 

 

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/23/15 at 10:26am

British actors are not cheaper.  I know the kinds of deals their teams are getting for them. 

Updated On: 6/23/15 at 10:26 AM