English Actors as opposed to American Actors.

[Hemingway Jones]

This is not meant to be a true competition, but a commentary, which I hope you will add to in some way.

It seems to me that a disproportionate amount of actors in the UK also distinguish themselves in some field of academics, such as writing books or becoming school administers.

When Simon Callow, the English character actor, is not acting in films like "Four Weddings and A Funeral," "Shakespeare in Love," and "Bright Young Things," he somehow has time to write a multi-volume biography of Orson Welles, to critical praise.

Stephen Fry when not yucking it up with Hugh Laurie, or directing films like "Bright Young Things," or playing Oscar Wilde in "Wilde" writes a text book on poetry called "The Ode Not Taken," again to critical acclaim.

Kenneth Branagh is well known for his Shakespeare studies. He issues a book for every Shakespearian film he makes.

Michael Palin has written books, travelogues, and has produced "Michael Palin's Hemingway Adventure" and various other documentaries.

Patrick Stewart, the great actor of "Star Trek" and "The X-Men" is also the Chancellor of the University of Huddersfield.

In America, it seems that actors differentiate themselves somewhat differently. I cannot think of a single piece of nonfiction written by an American actor. In fact the only actor I can think of who has done something similar is Peter Weller who lectures at Syracuse on Roman History, but he hardly acts anymore.

Can you think of any other examples that either support or refute this claim?

 

[cookie]

This is not meant to be a true competition, but a commentary, which I hope you will add to in some way.

It seems to me that a disproportionate amount of actors in the UK also distinguish themselves in some field of academics, such as writing books or becoming school administers.

When Simon Callow, the English character actor, is not acting in films like "Four Weddings and A Funeral," "Shakespeare in Love," and "Bright Young Things," he somehow has time to write a multi-volume biography of Orson Welles, to critical praise.

Stephen Fry when not yucking it up with Hugh Laurie, or directing films like "Bright Young Things," or playing Oscar Wilde in "Wilde" writes a text book on poetry called "The Ode Not Taken," again to critical acclaim.

Kenneth Branagh is well known for his Shakespeare studies. He issues a book for every Shakespearian film he makes.

Michael Palin has written books, travelogues, and has produced "Michael Palin's Hemingway Adventure" and various other documentaries.

Patrick Stewart, the great actor of "Star Trek" and "The X-Men" is also the Chancellor of the University of Huddersfield.

In America, it seems that actors differentiate themselves somewhat differently. I cannot think of a single piece of nonfiction written by an American actor. In fact the only actor I can think of who has done something similar is Peter Weller who lectures at Syracuse on Roman History, but he hardly acts anymore.

Can you think of any other examples that either support or refute this claim?

I suspect the reason for this is that a lot of the English actors went to top schools followed by Oxford/Cambridge and came into acting thru the reviews or alternatively went to RADA or somesuch. These guys have that essential Britishness such as the brilliant witty/clever sense of humour (eg Fry) which is a product of a very upper class fine education (which he satirises of course).

I think a lot of the modern American actors are journeymen types who never got a top education and fell into acting accidently or passed through acting school like Lee Strasbergs without having the educational background in drama etc.

The Aussies are now invading Hollywood and many also have a good education followed by acting schools like NIDA (Gibson) that are top flight and also start in legit theatre before moving to movies. Even the soaps are not a grounding for movies and most soapie stars do not make it in Hollywood but those that do serious drama on TV do go on to success whilst doing theartre all the while.

 

[scotrace]

.

This made me think of the way people spoke in films in the golden era.

After the beginning of talkines, British actors we prized in the US for their perfect diction. So many early sound performers had regional, unattractive accents and found themselves out of work. Others tried to emulate the British model and ended up with overdone modified British accents. When we view these films today, the speech of these actors seems forced and stilted.

 

[K.D. Lightner]

It seems to me that the actors in the UK are also more classically trained and are therefore some of the best actors in the world. It is said that by the time an American actor is 25, he/she is lucky to have two professional stage productions to his name, plus whatever he may have done in college, if, in fact, he went to college. A UK actor or actress at the same age may have been touring the provinces in Shakespeare or other classical theatre productions, has been in dozens of plays and played myriads of roles.

The best American actors are natural actors, some of them can and do play Shakespeare and the classics (anyone see Al Pacino in Looking for Richard?); it takes them years to get the same experience an English actor has before he is 30.


As for the scholarship, that doesn't surprise me. Again, I think it is their familliarity with the classics, literature, theatre, poetry, etc., that gives them the edge.

karol

 

[Feraud]

This is a great subject that I want to seriously mull over.
In the meantime, my initial comment is English citizens go into the field of acting.
Americans aspire to Hollywood. There is the big difference.
We can discuss in the new year.

 

[cookie]

This made me think of the way people spoke in films in the golden era.

After the beginning of talkines, British actors we prized in the US for their perfect diction. So many early sound performers had regional, unattractive accents and found themselves out of work. Others tried to emulate the British model and ended up with overdone modified British accents. When we view these films today, the speech of these actors seems forced and stilted.

You are right, of course, but do not dismiss the wonderful educated American accents of the likes of Kate Hepburn etc which are a beautifully modulated mellifluous sound to the ear with the diction etc all there and perfect.

The English also went thru a phase when even Cockney lasses like Diana Dors had "to speak proper like" with these bizarre "proper" accents in films about regualr folks.

But then when you see the change in the last 20 years (sublime to the Gorrblime) where the British speech has become atrocious with the Cockney speech infusing the London dialect to form this bizarre 'Thames Estuary' dialect and every second young Pom says "fing" instead of "thing" (read Theodore Dalrymple in the Spectator on this observation) . The same sort of thing is happening Downunder but then the source is the same = Cockney speech from the convicts.

The theory is that its always easier to go to the lowest common denominator. This is what happened to speech because its viewed as being "democratic" when in fact it is a "dumbing down" and vulgarising of our beautiful common language - the historic and wonderful thing that unites all us English speakers - the "lingua franca" of the modern 21st century world.

 

[cookie]

This is a great subject that I want to seriously mull over.
In the meantime, my initial comment is English citizens go into the field of acting.
Americans aspire to Hollywood. There is the big difference.
We can discuss in the new year.

Yes but don't trash Hollywodd too much when the big guys of the 40s held sway they could tell the good from the bad and the ugly.

 

[cookie]

It seems to me that the actors in the UK are also more classically trained and are therefore some of the best actors in the world. It is said that by the time an American actor is 25, he/she is lucky to have two professional stage productions to his name, plus whatever he may have done in college, if, in fact, he went to college. A UK actor or actress at the same age may have been touring the provinces in Shakespeare or other classical theatre productions, has been in dozens of plays and played myriads of roles.

The best American actors are natural actors, some of them can and do play Shakespeare and the classics (anyone see Al Pacino in Looking for Richard?); it takes them years to get the same experience an English actor has before he is 30.


As for the scholarship, that doesn't surprise me. Again, I think it is their familliarity with the classics, literature, theatre, poetry, etc., that gives them the edge.

karol

Spot on!


Do not forget that at Christmas time the British actors all get a few bob working in Pantomime and getting away with the bizarre stuff that only the Brits can do. Panto is a lot like a return for them to the uni reviews many started in (eg The Pythons).

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Good Points All!

And Pacino was equally brilliant in "The Merchant of Venice."

And in regards to accent, some of the great voices in film have reformed their speech, including Cary Grant, Anthony Hopkins, and RogeMoore. Grant, of course, did so into an accent all his own.

Perhaps there is a stigma against acting in some of these distinguished families from which these English actors derive, inspiring them to leave a mark in another, and perhaps more respectable, field. -Or maybe it's just a yearning to leave a mark across many different disciplines.

I was just thinking of Julian Fellowes who wrote and won an Academy Award for his screenplay of "Gosford Park" and he also write the book "Snobs," which was well reviewed and did quite well. He is also a character actor from "Tomorrow Never Dies" and countless other films, or from his reoccurring role on "Monarch of the Glen."

 

[Tomasso]

I think a lot of the modern American actors are journeymen types who never got a top education and fell into acting accidently or passed through acting school like Lee Strasbergs without having the educational background in drama etc.

.

Many American actors have attended university drama schools and Actors Studio type programs. In fact, countless actors have attended both Yale Drama and the Actors Studio, Paul Newman for one.

I'm not sure that a Shakespeare weighted resume is as sought after these days as in the past.

As for actor/authors, John Lithgow, Viggo Mortensen, Woody Allen, Bill Cosby, Jamie Leigh Curtis, Carrie Fisher, etc..........there's got to be a hundred of them.

 

[Feraud]

This is the kind of discussion that can go on forever and should make for interesting chatting.

I am not sure if the thread is exclusive to acting & academic accomplishments let me throw this one out.

In terms of achievement, it is an American actor that held the highest and most revered position in the United States. Ronald Regan was a two term U.S. President.

 

[cookie]

This is the kind of discussion that can go on forever and should make for interesting chatting.

I am not sure if the thread is exclusive to acting & academic accomplishments let me throw this one out.

In terms of achievement, it is an American actor that held the highest and most revered position in the United States. Ronald Regan was a two term U.S. President.

well now we get truly serious and talk about politics and the place of hteartre as an aspect of political success - not to disparage politics by that - but to stress that the engagegement that is so much part of winning politics is enhanced by the clever use of theatrical flourish but all the while the person must have an abiding philosophy otherwise it ain't politics its just a cheap performance for the great unwashed.

 

[moustache]

There are many from the Hollwood crowd who have written books ,mainly autobiographies and novels.But non-fiction is certainly not one of the popular genres.I remember Ethan Hawke's first book drawing acclaim and decided to investigate.Good book,yet a novel as well.

I know it might seem crass for me to say so but,to me,the Hollywood crowd would rather gain attention from the press and photographers by forgetting items of clothing(ala Britney)or entangling themselves in yet another messy divorce,etc.Doesn't seem like there is a desire to continue their education but to rest on the laurals that have been tossed to them.There are exceptions of course.
But the vast majority of them have decided to enjoy life without further time consuming issues.In a way i can understand that.Hard work deserves some leisure.I must admit to admiring the Brits in this regard.I'm not a Brit by birth but have traveled and lived there many times.I adore the drive for continued education.Here again,not all Brits are this way.But the social perception is that they have a better education and are better mannered.Perception.

In America it seems that EVERYONE goes to college now.Even if just to put a framed diploma on the wall.Does the degree mean anything anymore?To some.But i can't count how many people i know who never use their education for the life course they have chosen or care in the slightest about the subject studied.
College to them was for a money enabling leg up.Never mind paying back the huge school loans

Fascinating subject this is.Thanks for starting the thread.

JD

 

[Feraud]

Maybe it is the fault of us Americans for the lack of academic output and acceptance from our actors. When ever I see an actor do anything but write a "tell all" autobiography or sell commercial products there is a distinct smell of disdain and rejection by the general population.
Brittany Spears and Jennifer Lopez will sell as much horrible perfume as the shelves will hold but when our American actors talk politics they are practically run out of town on a rail.
Consider George Clooney, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Charlton Heston and Tom Selleck. The following are all actors with brains but most Americans see them as getting "uppity" and want them in their place as actors alone.
Who is to blame?

 

[GOK]

This made me think of the way people spoke in films in the golden era.

After the beginning of talkines, British actors we prized in the US for their perfect diction. So many early sound performers had regional, unattractive accents and found themselves out of work. Others tried to emulate the British model and ended up with overdone modified British accents. When we view these films today, the speech of these actors seems forced and stilted.

Wot - like Dick Van Dyke? lol

**skips off, singing "Oh it's a jolly 'oliday wiv Mary"..**

 

[moustache]

Maybe it is the fault of us Americans for the lack of academic output and acceptance from our actors. When ever I see an actor do anything but write a "tell all" autobiography or sell commercial products there is a distinct smell of disdain and rejection by the general population.
Brittany Spears and Jennifer Lopez will sell as much horrible perfume as the shelves will hold but when our American actors talk politics they are practically run out of town on a rail.
Consider George Clooney, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Charlton Heston and Tom Selleck. The following are all actors with brains but most Americans see them as getting "uppity" and want them in their place as actors alone.
Who is to blame?

I,personally,think they are to blame themselves.it is their decision and theirs only when bringing their political and social views into the housholds of America.Yes,it is a free country but one must be responsible for ones actions AND words.Not everyone wants or cares to hear it.
I agree that all of the aforementioned actors are intelligent people.

I liked Heston in the old days and Selleck rates with Sam Elliot as the two best stars of Westerns in America.
Regarding the pop divas today it is
funny that some of the trashiest and loose stars will sell millions of items to children and teens everywhere.Says a lot about how America has changed.
Some say it has always been this way.I beg to differ.
Wonder what Brittney will write about in her book?The long lived marriage she has had lol ,the fast nights in Vegas,etc.Hmmmmm


JD

 

[Hemingway Jones]

.

And I hope we can all make a distinction between someone writing a scholarly book that is highly acclaimed in its field and someone else writing a children's story or a self absorbed bit of Public Relation-dictated "autobiography." I would remove most forms of autobiography from consideration.

The English trend toward the former and the Americans the later.

I hold out hope, I think Pacino's idea of "taking back" Shakespeare from the scholars and giving it to the actors was brilliant. "Looking for Richard" was brilliant and fun, something documentaries rarely are. It would have made for a wonderful work of nonfiction. I wish he had gone the additional step.

Steve Martin has written a charming novella with "Shopgirl."

I don't think I have the background or composure to take the children's books that celebrities have written seriously. -Call it a character flaw.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

It helps to have done a very challenging undergraduate degree - Palin, Fry (or to be a classically (that is: theatre) trained actor - Brannagh, Stewart, Callow).

Palin: Modern History (Oxford)
Fry: English (Cambridge)
Stewart: Chancellor is an honorary title, requiring no academic achievement (sean connery holds (or used to) a similar title in Glasgow). successful stage actor.
Callow: Queens University, Belfast. successful stage actor before film.
Brannagh: If you're going to play a shakespeare main-character, you darn well should be able to write a book about it, the amount of research you have to do.

And remember the list here is quite short. These people are overachievers. it is rare to be multi talented, and has very little, if anything, to do with nationality.

bk

 

[Fletch]

Good points, Baron. I do think, however, that American culture has less room for the multitalented than the multi-careered. You want to do many things, fine - but I think we'd rather you stick to one at a time, really show dedication and single-mindedness, and most important, SUCCEED and be recognized for it.

We're a democracy, and talent has always been a little bit of a dirty word for us, because talent isn't handed out equally. Rewarding talent is a little bit like rewarding someone for being born well-to-do (and we do that semiconsciously, but we can rationalize it because status is more tangible than talent). Pure talent is dangerous, we feel, the gateway to dilettantism and show-offishness. Dilettantes are unserious, and showoffs are worse – they're insulting.

The arts we value most are those where we can apply a very tough version of the work ethic – a meritocracy so strict it's actually a kind of elitism. We demand that you compete - if not financially, then for your right to call yourself an artist at all. Do you want it bad enough that you're willing to give everything for one art? One calling? Choose. Give it all – or give it all up.

Overachievers are win, place, and show in our culture. Achievers are a dime a dozen. I don't like it much, but we're stuck with it.

 

[Tomasso]

I cannot think of a single piece of nonfiction written by an American actor.

I mentioned Viggo Mortensen. [Dead Link Removed] He's a publisher as well.