Why are so many actors so stupid?

They’re not.

[quote]I'd assume that they would be a little more educated given that they have to embody so many different characters with different backgrounds.

That’s where the acting part comes in handy.

Also, many of them just aren’t very educated. Big stars who achieved fame during adolescence didn’t go to college and probably phoned in their high school work. Remember that next time they try to lecture you on something (and it’s obvious that their viewpoint isn’t being fed to them by their PR team, studio, whatever, etc.)

The same reason you are.

They're actors, not intellectuals. Their abiliity is to make money pretending in front of cameras.

They often try to sound smarter than they really are.

I guess they are image-obsessed and too afraid of other's perceptions.

R5 hence they believe to be experts just because they have money and notoriety or their brother/sister, mom, child has the same issue/illness.

Jenny McCarthy Goop

Try saying to someone really smart, and disciplined enough to do well elsewhere in the world, "I've got this great job for you where for not very much money, you do exactly the same thing, in the same way, every day of the week for months."

See how excited they get.

You had a bit more chance of keeping their attention with the British Repertory system, which let them do two or three plays on different nights over a period of months.

I imagine not-so-bright people have an easier time assuming and projecting a character. Wasn’t there something in the “Richard Burton’s diary excerpts” thread we had recently about his view of the “cerebral” actor and how it was more difficult for that person accordingly?

Politicians by and large, too. Careers where you can't afford to think too much.

Didn't some police chief get in trouble a decade or two ago because he weeded out job applicants he thought were too smart to be a cop?

I'd guess that, as a whole, actors' intelligence follows the same standard distribution that applies to the general population. It's probably more a question of education, as someone above said. Many spent less time in school, unless they have professionally studied acting at a university or academy or they have studied first and changed careers to acting later in life. Some will have a natural intelligence and curiosity and become experts in art and literature, some will read up on certain topics in order to prepare for roles.

Also, being able to act often gives actors social advantages; they are often seen as more competent, knowledgeable or trustworthy, simply because they've learned how to play competent, knowledgeable and trustworthy characters. This removes the incentive for some to actually do the work.

IF THEY LIKED TO READ, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BECOME ACTORS.

If they liked to write they wouldn't have become actors.

If they are sane they wouldn’t have become Actors.

But I would think that the ability to memorize huge chunks of dialogue is indicative of at least a modicum of intelligence! I mean, I'm not sure I could do it, and I have a couple of college degrees.

R8 here. I got it now-it was Welles rather than Burton.

Artists often have a different kind of intelligence.

Does anyone expect hookers or strippers to be intellectuals?

Leave actors alone!

Often it's talent that can't be taught. Creatives are different to intellectuals. I'm sure there's a lot of academics who couldn't act to save themselves. A lot of intellectuals are on the spectrum and have no insight whatsoever into human emotion and behavior.

Well, G, yes of course

Orson Wells stated that the most talented actors (like Marlon Brando and Laurence Olivier; he listed them by name) were the dumbest; intellect actually gets in the way of pretending.

See every joke involving Tracy and Jenna on 30 Rock

This is one of those stereotypes that are not true. I worked in both publishing and media (working with actors) . Recently, I entered academia.

In all three there seem to be about the same proportions of intelligent and stupid. There are stupid writers and brilliant actors, stupid academics and brilliant accounting staff. And vice versa.

Most jobs require skills more than intelligence, so there is always a mix.

People assume that actors are interested in arts, so they are well read but the truth is a lot of them are only interested in fame and money

R23, you say that based on what?

Most actors I worked with knew that they would never be famous and would probably never be superrich. It is understood that that is less possible if you are not exceptionally beautiful or over thirty. As one actor I worked with said, getting that TV series role is like hitting the lottery. You can't do anything to make it happen so if you do not like the work for itself, you are sunk. He also talked about a friend who did "hit the lottery" and how miserable he was after that happened.

The people who are in it for fame and money usually leave it when they turn thirty and realize they will never be famous or rich.

R24 Just reading their interviews is enought to know that some of them are totally vapid.

And you can be an amazing actor being an ignorant, and we have Jeremy Irons and his stupid opinions about gay marriage.

And don't make me laugh, most A list actors couldn't care less about art and more about the checks.

Yes, there are actors who are inteligent and smart, but there are a lot who are vapid narcissists

If singers count as actors, most tenors have resonance where their brains should be.

Exactly R25 Tom Cruise says a lot of stupid shit, even though he tends to 'sound' smart, but you can tell is not real intelligence.

R25, what interviews? I am guessing you are only looking at interviews with stars and/or people promoting something. Does anyone sound smart when they are trying to sell you something?

But if you look at interviews with working actors who are not selling a project and are not stars (whose careers are built on physical appearance), you get something very different. In the last week I have with David Wilson Barnes, Tamila Woodard, Deirdre O'Connell, and Heidi Schreck. All of them successful. None of them seemed stupid.

Maybe I am just having a good week.

In the olden days actors had publicity agents who controlled interviews and they were valuable as they stopped stupid or reckless celebrities from embarrassing themselves.

However once in awhile it didn't work. I recall Tab Hunter, on the panel of "What's My Line." OMG was he stupid. Nice to look at but dumb as shit.

R28 You are really dense. It's not that difficult to find a lot of interviews of actors saying silly things.

Yes, there are a lot of actors who are smart and inteligent, but there are a lot who only care about his selfish asses

R30, you are dense if you thought it was a request for where to find interviews. The rest of the post made it clear what the point was..

However, for those who are having trouble, the point is that R25 is probably looking at interviews with stars who are selling films.

The point is that to generalize off of that kind of interview with that kind of people is not a great sample to make a generalization from.

It is like asking obstructions about hospice and then claiming that most doctors know nothing about end of life care.

Orson Welles remarked that the best actors aren't very intelligent.

HJ (Henry Jaglom): People say Marlon Brando isn’t very bright. OW: Well, most great actors aren’t. Larry [Olivier] is very—I mean, seriously—stupid. I believe that intelligence is a handicap in an actor. Because it means that you’re not naturally emotive, but rather cerebral. The cerebral fellow can be a great actor, but it’s harder.

[quote]David Wilson Barnes, Tamila Woodard, Deirdre O'Connell, and Heidi Schreck. All of them successful.

I've never heard of any of these people.

Many seem to start their careers early, before the normal time to start college. For every opportunity of any note that comes along, career is likely to win out over education.

R33, Google is your friend.

The point R35 is that they aren't that well-known, as you claim, if you have to Google them.

They tend to not be well read. Not dumb per se but they are so focused on their craft.

R35, no one said they were well-known. I said they were successful.

The point being (again) that looking at famous actors many of whom got where they are on looks or nepotism, are not representative of the profession.

Those are just people I read interviews with in the last week all of whom are pretty successful starring on Broadway or an Amazon show, or running a highly regarded acting program. These are not waiters claiming to be actors.

And a lot of actors in America are former athletes and models or some other jobs where education is not a big requirement.