Why is Hollywood obsessed with making Anglo/Irish/Aussie actors happen?
Since the late 90's, there have been major leading-man pushes for:
Jude Law, Christian Bale, Daniel Craig, Clive Owen, Ewan McGregor, Robert Pattinson, Orlando Bloom, Henry Cavill, Andrew Garfield, Tom Hardy, Matthew Goode, Alex Pettyfer
Colin Farrell, Michael Fassbender, Jonathon Rhys-Meyers, Cillian Murphy
Russell Crowe, Hugh Jackman, Eric Bana, Heath Ledger (RIP), Sam Worthington, Guy Pearce, Simon Baker, Alex O'Loughlin
And why is some asshole on Datalounge by so small and benign a phenomenon?
For starters, they speak English.
Because they can act?
Who knows, OP?
Two words, OP. Two words: White Supermacy.
Because as a rule they are more malleable than American actors. They are hungry for success and will play the game. American actors tend to end up like Lindsay Lohen. While we do not have a studio system any longer, agents and managers make an investment in an actor's career. They want to make sure that they get a high return on that investment.
Because they can go to the finest acting schools in their respective countries practically for free.
How much is tuition at Northwestern?
In an effort to position itself as a contender against both Walmart & Target, Macy's announced the opening of several Supermacys in various urban centers. The stores will only cater to Caucasians and maybe Oprah.
There are exceptions - some on OP's list - but generally they're more reasonable and easier to deal with, better trained, have a wider range of skills, see themselves as actors rather than stars or celebrities and are cheaper or (more accurately) better value. Plus, you could easily make a longer list of US actors Hollywood has tried to make stars of.
Because they speak English and are skilled actors?
R6's post make sense to me.
Young American stars tend to self-destruct (Josh Harnett, Michael Pitt) or become douches (Shia LaDouche).
Look at the comparable list of American actors who've been given the same "major leading man pushes" during the same time period:
Mark Wahlberg, George Clooney, Will Smith, Channing Tatum, James Van der Beek, James Franco, Leo Dicaprio, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Taylor Lautner, Ryan Gosling, Josh Hartnett, Justin Timberlake, Tobey Maguire, Shia LeBeouf, Matthew McConnaghey, Ashton Kutcher, Ryan Phillippe, Ryan Reynolds, Paul Rudd, Vin Diesel.
Certainly not an exhaustive list, but fairly comprehensive. I'd say the success/fail rate of this group compared to the Brits/Irish/Aussies is about the same. So it's not like only going with Americans is any guarantee that they're going to "happen" as leading men. Thus, why limit yourself to Americans?
because they are among the world's finest actors, let alone the finest in the English speaking world.
don't forget Naomi Watts, Cate Blanchett, Toni Collette, Anthony LaPaglia
A lot of these actors have a sense of humor which really does count for something on a set. They are also from small film industries and are more likely to be "team players."
R12 several of those stars spent years on US television (Clooney, Smith, Reynolds, Kutcher, Gosling, LaBoeuf) or were music stars (Timberlake, Wahlberg) before Hollywood decided to make them leading men.
The Brits & Aussies, however, were imported and given leading man roles with no US recognition.
Not to me. American actors are not hungry for success?
By the time an English-speaking foreign actor gets to work in the US he likely has already had a successful career in his home country so in that sense he's been vetted. Like a sports minor league.
I also think the English tradition of theater means there are better educational opportunities and a steady stream of work for A/I/A actors to hone their skills.
Hollywood is the global center of English-speaking film and television work so it is natural for it to attract many of the best talents from English speaking countries. Britain, Ireland and Australia (plus South Africa and New Zealand) have a combined population roughly 1/2 that of the US, so it is not surprising that they would supply a significant portion of the acting talent to Hollywood.
OP's right, but I see the rabid Brit troll has found the thread and will continue to make a nuisance of herself until it dies.
The only actors on OP's list I can't stand are Orlando Bloom, Alex Pettyfer and Robert Pattinson. All can't act worth a damn and only have careers because somebody decided they could be hot and marketed to teen girls.
The rest can act.
Why shouldn't Hollywood be featuring actors from all over the world?
Hollywood, to its credit, has never been protectionist and has always employed international talent.
To scratch the surface:
Max von Sydow
Erich von Stroheim
Helena Bonham Carter
Do you find something wrong with this, OP? Are you the Lou Dobbs of the entertainment world?
Don't forget Andrew Lincoln, star of the critically acclaimed The Walking Dead. His Southern accent was so good on that show that it shocked me when I found out that he's British. There's only a hand full of British actors that can pull off a passable, let alone a good, Southern accent.
Why is Hollywood obsessed with making drunk and druggie actors happen?
By dangling the carrot of international stardom in front of English-speaking actors in countries other than America, American producers are able to keep the actors in those countries from organizing around issues having to do with pay rates and residuals. For example, the British union that covers television, film and stage, Equity, has a lousy contract with their producers' union that pays a lower residual rate and lower base wage than the SAG contract. When U.S. producers film over there, principals can get the richer SAG contracts, if they're members, which they usually are, while the supporting players are usually hired under the weaker British Equity contracts. This is one reason _Band of Brothers_ was filmed in the U.K. If you think someday you're going to be a billionaire, why would you become a vocal unionist?
OP = Viola Davis
R12, fyi...the Ryans are Canadian. It's why I've wondered why Gosling seems to have a Brooklyn/NY accent.
Gosling began putting on a Brooklyn accent, because as he said, he wanted to "sound like Marlon Brando." And apparently it stuck.
Brit and Australian actors tend to have better training, and are generally better at playing period or accented roles than American actors. Young American actors are more likely to "learn in front of the camera", which tends to leave them incapable of playing anything but modern Americans.
Aussie actors also tend to be very well trained in accents, and can play Americans and Brits as well as Aussies.
OP, I agree. I am sick to death of all these annoying, bland actors from England/Ireleand/Australia. Why the fuck don't they stay in their own countries?
Yeah, I agree R28.
I remember reading a Damian Lewis interview about his time working on the tv program Life. He complained that he didn't want to do anymore tv work in America because it was crazy. He complained about how he had to actually work 12 hr days. Evidently they don't work long hours in England. Then he didn't get much work for almost 2 years. He took another American tv series. And it's paid off for him. I hope he can handle the hard work
Good heavens I completely forgot about Canada. I wonder how that could happen?
American women have a thing for guys with British accents.
Forget movies, WTF is with so many of them popping up in commercials for things like prunes and pledge?
Seasons of shows in the UK generally run 6-10 episodes. Damien Lewis would not have been familiar with a 22 ep season, which is what he would have been complaining about. Homeland only ran 10 episodes, so he would have been more comfortable with that production.
A lot of the Australian actors mentioned started on soaps and have no formal training. The Hemsworth brothers, Ryan Kwanten, Russell Crowe, Guy Pearce, Simon Baker all had their starts on Neighbours or Home and Away, which require little to no acting chops. Eric Bana was on a skit show for years before being 'discovered' in "Chopper". These are not trained actors. They are, however, hot. And that's all that counts.
Mel Gibson, Cate Blanchette and Judy Davis are trained stage actors, though.
Maybe, OP, because these guys can actually ACT?!?! You forgot to mention that most of these have an education in theater, and most of them (if not all) are therefore very capable actors, a few of them even have talent. Why is it that most American actors are bad? Maybe because they're not trained actors, they're mostly just hired because they look good, acting comes second, and there's your problem. I'm not an aussie, or a brit, or irish, but here our best actors are not good looking at all, they're average looking AT BEST, but guess what.. they can actually ACT!
As an English person, it shocks me. The guy from Thor and his brother have NO formal training and were in the cheesiest soap for years here!
Has that ever happened with Hollywood putting an American actor STRAIGHT into a £300 million movie as lead when he has just left Days of our lives?
I don't think so. And Jude Law can't act nor has he had a any formal training.
I'm sorry but I'd be pissed if I was an American actor. People would kick off if this happened in the US and we only employed Americans or Germans for all our top roles.
I recently read an interview with a casting director, and he said that too many american actresses all have that same look: too hard, same stylist, same cheeks, etc. They've lost their naturalness. Because of that, he tended to hire English actresses, who came across as more natural.
Maybe it's the same thing with the men? Maybe too many of them all look alike and are too aware of their affect and effect? And they're too metro? Maybe the foreign actors are more natural, as well.
Also -- as mentioned before -- many of them have been schooled to be actors, and want to act. American actors may not want to act so much as they want to be stars. There's a difference.
As a costume designer, I can say that English actors are much easier to work with. 90% of the time they will wear whatever you hand them. The other 10% of the time, they actually want to work with you, and tend to be very knowledgeable. American actors are only concerned about what their manager, agent, boyfriend, or casting director thinks. They are real divas, and have no idea how to wear clothing.
For American actors, Hollywood for the past 20 years has only been casting female and male bimbos - generic blank faced girls and blank-faced man-children. That leaves a big opening for adult male and females, people with faces who can act.
Never understood why he has a career. He's the definition of bland.
US actors are far too interested in "the deal", mainly, how much they will get paid and what a role will get for them. Actors from the UK, Ireland, Australia and even Canada, seem more willing to focus on their actual acting, rather than focusing on a breakthrough role that will earn them money and fame.
[quote]Actors from the UK, Ireland, Australia and even Canada, seem more willing to focus on their actual acting, rather than focusing on a breakthrough role that will earn them money and fame.
Oh, horseshit! I guess that's why Luke Evans went back IN the closet when they offered him good movie roles and lots of money, huh? And Henry Cavill - that guy can't act worth shit.
You forgot James McAvoy Op, I really like him. Sorry but I find the likes of Brad Pitt, Mark Walberg and Matt Damen to be boring. Foreign actors are more interesting.
I've heard that the big Hollywood agents are all obsessed with youth, and are concentrating on building up the careers of natural, promising, ambitious teenagers. They consider theater-trained actors to be "too old", and refuse to consider them for the big roles or major support.
It's not a good strategy for a shaky industry; at best, these young teens grow up into dullards like Jake Gyllenhall and Natalie Portman. They may get some early praise, but they never seem to develop beyond a certain point. It's not a way to develop a Cate Blanchette, which is why they end up looking overseas when they want a real talent.
Why the hell do they do it? Do they think they'll have more control over their actors if they start them so young?
Matt Damon has morphed into a "Gimme a paycheck" hack. I used to admire him. Now, not so much.
There was an article on this a few years ago - I think it was in the New York Times magazine? Anyway, the basic conclusion was male American actors these days aren't masculine. They are metrosexual and cleave more towards pretty. So, the rugged male roles go more and more to foreign actors who care actually believable in that capacity.
I wish all these annoying Brits and Aussies would be banned from America. They're so fucking boring.
Upping given that a new thread on the same topic was started.
"Why does Hollywood keep shoving British actors in our faces?
A good example was 'Seeking a Friend at the End of the World' which I saw last night. Funny enough, sort of cute, but why put a British actress in that lead role? Wouldn't an American made more sense? Your average movie character seems to know far more British people in everyday life than anyone I know."
[quote]They consider theater-trained actors to be "too old", and refuse to consider them for the big roles or major support.
OP, I find it interesting that you slam a variety of Brit, Irish & Aussie actors, but fail to note that nearly every one them has either a) at least one Oscar nomination or win under their belts (and several have Tony nominations/wins, too); b) enjoyed lead roles in both major box office blockbusters or highly acclaimed indie films; or c) plays the lead-character in a long-running franchise, both television and film, earning many millions in the process. I'm sorry that, on average, more Australian men happen to be both stunningly good-looking and talented at the craft of acting than the average American man, but that's just how it works.
Also, just FYI, the reason any halfway-decent Brit, Irish or Aussie actor can do a credible American accent at the drop of a hat is because nearly all of them under the age of 50 grew up watching a diet of American television being rerun abroad, not to mention American films.
The Hemsworth family are about to inflict another Hemsworth brother on us, Fatty Hemsworth.
The Brits, Aussies and Canadians get acting awards because they're the ones who get the roles. Hundreds, if not thousands, of talented Americans graduate from intensive, highly respected actor training schools every year. The studios and producers have effectively betrayed a generation of aspiring young American actors. It has everything to do with breaking the backs of the actors' unions in this country.
Andy Whitfield (Spartacus) was a Welsh/Aussie actor that I was looking forward to watching. Stupid cancer! His replacement, Liam Macintire, though he tried his best and did as well as he could just doesn't do it for me. I don't see him blowing up but I could be wrong.
I think most of the others mentioned in the OP were great offerings to the business.
Love accents, just a shallow point, lol.
It kind of gets on my nerves. Like Ewan McGregor...nothing against him or Jude Law, I like them fine buth the truth is, they aren't really crowd pleasers...IMO.
[quote]There was an article on this a few years ago - I think it was in the New York Times magazine? Anyway, the basic conclusion was male American actors these days aren't masculine. They are metrosexual and cleave more towards pretty. So, the rugged male roles go more and more to foreign actors who care actually believable in that capacity.
That would explain Crowe, Bana and Jackman, for sure.
A friend's theory is that American actresses today are lacking in personality: they are required to seem non threatening to the male viewers. However, that makes them boring to watch. Cate Blanchett does not look like you could fuck with her, does she?
[quote]The Brits, Aussies and Canadians get acting awards because they're the ones who get the roles. Hundreds, if not thousands, of talented Americans graduate from intensive, highly respected actor training schools every year. The studios and producers have effectively betrayed a generation of aspiring young American actors. It has everything to do with breaking the backs of the actors' unions in this country.
Oh come *on*. You sound like an idiotic Tea Partier ranting about how illegal immigrants are coming and stealing American jobs -- a claim that's just as much bullshit as your own. There is no "massive Hollywood conspiracy" to deny young American thespians jobs, nor are the studios trying to break any unions. The reason classically trained actors often don't get work in Hollywood is because producers usually focus on looks more than anything else, and not many thespians have the kind producers want. Finding an actor who's talented *and* hot is a rarity, and when they come along they're more likely to achieve success; Benjamin Walker is a great example, having gone from Broadway to helming a major summer film in barely over a year.
Do you live in NYC or LA? For several years, I've been observing young and not-so-young American actors struggling to hang on to some semblance of an acting career, while young and not-so-young Brits, Canadians and Aussies show up in record numbers in American-produced film and television playing Americans. Meanwhile, the actors' unions have been going through probably the most tumultuous time in their history since their founding, changing and jeopardizing the financial structure long relied on by American actors.
[quote]A friend's theory is that American actresses today are lacking in personality: they are required to seem non threatening to the male viewers.
That's fucking absurd.
[quote]while young and not-so-young Brits, Canadians and Aussies show up in record numbers in American-produced film and television playing Americans.
Oh? You've kept tabs on the phenomenon? There are still plenty of American actors playing American characters. To suggest otherwise is just stupid. And yes, I live in NYC.
As other have stated, it's because they are talented and speak English. Hollywood has always sought and attracted talent from across the Anglosphere. What kind of moron questions this?
Yeah, what's up with all the American iconic comic heroes going to Brits? Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, etc.
OP They have much thicker cocks.
Did people bitch like this about Greer Garson, Errol Flynn, Deborah Kerr, Maureen O'Hara, Rod Taylor et al. back in the day?
[quote]A friend's theory is that American actresses today are lacking in personality: they are required to seem non threatening to the male viewers.
[quote]That's fucking absurd.
by: Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Susan Sarandon, etc.
No, it is not. The fact that your examples are an older generation, tells me that we haven't seen an interesting new PERSON on the big screen in years (certainly not with Roberts, Bullock, etc...). Maybe the same can be said for men.
Re: Greer Garson, Errol Flynn, Deborah Kerr, Maureen O'Hara, Rod Taylor
With the exception of Taylor, the above actors were known for the most part for playing British characters. When you have a film like _Cold Mountain_, for example, about the south during the Civil War, which is shot in Eastern Europe and in which the majority of the American roles are played by either British or Aussie actors, it suggests to me that there is a problem.
Many Anglophone nations (UK, Australia, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand etc) have fewer options than the USA, so the actors there must "cross-train" by doing theatre, soap operas, cop dramas for *years*, working on their craft. For example, scores of Aussie and Canadian actors have come through night-time "teen shows" like "Neighbours" and "Degrassi", which are good experience.
[quote] When you have a film like _Cold Mountain_, for example, about the south during the Civil War, which is shot in Eastern Europe and in which the majority of the American roles are played by either British or Aussie actors, it suggests to me that there is a problem.
Kind of like John Wayne playing Gehngis Khan with Susan Hayward in The Conqueror.
It really bothers me if they film in Europe and they should be filming in the USA. It's insulting. They expect us to hand over our money but they fuck over American workers. The eastern block countries are as ugly as their citizens, do they think we don't recognize that?
Because Anglo-Irish-Aussie actors have "happened" for generations (have you ever heard of Olivier, Leigh, Oberon, Flynn, Garson, Grant, Niven, Kerr, Burton, Taylor, Lansbury, Gielgud, Richardson (and Richardson and Richardson...), Fiennes, Day-Lewis, Bonham-Carter, Leighton, Christie, Oliver, Branagh, Thomopson, Lawe, Caine, Jackson, Redgrave (and Redgrave and Redgrave...), Neeson, to merely scratch the surface?).
Because the U.S. entertainment world welcomes English speaking actors and doesn't discriminate (with the justifiable caveat of union considerations), as well they shouldn't.
Because Anglo-Irish-Aussie actors are among the best actors in the world.
Because among our biggest stars are Anglo-Irish-Aussie actors.
Because Anglo-Irish-Aussie actors are often though not always well trained, not to suggest that American actors are not.
Because films from the UK, Ireland and Australia are often popular in the U.S. and the U.S. filmgoing populace wants to see performers in these movies again and so it is natural for them to appear in movies in which Hollywood is involved.
Because Hollywood produces many films set in English speaking countries besides the U.S., including movies made from popular source material set in English speaking countries besides the U.S. including works by Anglo-Irish-Aussie playwrights and novelists, both classic and contemporary, and Anglo-Irish-Aussie actors are often though not always the best people for roles in these projects.
Because Anglo-Irish-Aussie actors are often very good at American accents.
Because Anglo-Irish-Aussie actors often win major awards in the U.S. and so Hollywood and the filmgoing public takes notice.
Because Anglo-Irish-Aussie actors often make impressions in film festivals worldwide and so Hollywood takes notice.
And finally because there is absolutely no reason in the world why Hollywood should not be interested in fostering the careers of exceptional talents, including actors, from any where in the world who have either major or burgeoning careers abroad and or are proficient in English, including but not limited to American, Irish, Australian and UK actors.
But you knew all of that.
"The eastern block countries are as ugly as their residents." This explains a great deal about anyone asking OP's question. Certainly Prague and Budapest can't possibly compare with Newark and Dallas.
[quote]When you have a film like _Cold Mountain_, for example, about the south during the Civil War, which is shot in Eastern Europe and in which the majority of the American roles are played by either British or Aussie actors, it suggests to me that there is a problem.
It was filmed in Eastern Europe because it's one of the cheapest places in the world to shoot a film, and also a place where there's easy access to undeveloped land that can be an effective stand-in for the U.S. South. IIRC this was before the state of Georgia started offering huge tax incentives for filming there (or Louisiana, for that matter). Btw are you similarly outraged that British actress Vivien Leigh portrayed Scarlett O'Hara?
[quote]Kind of like John Wayne playing Gehngis Khan with Susan Hayward in The Conqueror.
The best example on that front remains Liz Taylor playing Cleopatra.
It's because most of those actors are so bland. Most Aussie actors are incredibly bland and can easily pretend they're Americans.
Hugh Jackman, Eric Bana, Sam Worthington, Guy Pearce, Simon Baker, Alex O'Loughlin = all BLAND...zero personality.
I'd give the edge to Luise Rainer in The Good Earth or Katharine Hepburn in Dragonseed.
If they aren't from England or Australia...they are Canadian. It's as if Americans don't want to be actors. They don't want to be engineers either...Americans all want to be reality stars.
I loved Vivian but it's hard to believe they couldn't find one American actor to play Scarlett.
[quote]It really bothers me if they film in Europe and they should be filming in the USA.
What about The Great Gatsby, that iconic piece of American literature, which was filmed in Sydney?
The real answer OP, is that when Brits, Australians, Irish, Kiwis, South Africans, Indians, and Canucks come here, they practice shameless nationality discrimination against Americans. It's illegal, but nobody ever sues them for it. Thus, they take care of each other and import new talent from the Auld Sod. Among Americans you either have to join a religious cult (Mormons, Scientologists), or be related to someone, because Americans in these circumstances also discriminate against everyone else.
Oh and I forgot Jews of course. Not really a "cult" but similar to nationality discrimination.
"It's because most of those actors are so bland. Most Aussie actors are incredibly bland and can easily pretend they're Americans.
Hugh Jackman, Eric Bana, Sam Worthington, Guy Pearce, Simon Baker, Alex O'Loughlin = all BLAND...zero personality."
by: Anonymous reply 75
R75 All those men you named can probably fuck real good too so the rest does not matter!
Don't really know the other guys, but Hugh Jackman and Guy Pearce are not bland. And I wouldn't call myself a fan of either.
I couldn't even spot Guy Pearce on the street if he walked pass by me.
And Hugh has made a shitload of films and aside from Wolverine he hasn't made a single interesting bit of acting.
That's because he's a man of the THEATUH!
John Mills, Hailey Mills, Juliet Mills
Veronica and Angela Cartwright
A few non-American actors in Hollywood
One of the problems with Americans doing British tv is that the UK has become enamored with its regional accents and pour them on thick nowadays. Very few Americans can do a Geordie accent, or an Estuary, Scouse, Welsh, Cornish or Scottish accent.
The studios rushing to foreign countries that offer cheaper crews and hiring non-Americans for American roles under the cheaper foreign union contracts is of a piece with all the exportation of work in many of the major U.S. industries, a phenomenon that has virtually shut down some of those industries in this country. Yes, it's a business decision that may make sense for the six or so multinational corporations that own the film studios, but it's helping to destroy the U.S. economy. Our media, specifically the media that employ actors, have long been one of the U.S.'s chief cultural exports and moneymakers. Taking employment opportunities for U.S. actors has a negative impact on the local economies where actors live, not to mention the actors themselves, technicians and other crew members. It would be interesting to know how many U.S. actors have lost their homes over the last decade or so. I personally know three of them. There's been extensive economic fallout for all the other support industries, certainly in Los Angeles.
As for the lengthy lists of beloved actors from the British Territories -- yes, most of them are phenomenal actors, and I have great appreciation for their work, especially when they play characters from the Territories. I have a problem with them playing Americans. It's particularly egregious on U.S. television, and there are so many of them that it's unprecedented. It may be a sort of fad, but it's been going on for years now. I believe Simon Baker was the first in this most recent wave of imported actors to star in an American role on U.S. television in"The Guardian."
I like Hugh Jackman in that Nicole Kidman film.
[quote]The best example on that front remains Liz Taylor playing Cleopatra.
Cleopatra was a white woman of Macedonian ancestry, so Liz Taylor wasn't inappropriate for the role.
Stupid question. The studios will promote anyone they think they can make money on.
russell crowe is a Kiwi!
As if this is something new. As if Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole, Claude Raines, Ronald Coleman, Errol Flynn, Albert Finney, Stewart Granger, Laurence Olivier, Rex Harrison, David Niven, Peter Lawford, Laurence Harvey, Dirk Bogarde, Michael York, Leslie Howard, Ralph Richardson, Michael Redgrave, Michael Caine, Oliver Reed, Alan Bates, Terrance Stamp weren't movie stars.
bottom line: OP knows nothing about the history of Hollwyood.
Well it is simple. Those countries don't have Hollywood like movie industry, but the main reason is they can be hired for less money. They are cheap.
Other important reason is marketing. Let's take for example movie "Sixth Sense". Bruce Willis is American; his wife in the movie is British and the kids mom is an Australian. The main reason is, foreign workers work for less money. They are also called "White Mexicans." Ha ha ha.
This is happening with the upcoming Pompeii movie which will be out next year. Most of the cast is British, a couple are Canadian and the rest are Australian. Not an American or even an Italian in the cast. Even the mixed girl is Canadian and the black guy is British! This means that annoyingly the movie will feature British accents which is totally inappropriate. Just horrible.
It's as bad as the Great Gatsby flop which featured an almost-all Aussie cast, or Captain America being played by a British guy. Just a joke.
I'm not going to see Pompeii as it will suck big time. I can't believe not even any Italians are in the cast.
Captain America is played by Chris Evans, an American, from Boston, such a hot bed of revolutionary fervor back in the 1770's, as a matter of fact. :)
Pompeii is made by uber-hack Paul WS Anderson, so it will be shit whoever is in it.
R96 my mistake I meant Superman.
Robert Morley's son, Sheridan, wrote a book about Hollywood's Anglophilia called Hollywood Raj.
The first Brit to make a name in Hollywood was Scottish actor Donald Crisp.
so why aren't there more Indian leading actors? by population isn't India the largest English speaking nation?