Why are British actors so good?

People will say "the training" or "the theatre" but we have training and theatre here. Why''s it better there?

There may be "training" in the U.S., but other than at a few select drama schools, the type of drama, speech & voice training that American actors get pales in comparison to that at the British schools.
They''re not.
A working actor in England has to have more than breast implants,dyed hair, and a leaked sex tape.
Because "METHOD" acting is shite, it''s just shit, and RADA is really good and has been going for hundreds of years literally.\ \ Our people are just fucking lazy and Brits actually Learn To Act.
Um, like Keira Knightley?
this thread is CLOSED
I think British and Irish actors take it more seriously as a profession and craft. The don''t see it as a vehicle to fame, celebrity and money like their U.S. counterparts, many of whom start acting with no training or even the wish to take acting classes.%0D\ %0D\ I believe that much of it is a vestige of the old studio system which the UK lacked. Most U.S actors aspired to Hollywood and broad appeal. Britons didn''t have a movie industry at the time (or much of one) so the theater was for all intents and purposes their only option. It required serious dedication and training, which required a certain level of literacy that wasn''t there for Hollywood counterparts and it set a precedent for succesive generations of actors.%0D\ %0D\ I hope this made sense.
Most British actors that come to prominence in the US have strong stage backgrounds. There are plenty of crap actors in the UK, and you''ll find them on Emmerdale, East Enders and Coronation Street. But the actors who go all the way master their craft on the stage, and then gravitate to films and television. %0D\ %0D\ In the US, it seems to be all about the fame, and less about the craft. And if you want to be famous, you''ve got to be a movie star. There are plenty of good actors in the US who started off on stage: Streep, Pacino, Hoffman (both Dustin and Phillip Seymour), but the majority of movie stars would be laughed off the stage (and some who have ventured there, have: Julia Roberts and Jennifer Garner).
Oh yeah, well we have Patti LuPone!
And don''t forget Megan Fox.
They also get more experience. One small English speaking country fills an entire cable spectrum and an entire theatre district. \ \ There must be steady work for even bad actors. That''s why you see so many of them recycled for export series.
couldn''t act, so I bought some tits and became a news reader
\ I think it may be it''s ingrained in them from their strong theatrical tradition, Shakespeare,etc. Plus, I think that "theatrical" English accent is tres sexy! Sir Ian McKellen reading the Taco Bell menu would beat Tom Cruise playing Hamlet anyday!\ And---I LOVE Dame Judi Dench and Dame Helen Mirren!
R10, are you saying there are always enough roles to go around in the UK? I''m not sure if that''s the case. From what I hear there are a lot of our of work actors over there.
I remember British actor Edward Fox(or James Fox--the one from The Day of the Jackal) saying that, as a young up-and-coming actor, he felt that the British acting style was stale, stodgy, and boring. He was much more interested in the American style, and was influenced not by Olivier and Giegud, but by Brando and Clift.
Anonymous
R12, I''m talking out of my ass; I only know what I see of British Actors in the US. Many of the same actors used in one program end up in other series.
R14, you are right that a lot of the same UK actors turn up on certain shows. That''s because there are fewer British actors than American actors since the country is much smaller, so you see a lot of them more frequently.\ \ But within the UK there is fierce competition for parts with hundreds of actors trying to get the same role, just like in the US.
The hardest thing about acting in any country must be the looking for work all the time. It would depress me.
Best example that shows the difference between European and US actors can be seen in Inglorious Basterds. I thought Brad Pitt was overshadowed by Christopher Waltz, Michael Fassbender and the other German actors yet the film was of course promoted as if Pitt was the main character.
anonymous
Michael Fassbender''s father is German, but he is Irish
UK exceptionalism
As someone who has worked in both markets, you could say all of this is true or false to one extent or the other - it's hard to speak relatively about acting as a profession because there are so many exceptions and variations. I would answer the OP's question, why are British actors so good by saying, they're not. Britain has its fair share of terrible actors - well beyond R7's indictment of British soap opera actors (and there are plenty of good actors on those shows, as well as bad). In the States, actors are mostly concerned with getting union cards as a means of validating their ability. In Britain, throughout the industry, its drama school. What drama school did you go to? And there are tons of them and only some are accredited and recognised. For a British born actor, drama school is a mandatory rite of passage, unless they were plucked out of some stage school at an early age to be on a soap. That said, drama school training itself is no guarantee of ability or success. British actors do not really study "the method" or whatever component it is that makes acting emotionally alive and vital. They study everything that goes on around that: movement, voice, etc. But that component is more or less left to the individual to figure out. That, I suppose, is seen as something natural. There is a quality to British acting of reticence which works quite well when you're doing Shakespeare or playing someone British. In other works, this quality leaves British actors seeming way out of their depth (Diana Rigg in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, anyone?). Or leads to the kind of hammy, overacting you often see from actors like David Suchet or Michael Gambon on stage. It is much worse in the regions. Drama school also tends to promote an isolation of sorts in performance where actors - bad actors - are clueless as to how to interact with another actor and think acting is something that only happens on their lines while they make ridiculous hand gestures. Believe me, I've seen it. And when these actors, fresh out of drama school, can't get what they want and steal focus, they create scenes and make excuses and try to direct the other actors, etc. I call these actors "drama school nutjobs." They also freak if there is a line change because, of course, they're not really delving into characters, they're just sounding out the script. It's really pathetic. I've worked with some of them, a few years back when I was making film shorts, and they even pretty much say "cut." There are plenty of them out there - products of the cutthroat British drama school system where a bunch of mediocrities just pit students against one another - and they are nightmares. Most good actors say they never learned anything in drama school. British actors are also obsessed with dialects especially their American dialects and, again, contrary to popular belief, they're not very good at it. I've been in acting classes where I was the only American and everyone else had to struggle with an American text and they are uniformly terrible. You see the good British actors - there are plenty of bad ones. But it's the same with American actors. If you watch tv drama in the States you quickly recognise that there is a core group of about 20 actors that get cast in all the supporting roles. And they're all good. But when you think of the number of SAG members - it's a pretty small pool of talent. So to pretend that acting is somehow in the DNA of a nation...maybe. It might just be that there are different sensibilities towards it, a different artistic culture at work. Britain, for the moment, does subsidise the arts though we are undergoing major cuts. There is an active culture of new writing here for the sake of finding new voices; the work that gets produced and audiences are used to is generally more challenging than what gets produced on stage in the States because audiences are more literate, open-minded. In the States people go to the theatre to be entertained. In Britain, while the same is true, people understand it's also a place to wrestle with ideas.
In the U.K. is perfectly normal for actors to appear in TV and film and on stage, back and forth through their careers. There''s more exposure to a broader spectrum of talent and a stronger emphasis on modesty among actors. In many cases, the income is less fantastic than in the U.S. and greater need to work "between projects." So British actors tend less to be pigeon-holed early on, less enveloped in praise and expectation that they continue only in a narrow range or trajectory; training aside, there''s also more opportunity for them to become good along the way of their careers.
When you''re talking about good British actors, you''re really talking about the older actors like the "Sirs and the Dames". It''s the same here. Most of our older actors are good too.\ \ Britain has it''s fair share of Hollywood-style fame whores. Judd Law, Keira Knightley, Sienna Miller, Hugh Grant and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers comes to mind.
R21, you left out "...and have singing careers." There are fewer jobs, if they want careers they have to be jobbing about.\ \ I think you''re wrong about modesty. They''re British so of course they might be "British" about it but that''s just a false modesty. British actors egos rage as much as any other actors. Though there is more a sense of "just getting on with the job." There''s none of the American sense of "we''re puttin'' on a show!"
But R22, there''s a huge underclass well below them of mostly terrible actors, just as in the States. So there''s no truth to the generalisation that all British actors are good.
It used to be true that there was a lot more work for British actors but now there are so many more drama schools and courses.%0D\ %0D\ I went to acting school in London and NYC, in the early 80s. So many fellow acting students from my drama school in England went on to have acting careers, a few are famous and even the less high profile ones, I still see on TV. Not a single person I studied with in NY have I ever seen in anything nor all the budding actors I met working in a zillion New York restaurants and catering companies in the 80s. Not one of them have I ever seen in anything. Tell a lie, there''s one girl I knew in NY who is a professional extra.
On the other hand, R25, I went to school at Columbia College, Chicago in the ''80s and there are a ton of people I went to school with who have gone on to successful careers as actors, screenwriters and directors including David Cromer and Anna Shapiro, among others. Hell, we even went to school with Andy Dick.\ \ It''s all relative. A lot of people in their 20s want to be actors, may go to school and go through the motions but aren''t really cut out for it. It''s a brutal business.
Not all British actors are good!
R. Pattinson
R20, the drama school crazies your describing remind me a little of the failed actress character in "Shaun of the Dead".%0D\ %0D\ It''s all relative. I think that Americans and Canadians appreciate the differences they see in British actors and interpret it as better then their own actors abilities. None of them realize that there are probably Brits who do the same thing.
earrings\ \ \ caftans
and a good wig or two
One other point regarding productivity in the British system is that national and regional and local theaters are subsidized by the government. This provides opportunities to participate and earn a living as an actor that don''t exist in the US.
U.S. film and to an extent even stage acting has degenerated much like everything else because success is equated with $$ and popularity and looks- NOT quality. Not that this isn't omnipresent, but I think much less so in other countries with good theatre programs (U.K. Australia, Germany, etc.) Part of this IS because many European actors make films so they can afford to perform stage roles as well. Stage and film are somewhat different and you can do one well and be mediocre at the other. Stage acting requires a higher level of consistency and stamina than film acting, so British stage actors often have more of a palette to choose from- they can PULL from their stage abilities when acting from the camera. But that's REALLY not the big difference. #1 Public funding- European actors simply have more support to act all day and all year. This status quo however is vastly deteriorating. #2 So many Americans will settle for GOOD ENOUGH acting- so long as they get the role and the accolades. If successful actors, or American Idol finalists, or whomever sell tickets then they feel that they don't NEED to work to improve. The "good enough" philosophy extends to training. Americans are taught to worship some technical school or another. Acting students spend so much time trying to please various guru instructors instead of trying to truly be in the moment. American actors are taught to worship some school of technique (i.e. the instructor's ego/power) instead of thinking for themselves. But all acting technique is really a means to an end. It's less relevant even than musical or singing technique because music involves a more abstract sense of communication. I recently saw i friend in a film who had gone to a "top five" conservatory and was rather shocked that she had wasted her time and money. She would have been better off just auditioning and trying to figure out why everyone is saying "no". This is the problem with students who do "good enough" for an acting teacher or coach and get A's or are told they are "so talented". #3 Too many young actors THINK they are in the moment simply because they are "feeling" something. But that is a bastardization of "The Method" or "The System" or "Meisner". Acting is first and foremost about communication. If the audience isn't sensing what you are "feeling" then you might as well be shoving a dildo up your hole- at least that would be more "real". #4 Lack of empathy: Lastly, even though I feel that actors are some of the most selfish neurotic people on the planet, an actor must develop a certain sense of empathy for the character in order to truly transform. I don't mean empathy as in the selfless, caring empathy nec (see selfish/neurotic above), but they must be able to embrace the role and the character for who they are and communicate in the moment instead of forcing the issue. For whatever reason this sort of empathy has been lost to some degree in american And empathy is required to give a shit enough about the audience/viewer to explore your communication of your role to them.
[italic]. . . Discipline[/italic].
[quote]there's a huge underclass well below them of mostly terrible actors, just as in the States. So there's no truth to the generalisation that all British actors are good. True. Let's not forget that in the U.S. there are scores of brilliant actors who simply will never eek out an anything but a precarious living off of acting. It's a lot to sacrifice and this is a HUGE country to go traveling around auditioning for regional theatre everywhere. European actors have a much more geographically concentrated circuit so it's somewhat easier for them to lead a somewhat more balanced life. (let's not forget that they have FREE healthcare!) Many of the most talented American artists simply have to leave the profession to live at any level of comfort. So public (and state) support are an integral part of the problem. Most traditional American audiences are afraid to pay for the unknown and the unknown rarely lasts longer than a two week run in the states. I was mainly referring to the already "successful" TV and film actors in the states.
R31
Speaking of adorable British guys, who is John Finnemore's* girlfriend? *brilliant comedic writer and actor
American actors have been raised in a culture of Evangelical Christianity, Guns and Walmart. Not a lot of intellectual space to work their craft.
In the UK, there is more of a tradition of rep theatres --- where the same group of 20 or so actors will perform in all of the shows for a season. This allowed the same actor to develop his/her craft by doing Shakespeare, Ibsen/Checkov, musicals, comedies, and the occasional farce in the same year. Many American theatres used to do this, but the 'Theatre Rep' approach went by the wayside at most American theatres in the 1990s.