The Decline of the American Actor
July 12, 2015 1:50 AM   Subscribe

[slatlantic] Are you telling me there’s nothing there worth playing?
posted by St. Peepsburg (48 comments total) 15 users marked this as a favorite
 
Fascinating piece - thanks for sharing it. I'm surprised how absorbed I was, considering how little I know about the subject.
posted by YAMWAK at 2:48 AM on July 12, 2015


The stunt journalist writing this genteel diatribe is not looking at the right media, the next generation of great american actors/stars are currently playing the straight man to a vast array of youtube comic cats and wacky doggies. Who needs Shakespeare or the actors studio when you get real time authentic feedback of click count and actual viewer comments on your real life authentic surprise at a raccoon jumping in your lap?
posted by sammyo at 2:48 AM on July 12, 2015 [5 favorites]


I don't know why all the choice American parts are going to actors from other countries... but I'm convinced it's not from lack of talent here. There are so many talented actors aching for work, and most of them will never get the kind of showcase they deserve. There are people waiting tables right now who could just amaze you, but they will never get that break.

The current crop of American stars hasn't been too dazzling... but part of that is the roles they've been cast in. Every now and again one of today's stars will do a turn in a smaller picture where they play totally against type, and everybody is amazed. But then in the next movie they go back to playing Johnny Blandsome or Suzie Girlfriendberg, and their celebrity status quo is restored. Hell, even Adam Sandler has proven he can really act. But then he just goes back to being Adam freakin' Sandler.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 4:01 AM on July 12, 2015 [3 favorites]


Really enjoyed this, and it made me think.

On first thought, it was easy to attribute to supply and demand. People go see dumb bro-comedies, remakes and sequels because the masses are inherently lazy and want their entertainment spoon-fed and blandly palatable. Give the people what they want, do not challenge them or force them to engage at all beyond the comfortable chortles of recognition. Give me sequels, predictable franchises, set-em-up-knock-em-down formula comedy, blah blah blah. Therefore the (American) actors that populate these dumbed-down (American) landscapes have damn little asked of them. The road to the bank is paved with the lowest common denominator. Theater pundits have been saying the same thing for years. Jukebox musicals and Disney stage versions, Movies-into-musicals, are all evidence of this need to deliver the familiar to guarantee an audience. No one wants to take a risk.

Is that all there is to it? The entertainment machine is just churning out product that's safe enough to recoup some investment? On the surface that seems like it's just good business.

Of course we know that there is more going on. Engrossing movies, ambitious, thought-provoking theater, fascinating performances. I'm sure someone could come up with plenty of examples to counter this article's premise. But seeing that examples to support it were so freaking thick on the ground... it does at least give me pause.
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 4:15 AM on July 12, 2015


I suspect the phenomenon he's referring to isn't so much relative talent and ambition between the U.S. and the U.K., but rather that the list of British actors in the piece represent a considerably quantity of talent, yes, but also training and diverse experience that is available among American actors but at a much higher price. We see all those British actors because it's a lot cheaper than hiring equivalently qualified and capable American actors.

If there is a benefit to the Shakespearian training, it's that the actor is taught to take the words apart to find out what they mean and sell the meaning, make it apparent to the audience (after all, to a lot of them the pure words mean very little). This would probably be a very useful skill when trying to make the kinds of exposition-dump dialogue they'd get in Hollywood seem natural. The method actor would get to a similar place by a different route, were they available.
posted by Grangousier at 4:23 AM on July 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


Many American celebrity smiles and physiques are so perfect and fake that is impossibly difficult for them to play human beings. They are so slick that my interest just slides right off of them like they have a no-stick coating. I find the Brits on the other hand tend to have physical quirks that give me some purchase on the characters they play.
posted by srboisvert at 4:47 AM on July 12, 2015 [24 favorites]


The gist of what I've read seems to be that "US actors used to be able to cut their teeth playing roles in things on TV and can't do the as often now." Which is a theory I'll buy - look at the rise of reality TV and consider what it may have replaced.

...now I'd like to see an article focus this same kind of attention on the question, "why are there no good roles for women over 40".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:50 AM on July 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


Many American celebrity smiles and physiques are so perfect and fake that is impossibly difficult for them to play human beings. They are so slick that my interest just slides right off of them like they have a no-stick coating. I find the Brits on the other hand tend to have physical quirks that give me some purchase on the characters they play.

This, along with often less predictable and more risky stories and cinematography, is why the bulk of my movie and tv watching is foreign.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:52 AM on July 12, 2015




A worthy rebuttal, thanks for posting Short Attention Sp, though it was weird that he considered Seth Rogen as comparable to Jonah Hill, when aside from their stoner movie roots I really wouldn't put them in the same category.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 5:39 AM on July 12, 2015


I thought it was weirder that he considered them talented actors.
posted by fullerine at 5:56 AM on July 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


What's the crisis again? Something about men looking too serious?
posted by thetortoise at 6:00 AM on July 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


Maybe they should try... Not doing Method? Just a thought.
posted by Artw at 6:27 AM on July 12, 2015 [3 favorites]


Alternatively some kind of underground actors training camp where U.S. Actors spend 10 years appearing remaking episodes of Eastenders and The Bill that are never broadcast?
posted by Artw at 6:31 AM on July 12, 2015 [3 favorites]


A thoughtful, well-written piece by Terrence Rafferty. I'm going to once again tediously request that posters mention the name of the person who wrote the piece they're posting. If you wrote something that got publicized, you'd want your name attached to it, no?
posted by languagehat at 6:50 AM on July 12, 2015 [11 favorites]


I pretty much agree with this piece. Do I think that there are no good American actors today? No, that would be dumb. But I do think American actors don't get as much as training as their foreign counterparts do. I don't know if that is from lack of interest (because if you're an actor whose goal is fame and celebrity, why waste your time doing theatre or journeyman work?) or lack of ability to afford that training. I think the author is right in that American culture (to me, Hollywood culture) wants stars, not actors. If you can act and be a star, so much the better. I hadn't thought about the fact that the majority of younger actors I see onscreen had been on our screens for a while as children or young adults.

I dunno, while I for one rejoice at our foreign actor overlords, I am hoping that the audience desire for good television will prove a fertile ground for American actors in the future.
posted by Kitteh at 7:04 AM on July 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


Pragmatically, the US is the largest English-language employment market for entertainment professionals. That's not to say it's easy - it's not - but the pool of potential work is larger. I mean, you can make your name in any one of the US-produced films at Sundance, or you can be in the one Australian (or British or Welsh or Irish) film at Sundance, if you see what I mean.

To further engage with Mr. Rafferty's point, acting is a craft like any other: you learn to do a thing, and how to keep doing that thing; how to expand upon that thing, and make that thing anew. Actors learn accents - Shakespeare wrote accents into his plays, for example. Thus you have golden Sydney boy Ryan Kwanten as a Deep South good ol' boy in True Blood, Hugh Jackman as Canadia's finest Wolfy, as well as Our Cate, Our Nic, Our Naomi, Our Geoffrey, Our Rusty (I KNOW HE'S A KIWI I AM MAKING A POINT) and Our Heath God Rest Him Taken From Us Too Soon Rest In Peace Brother etc etc so on und so weiter.
posted by prismatic7 at 7:34 AM on July 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


I was surprised by what the author said about the latest crop of American actors not getting proper training because they started out too young in the business. What struck me in listening to Marc Maron's WTF is that nearly every famous actor started working very young.
posted by bonobothegreat at 7:44 AM on July 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


I read the other day that Michael Douglas, in an interview for Ant-Man, characterized it as being that young Australian and UK actors had a sense of inherent "masculinity" that American actors lacked. The author then went on to opine that it was the Disney channel at work, that they had vaccumed up all the young male talent and, Ryan Gosling excepted, that stunted their growth trajectories.

I think this all misses a colossal point, though, and that is that a huge chunk of film and television is now filmed overseas, for tax purposes. Casting directors, therefore, have widened their net to include overseas actors, because they're also cheaper, and just as good.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:44 AM on July 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


I read the other day that Michael Douglas, in an interview for Ant-Man, characterized it as being that young Australian and UK actors had a sense of inherent "masculinity" that American actors lacked.

Well, his dad used to up the U.S. average a few points all by himself, but he's more or less retired.
posted by Etrigan at 8:15 AM on July 12, 2015 [3 favorites]


American actors aren't training?!? Every year I meet a half dozen new MFA's or MFA's-in-training, desperate for any kind of work. I worked with one young woman last year who actually found it was cheaper to go and train in the UK despite the cost of leaving the US just because the tuition was so much more affordable and she didn't qualify for enough assistance to make up the difference.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:29 AM on July 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


Well, his dad used to up the U.S. average a few points all by himself, but he's more or less retired.

And somehow, he still manages to be more macho than any 10 random men put together.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:35 AM on July 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


I wonder if it has to do with what kinds of kids are encouraged to / discouraged from go into acting in the US. It seems to be that if you don't "have the look", then people aren't going to encourage you to explore acting. Also, we may not have as many kids from various backgrounds exposed to thoughtful acting and the complexities in good acting; if you grew up where I grew up, you'd probably think that Disney channel comedies are "acting", and that a career in that kind of thing requires you to be like those performers.
posted by amtho at 8:44 AM on July 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


Part of the problem isn't just the training, but also where the actors can then present the training, and if casting directors and their network of colleagues are there to see it. It's a consequence of many unintended pathways - young American actors are still working hard in theatre, in MFAs, you name it, and just as hard as their foreign (often British Commonwealth) counterparts, but the budget limitations of the (BC) tv/film industry has resulted in talent being fostered in drama-heavy settings, where they get to show off their acting skills, and while MAYBE before that could lead to once-in-a-blue-moon acting opportunity in tinseltown, if they were ever noticed by American tv/film people, with greater access to pop culture and media from everywhere (and especially if there's a certain cachet to know foreign cultural media), their opportunity for a break has now increased multiple-fold. And then network theory takes care of itself, as more of the 'foreign' arts people come in and settle, and introduce people from their established network to the people in their new network. At the same time, there's a greater ease also in casting outside of 'Hollywood' as well, because 'you just know' non-American actors are just 'better' at drama (more gritty; more real-looking; more believable).

But it's not like American actors aren't all that, but all the interesting-looking ones have been filtered out of the opportunity to do any leading roles, even if they have the dramatic skills for it, because mainstream American pop culture looks for different sort of mould, for the undeniably attractive though after a certain point, samey-looking (see: the current crop of female stars in young adult, 18-40 demographic shows on the CW for example - big lips, big eyes, strong jaw). Add in the endemic racism in casting etc etc, and it gets to the point where even I noticed how come the traditional African-American roles consistently goes to non-American actors?

I have friends who are slaving away on their parents' dime studying in Chicago or NY and I keep telling them to go to Glasgow or London, not only because it's cheaper and shorter (at Masters' level), but the opportunity at casting is actually pretty good-to-great.
posted by cendawanita at 8:51 AM on July 12, 2015 [7 favorites]


Thoughtful piece.

I do think the American acting community bought into method acting too heavily. That may be part of a deep cultural difference where Yanks value sincerity and others, especially Brits, attach more value to the sub-text, but I think it meant too many people with talent who couldn't act things they couldn't empathise with. No wonder Brits got most of the bad guy parts.
posted by Segundus at 9:23 AM on July 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


For the rest of the actors he cites I agree (e.g: he's also British?!) but I wouldn't call Damien Lewis's accent on Homeland "eerily undetectable". To me it sounds rather like an English caricature of generic American.
posted by Flashman at 9:29 AM on July 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


That may be part of a deep cultural difference where Yanks value sincerity and others, especially Brits, attach more value to the sub-text

Probably more thinking of it as a job and getting on with it versus being needing to be a star and have some inner specialness.
posted by Artw at 9:37 AM on July 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


Just off the top of my head, for terrific American actors under the age of forty: Lee Pace, Anthony Mackie, and Wes Bentley (all Juilliard-trained, as it happens). Joseph Gordon-Levitt is brilliant, but the author's admiration for him is causing tunnel vision.
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:44 AM on July 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


Another possible cliche about British actors is that they're trained to efficiently and reliably learn their lines in a way that a lot of actors that audition for Hollywood aren't - this is something that has turned up a number of times over the years. Again, this might be comparing apples with cucumbers, though - there may be a reason that classically trained non-U.S. actors who have a sudden spurt of success might fetch up in Los Angeles looking for work in a way that their equivalents in the American theatre do not (for a start they might not have the opportunity for a non-Hollywood international success to bring them to casting directors' attention that something like Doctor Who or a Mike Leigh film has done for some actors).
posted by Grangousier at 9:47 AM on July 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


Every year I meet a half dozen new MFA's or MFA's-in-training

Yeah, but MFA programs are often a sort of creative arts program instead of the very functional skills-drilling that students from RADA or LAMDA come out with. An MFA doesn't actually guarantee that someone is work-ready, unless it comes from one of a handful of schools. (And we can probably go down a rabbit hole on how a lot of MFA programs, since you basically never get funded for an MFA, are revenue sources for schools and so are more accommodating than a rigorous science program, for example.) We do have a couple of schools where you do know you're getting a dance-trained singing fighting probably horse-riding and shooting actor who can hit a mark and stand in a light, but we have a very large population and not that many actors go to those schools proportionally.

I think Richard Brody's rebuttal is a good one, and makes a lot of points, and it may be that part of what's going on is simply the cachet of foreignness (and that thing where being able to do some kind of American accent seems like an amazing trick* that gets unnecessary coolness points) and foreign training. It may be that UK/Antipodean actors are extra grateful to be on an American set, because the production standards and working conditions are often much better. It may be a certain carriage in auditions. None of that is the same as talent, but they do carry weight in hiring decisions.

might fetch up in Los Angeles looking for work in a way that their equivalents in the American theatre do not

This is the one thing that's harder to do, though, for foreign actors. Getting a "Alien of Extraordinary Ability" non-employment-based visa isn't hugely difficult if you're working somewhere, but having had a job in the UK or Australia doesn't mean you can afford to live in LA for long stretches of time without a job, especially while trying to maintain residence in a second country.

This is one of the reasons you don't see nearly as many TV series with relative unknown foreign actors, because being available and visa'd to be in town for Pilot Season is so much harder, and if you don't play Pilot Season Roulette every year you're going to get paid pocket change if you do eventually luck out and one goes to series. That might explain why so many end up in films instead - easier to get hired, and they're cheaper than their TV-experienced counterparts.

*I just saw Terminator: Genisys yesterday. The only American with more than 10 minutes' screen time was Schwarzenegger. It was like Accent Gumbo with Special Sauce. But stuff blew up really good.
posted by Lyn Never at 10:58 AM on July 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


Hell, even Adam Sandler has proven he can really act. But then he just goes back to being Adam freakin' Sandler.

Adam freaking Sandler went back to being Adam freaking Sandler because there was no money in being Barry Egan.
posted by blucevalo at 11:26 AM on July 12, 2015


P.S. Cary Grant also wasn't T.R. Devlin for very long. Nobody wanted to see Cary Grant play the tough guy.
posted by blucevalo at 11:28 AM on July 12, 2015


Opening Line:

Is it time for American actors to take a hard look in the mirror? Earlier this year Michael Douglas mused darkly to a magazine interviewer, “I think we have a little crisis going on amongst our young actors at this point" ...

An afterthought over half way through the article:

No crisis among the women, then.

This attitude about which actors matter is why only 12% of films in 2014 had women in leading roles.
posted by belarius at 11:32 AM on July 12, 2015 [9 favorites]


"Is it a matter of money?"
posted by clavdivs at 11:39 AM on July 12, 2015


I wonder sometimes if part of the problem is the kid-to-adult-performer pipeline is predicated on "cute kid, we'll teach 'em the rest." So for every Ryan Reynolds you get coming up through kids tv, you get a dozen who look pretty and have learned the skills by rote, without innate talent to make things shine. Is that making sense?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:02 PM on July 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


I think a large part is the differing emphasis on craft and talent. You obviously need both (at last for an entire career), but craft can help you over a lot of rough spots. You gain craft both by training and practice , and there is both a more robust craft training and more outlet for honing the craft. That includes radio drama, never mentioned in US articles because there hasn’t been any in the US for so long.

Money plays into it too I’m sure. I read an interview with Simon Russell Beale, a fantastic actor and certainly one of the finest of his generation with most of his work on the stage, where he was talking about taking a part at a small theatre in Hampstead because it fit in between his other roles and he couldn’t afford to just take large blocks of time off between major roles. The necessity to constantly keep doing new and different things will help keep you at the peak of your craft. If you get paid enough that you only do a job every year or two you are not going to have the same chops.
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 12:21 PM on July 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


This is the one thing that's harder to do, though, for foreign actors.

I know that giving-it-a-try-in-Los-Angeles is something that British actors who've achieved a certain amount of success do try fairly often, though (can't say what the actual logistics of it are), as they talk about doing it (or not doing it) in interviews fairly often. Perhaps the fact that initial meetings can be done via Skype and that a lot of the shooting is done in Vancouver has made the process easier?
posted by Grangousier at 12:32 PM on July 12, 2015


That was three times as long as it needed to be.
posted by ethnomethodologist at 1:57 PM on July 12, 2015


Only three? Must try harder.
posted by Grangousier at 2:10 PM on July 12, 2015


So for every Ryan Reynolds you get coming up through kids tv, you get a dozen who look pretty and have learned the skills by rote

If you're putting up Ryan Reynolds as your acting talent then things have got bad. Also, he's Canadian.

*I just saw Terminator: Genisys yesterday. The only American with more than 10 minutes' screen time was Schwarzenegger.

At least America doesn't have to take the blame for Jai Courtney. Worse even than Sam Worthington.
posted by biffa at 3:14 PM on July 12, 2015


Ryan Reynolds was just the top of mind name.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:38 PM on July 12, 2015


Joan Didion called L.A.: "The city of slow no"

My how things have changed.
posted by clavdivs at 7:30 PM on July 12, 2015


--Every year I meet a half dozen new MFA's or MFA's-in-training

--Yeah, but MFA programs are often a sort of creative arts program instead of the very functional skills-drilling that students from RADA or LAMDA come out with. An MFA doesn't actually guarantee that someone is work-ready, unless it comes from one of a handful of schools.


The premise of the article isn't that American training programs aren't good or effective; it claims that America actors aren't training at all, but rather waling in off the street expecting to train on the job.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 6:22 AM on July 13, 2015


young Australian and UK actors had a sense of inherent "masculinity" that American actors lacked. The author then went on to opine that it was the Disney channel at work, that they had vaccumed up all the young male talent and, Ryan Gosling excepted, that stunted their growth trajectories.

This is fascinating theory. And it's more than just missing masculinity (or perhaps gravitas); there's a certain blandness and homogeneity to them (regardless of skin color or beig named Chris) I'm generalizing to a certain extent but I do find myself wondering sometimes where the young De Niros and Pacinos are. Like, who would be cast in The Godfather today?

Nobody wanted to see Cary Grant play the tough guy.

I think that these days America is great about producing Cary Grants but maybe not so great about the producing Hackmans and Hoffmans. Maybe more people are interested in being movie stars than working actors?

No crisis among the women, then.
This attitude about which actors matter is why only 12% of films in 2014 had women in leading roles.


...played by Americans? The author never claimed that there's no crisis regarding leading roles for women, just that the current pool of great American actresses is a bigger and stronger than great American actors so they are not being replaced by non-Americans in the same numbers. That there aren't enough roles for them is something totally different and outside the scope of this article. (Although whether or not losing a role to an Australian rises to level of crisis is debatable.)
posted by Room 641-A at 7:02 AM on July 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


I think that these days America is great about producing Cary Grants but maybe not so great about the producing Hackmans and Hoffmans. Maybe more people are interested in being movie stars than working actors?

All the working-actor types are working in television now, mostly on cable. Twenty years ago, Walton Goggins (Boyd on Justified) would have been a classic Hackman/Hoffman. Rick Hoffman (Louis Litt on Suits) is a born villain. Rami Malek (Mr. Robot), Noah Emmerich (The Americans), Billy Bob Thornton (Fargo), Ron Perlman (Sons of Anarchy), Michael Rapaport (everything)... For that matter, ultimate working actor Bruce MFin' Campbell did seven seasons and a TV movie of Burn Notice and is now working on an Evil Dead TV show.

America is still producing fantastic character and supporting actors, but they're working in TV now.
posted by Etrigan at 7:20 AM on July 13, 2015 [4 favorites]


Enjoying the conversation so far, wish I could get all the film nerds in a room to dissect & debate further.


vis a vis The Ryans:

Ryan Renolds isn't bad, he is just chronically miscast (because of his looks imo). Hollywood keeps trying to make him happen, and he's not going to happen. He's not heartthrob or superhero material; he needs roles where the character has just a touch of a dark side in order to shine. He's a very attractive supporting character actor. If it's a straight up leading man role, he has no sparkle. That being said, he's a) an average actor b) Canadian.

Ryan Gosling - was excellent in Half Nelson, admiringly wants to stretch himself as an actor and chooses movies accordingly, but overall gravitates towards mumblecore "real working man" roles and his growth as an actor has stalled. So he's an above average actor who a) has average role choices b) is Canadian.

Not sure if the Canadian/American distinction is relevant in this context though; our films are your films, the pop culture is similar, many actors go south if they want to grow their career since the options up here (*cough* CBC *cough*) are limited.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 9:29 AM on July 13, 2015


America is still producing fantastic character and supporting actors, but they're working in TV now.

Yes, I agree that TV is probably peeling off some American actors from film, but I think the article is addressing leading roles more than roles for character actors. In that context I wouldn't group Hackman and Hoffman in the same category as Walter Goggins or Noah Emmerich (who are both fantastic!) In any event, this is certainly a curious situation:
The phenomenon may have reached its unignorable peak in last year’s docudrama Selma: the parts of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Coretta Scott King, Governor George Wallace, and President Lyndon B. Johnson were all played by Brits.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:40 AM on July 13, 2015


I think part of the problem is the Hollywood marketing departments, because they have no idea how to market anything that isn’t HERO or VILLAIN.

Sometimes people are just weird, or apathetic, or broken, or skittish. But those kinds of characters are hard to market (we’re told), and so they don’t get made as often, or sold as aggressively as chiseled jaw laser cannon types. I know a lot of fervent Tom Hardy fans, and one thing people really love about him is how willing he is to make his characters weird. He’s handsome and charismatic and he’ll gain or lose 70 lbs for a role, but he’ll also go ahead and make the audience uncomfortable or surprised or alarmed.

Oh, and I think the concept that most American actors got their starts in TV is more important than just “lack of rigorous training”— TV schedules are brutal, and tv schedules that feature underage actors are even more insane because of the federal limits on how many hours they can work. People raised in that environment are not likely to want to take insane improvisational risks/push the envelope, if your entire professional training is based on “this take is good enough, we can fix it in editing” or “we have [short time] to shoot [a lot of pages], so let’s just power through and try to get the whole crew home before midnight.” The young actors who thrive in that environment are hard workers/team player types, and so whereas being a working actor in the UK means taking a lot of difficult and esoteric theater roles, being a working (young) actor in the US means a lot of mediocre tv, straight to video movies, and “kid who tells a joke in superhero movie” parts.

(I think Shia LaBoeuf is a sad example of a hardworking reliable child/teen actor who entered the established pipeline for leading man parts, but rebelled and made a series of increasingly public mistakes and became a constantly mocked pariah. Part of the reason he rebelled was because he “made it” only to realize that “making it” resulted in him being expected to work on mediocre blockbusters all the time. I dunno, he just makes me especially sad.)
posted by a fiendish thingy at 10:07 AM on July 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


« Older "It's when an idea wears another idea's - hat"   |   There's a moon in the sky, it's called Neptune Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments