The Decline of the American Actor- Page 2

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/23/15 at 11:03am

"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.

Were you trying to make a point there?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/23/15 at 12:13pm

Sorry if that was confusing.  I'll be more specific.

"These days"?!?!  As opposed to when Hollywood was notorious for respecting talent over beauty, glamour, celebrity and potential profits?  

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/23/15 at 12:37pm

"As opposed to when Hollywood was notorious for respecting talent over beauty, glamour, celebrity and potential profits?"

I understand your point, but at least in the "good old days" Hollywood had respect for character actors.  Where in today's plays or movies do you see a Shirley Booth, a Nancy Walker, a Marjorie Main, a Don Knotts?  Actors today have looks but they don't have personalities.

[LarryD2]

Posted: 6/23/15 at 1:18pm

Surely you're kidding when you suggest that there are no great, consistently employed American character actors today. Off the top of my head: Allison Janney, Paul Giamatti, John Goodman, Michael Shannon, JK Simmons, John Hawkes, Judy Greer, Octavia Spencer, Melissa Leo, Jennifer Coolidge, Steve Buscemi, John C. Reilly, Laurie Metcalf, etc.

Updated On: 6/23/15 at 01:18 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/23/15 at 1:33pm

Where in today's plays or movies do you see a Shirley Booth, a Nancy Walker, a Marjorie Main, a Don Knotts?

Melissa McCarthy, Seth Rogan, Jason Segel, Rebel Wilson (though not American), Jim Parsons, Mayim Bialik, Jonah Hill, Amy Poehler...too many to name them all. 

[Roscoe]

Posted: 6/23/15 at 2:11pm

It may also be the decline of willingness to cast American actors, even in minor roles -- I mean really, what did Jared Harris really bring to the role of Ulysses S. Grant in Spielberg's LINCOLN that any number of American actors couldn't have supplied?

[StageManager2]

Posted: 6/23/15 at 5:34pm

... or Benedict Cumberbatch and Ewan McGregor in August: Osage County or Alex Pettyfer in Lee Daniels' The Butler.

Updated On: 6/23/15 at 05:34 PM

[StageManager2]

Posted: 6/23/15 at 5:43pm

Incidentally, another relatively unknown British actor was just cast to play Peter Parker/Spider-Man. I mean, it's not like you need to be a trained Shakespearean actor to portray a superhero in a summer popcorn flick, so this business about Brits being cast as Americans instead because they're 'better-trained' is hogwash! There's definitely backroom deals going on that is benefiting British (and Aussie) actors.

Updated On: 6/23/15 at 05:43 PM

[javero]

Posted: 6/23/15 at 7:33pm

Perhaps it has to do with the all-import overseas revenue stream.

Denzel Washington's earlier work on screen was not really a huge box office draw overseas despite his success in the US.  But, if you pair him with Clive Owen you can expect an up-tick in ticket sales abroad, e.g Inside Man.  In that particular flick, both Washington and Jody Foster got a boost from Clive Owen's participation.

And movies with themes related largely to the female experience, African-American experience or featuring a cast of mainly black actors have historically been niche features.  But, cast Cate Blanchett, Keira Knightley, Dame Judy Dench, Helen Mirren or the black British A-list actors du jour and the movie's prospects of at least breaking even at the box office increase exponentially.

Tom Ford's foray in feature film the indie flick A SINGLE MAN starring Colin Firth and Julianne Moore brought in the lion's share of its lifetime gross from abroad.  In fact, the movie barely broke even domestically.

I've watched a ton of foreign films in which the non-American male lead, often a married straight actor, handled playing a gay or questioning character with ease.  Many also appear to be much more comfortable with nudity on film as well.  Strangely, it's when I see an American male actor on screen either nude or depicting a gay character that I feel somewhat prudish.

Updated On: 6/23/15 at 07:33 PM

[StageManager2]

Posted: 6/23/15 at 11:40pm

Please, Javero! I doubt British/Aussie actors have much more pull than Americans worldwide unless they're also A-list actors. To suppose that a movie would do better overseas just because it has a British/Aussie actor in it is naive at most. I can see the argument that it would probably do better in the UK/Australia, but not other foreign markets... unless, like I said, they're also bankable, renown stars like Daniel Craig or Hugh Jackman. But I highly doubt that hiring relatively unknown Brits (like Henry Cavill when he was hired for Man of Steel and Tom Holland for the new Spider-Man) or Aussies (like Chris Hemsworth when he was hired for Thor) is going to do much for those movies' grosses worldwide. In short, just because because the UK/Australia are foreign countries to us doesn't mean that hiring a Brit/Aussie (especially an unknown at that) will ensure that other foreign countries will take to them, which is what you're suggesting.

 

BTW: All the main principals in Selma were played by Brits, and that movie was still a bust everywhere.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/24/15 at 12:20am

"it is naive at most."

Is that what you meant to write?

[javero]

Posted: 6/24/15 at 12:44am

@StageManager

What I'm suggesting is that movies that have the right combination of universal themes, actors with universal appeal, and some overseas location shooting tend to do well overseas.  Everybody loves a superhero or a character on screen with superpowers than can save the day.  Movie making is an extremely costly & risky proposition and more than one Hollywood insider has weighed in on the importance of overseas revenue.

I made no claim that casting a Brit meant box office success by default.  But folks take pride in their own.  My sources tell me that it's still a big thing for a Brit, Aussie, continental, Asian or African actor to land a plum role in an American movie.  You're free of course to continue doubting the relevance of casting foreigners to generate buzz abroad.  But, I on the other hand see it as good business which at the end of the day trumps art & goodwill.

Follow the money at American Movie Flops: 6 Movies That Had More Success Overseas

And have a look-see at where the top grossing movies of 2014 were shot at The Geography of Box Office Success

 

Updated On: 6/24/15 at 12:44 AM

[wonkit]

Posted: 6/24/15 at 8:53am

In response to the list of actors in post #9 - I can only say that I concur with Sadoski (because I saw him on stage) and Corey Stoll (because he has the range to do Hemingway and HOMELAND). The others - meh. Quito didn't impress me particularly on stage. And every actor named Chris under the age of 40 looks the same to me.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/24/15 at 10:41am

Hollywood has a long standing love for foreign talent going back to the days of Nazimova (also a great big Broadway star) and Valentino, Garbo and Dietrich, Howard and Leigh. This is nothing new.

Some of this love might be ascribed to a dubiously refined admiration for everything European.  

But really why not?  Why should there be a protectionist bent when it comes to casting?
Hollywood is an international brand.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/24/15 at 11:05am

You also have to realize that, at some point in the last 15-20 years, the coveted training for actors in the industry flipped from conservatory-like training to improv training ie. The Groundlings and UCB.  Now...there is nothing wrong at all with improv training, but when that's all the training you have, it's going to be hard to expand your range to something that may have a more classical bent.  And, because of the language, something like AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY has a more formal feel than any of the Apatow-like comedies being produced.  You need actors that can bring heft and gravitas to some productions.  The business looks to Britain and Australia for those types of actors.  I'm not saying it's because they ARE better trained, but they are most assuredly perceived as better trained.  

I've told this story before, but about 15 or so years ago, a friend I went to drama school with was up for a schlocky B-movie.  She was not a particularly good actress.  At all.  But she had gone through the same training I had and she had the same sort of knowledge base.  She went to the callback and, instead of having them read from script of the film, the director had them read a monologue from Maggie in CAT...  She got the part, not because she was the only one who knew what CAT was, but because she was the only woman of the five who even knew who Tennessee Williams was.  I decided I should stay in NYC right then and there.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/24/15 at 11:23am

I think improv training is absolutely essential for acting, actually, and typically egregiously overlooked in conservatories. But, like you said, there has to be a foundation of voice & speech, movement, text analysis, etc. But the improv schools were, and still *mostly* are, less expensive, and more able to show off talented people by funneling them directly into legitimate performance opportunities or giving people venues for performance. The relationship between training and public, legitimate performance in improv is basically unparalleled in conservatories, even those with relationships with or connected to theatre companies.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/24/15 at 11:34am

I don't disagree with you at all.  Part of the core training at my university was a full year exploring improve (voice work, text analysis, blah blah blah).  I don't consider myself a terrific improv guy, but there are several shows I've done that would have been virtually impossible without some basis in the art.  I've worked with a couple of actors that were genius at improv, but when presented with slightly more complex text they were completely adrift.  I've also worked with some theaters (Shakespeare festivals and stuff) where the main focus was on the 'bit.'  I had never worked that way in my life, so I really had no idea what was happening.  The mechanics of the bit became the be-all and, by the time it got to performance, it was a robotic thing that had no soul and no spontaneity.

I guess I don't really know what I'm saying here.  Perhaps the training in a smaller theater place like England is more formalized without much variation.  Maybe training here is really disparate and uneven.  I'm not sure that's a bad thing.  It's great to have people who kill at improv and others who can lie back into verse and sell that.  And there's a few that can do it all.  Maybe it just is what it is and I should stop over-analyzing.  

[Kad]

Posted: 6/24/15 at 11:40am

I'm not sure if it's training in the UK, or more of a focus on a career in theatre in general. In America, theatre seems often treated as a jumping-off point for screen careers- for both actors AND writers (so many young playwrights have one play mounted in NYC, and then immediately go to LA). Screen is the ultimate goal for a lot of performers. But in the UK, it seems actors are more willing to go between screen and stage- one is not seen as more ideal or preferred. I think the go-between makes for richer performances.

 

I really do think the missing thing in this generation of American screen actors is theatre training- not just in class but, y'know, practice.

Updated On: 6/24/15 at 11:40 AM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/24/15 at 12:51pm

Yeah...'practice' is the key word there.  It's one thing to study it...and another thing to do it.  I think the best training I've had is working in the indie theater scene.  Rehearsal periods are short, previews are non-existent and you have to be opening night ready by final dress.  I've done a few shows downtown with folks who were solely doing Broadway or major regional runs and they were astonished by how quickly and smartly we all had to work.  

The other advantage the UK has is that the center of the theater and film worlds there is London.  It's very, very easy for actors to have access to all kinds of acting opportunities, going from stage to tv to screen with ease.  

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/24/15 at 2:10pm

She got the part, not because she was the only one who knew what CAT was, but because she was the only woman of the five who even knew who Tennessee Williams was.  I decided I should stay in NYC right then and there."

Darling Robbie, I'm just longing to see you play Maggie in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof...sometime.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 6/24/15 at 4:48pm

An envelope-pushing dual role as Big Daddy and Big Momma would be off the charts.  Somebody call Ivo Van Hove!!

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/24/15 at 5:25pm

Have I told you all about my new cabaret show entitled "Sister Woman: Songs of the Old South"?

I'm going to sing 'Skinnamarinkydinkydink' for an hour straight while wearing a Confederate war flag gown over pregnancy padding.  

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/24/15 at 9:03pm

#galesoflaughter

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/25/15 at 12:01am

I'd pony up for the premium seats at 54 Below for THAT.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 6/25/15 at 1:06am

This argument has been going on since Olivier was cast in Wuthering Heights and his wife was cast in Gone With the Wind that same year.  Ridiculous.  Directors will cast whomever they feel are best for the role despite their training or lack of it.  Sure, coming out of Yale (Streep) or Juliard (Kline) or LAMDA (Oyelowo) might give you a leg up, but it won't land you the role.  There are plenty of terrific actors (Jodie Foster, Helen Mirren) who had no formal training whatsoever and plenty who came out of high profile training programs never to be heard from again.