English Actors as opposed to American Actors.

[Steve]

As has been said, English actors have an appreciation for the classical arts, which is what I think sets them apart. Theatre, Shakespeare, they embrace it, while we Americans drink our Coke and dismiss it as too heady.

 

[Feraud]

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.

Right, that is my point. The well spoken American actors who discuss politics should just "know their place". We want them to stick to acting and not broaden our minds.
There must be something about the English (perhaps the stereotypical "intelligent" accent?) that totally woos American ears. I see American eyes glaze when the Queen's English is spoken. Perhaps the Americans cannot understand what they are hearing? lol

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

That is absolutely correct. We fail to take into account ( or choose to ignore it when convenient ) all the many examples that show the English are not the brilliant well rounded academics or Americans the boorish "wannabe" cousins we make them out to be.

As I said earlier, we can point to examples to support or deny how we choose to view a particular group.

 

[K.D. Lightner]

The one great thing that American actors and actresses do, whether Yale educated or no, is they tend to become activists in various causes. Look at the number of retired glamor gals who have dedicated their lives to animal rights (not all Americans): Doris Day, Tippi Hedron, Kim Novak, Bridget Bardot. Other performers have become spiritual or eco-activists: Alec Baldwin, Richard Geer, Paul Newman. And you have the humanitarians who go to developing nations to lend a hand: Audrey Hepburn, Angelina Jolie come to mind immediately. Michael J. Fox has become a spokesperson for the disabled as did the late Christopher Reeve. Elizabeth Taylor stepped forward as an AIDs advocate at an early critical stage. I could go on and on, probably many here know more names than I can think of at the moment.

Some go into other creative endeavors -- Tony Curtis paints pictures, some actors have ranches or nature preserves, Robert Redford sponsors a world-famous film festival, Gloria Stuart (the elderly actress who was in Titanic) has published her own books and has had all sorts of creative endeavors. Several actresses write children's book, I believe Jaimie Lee Curtis is one.

More than a few have become politicians or political activists, some annoyingly so. And more than a few have become teachers.

People who major in theatre in college can be charming and successful in all sorts of fields.

karol

 

[Tomasso]

How about actor/producers? There are a slew of American actors who are very successful filmmakers as well.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I mentioned Viggo Mortensen. He's a publisher as well.

Viggo Mortesen is precisely the sort of self-indulgent nonsense that I was speaking of. Writing about one's own poetry, painting, and one's own photographs hardly elevates him to a level of a Shakespearian scholar. I suppose you can give accolades for publishing, especially if you are a fan of Cuban art and poetry.

Of course, let's not confuse him with Viggo Mortensen, who is a theologian at a small University in Denmark.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

.

Perhaps, my fellow countrymen would rather diversify themselves in different fields that letters and academia. American actors rarely venture out of the business of film and when they do it is to mixed results. I certainly don't think it is a matter of aptitude.

I place a judgement on this for the purpose of conversation, because I hold books and scholarly pursuits in high regard, and self promoting activism in lesser regard.

Others may, and have, seen it differently.

It does make for a pleasant and spirited debate on a rainy New Years Day.

 

[Tomasso]

.

It does make for a pleasant and spirited debate on a rainy New Years Day.

Alright, you win, Americans actors are slugs, the British rule.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Alright, you win, Americans actors are slugs, the British rule.

I never said any such thing, Old Sport. We'll always have Sam Shepard. No reason to get upset, Old Boy.

 

[Feraud]

Part of the problem in discussion is the idea of individual perspective and how you define the rules of a conversation. What do we include and what do we exclude to back up our claims.

Who is to say what self-promotion is and what we can disregard?

One could argue Kenneth Branagh issuing a book for each of his Shakespearean films as self promoting. What are we using to judge how sincere or what good results may come from celebrities like Angelia Jolie or George Clooney with their political causes. Some people feel the plight in Darfur is worth more than an entertaining travelogue.

We must also take economic factors into consideration in this equation. The Hollywood system generates huge compensation for it's actors. One could argue that American actors do not need a "second job" writing academic commentaries on various subjects. It may be an intellectually narrow minded comment but how can we not consider all factors?

 

[herringbonekid]

i see that lots of americans still have a totally romanticised view of what life in britain is really like. Hem, that is a short list. all very educated, deserving sorts, but still a very short list. i could give you a much longer list of young brit actors who want nothing more than to be the next big thing in hollywood, and are more known for their extracurricular partying than literary ventures.

i personally think that the best screen actors are american, and our theatrical tradition hampers us in that department.

 

[K.D. Lightner]

The fact that they are already famous would make anything else they do look like "self promotion," because, by sponsoring a cause or doing charitable works, they are going to be noticed by the media.

Quite frankly, if I were a wealthy, famous actress, and I could use my "fame" to bring attention to something I felt really needed it, I would want to do that. When someone asked Angelina Jolie why she was trying to bring awareness to the plight of some African countries and was giving away millions to try to help, she explained why she felt she needed to do what she was doing and said she made "an obscene amount of money."

Even Mother Theresa used her fame to bring awareness to the poverty and problems of other countries.

I love intellectual and scholarly pursuits, too, and I imagine, through the years, there have been many American actors and actresses who have pursued them. Stage personalities, especially, have also been college teachers or lecturers, etc.

karol

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Part of the problem in discussion is the idea of individual perspective and how you define the rules of a conversation. What do we include and what do we exclude to back up our claims.

Who is to say what self-promotion is and what we can disregard?

One could argue Kenneth Branagh issuing a book for each of his Shakespearean films as self promoting. What are we using to judge how sincere or what good results may come from celebrities like Angelia Jolie or George Clooney with their political causes. Some people feel the plight in Darfur is worth more than an entertaining travelogue.

We must also take economic factors into consideration in this equation. The Hollywood system generates huge compensation for it's actors. One could argue that American actors do not need a "second job" writing academic commentaries on various subjects. It may be an intellectually narrow minded comment but how can we not consider all factors?

You raise several points and all of them valid.

I think we can dismiss actor's books of bad poetry, bad fiction, and false autobiography, as well. Remember, most of the Entertainment Tonight sound bite tidbits that come out of Hollywood are written as marketing tools. Most of what is said and known about modern celebrity actors is untrue and prepared by PR people. We all know that to be true, so why should we take it seriously?

I think that something like Branagh's writings adds to the understanding of a large discipline and the fact that some actors aspire to add to another discipline in a serious way should be worthy of our praise.

As to advocacy celebrity, I have deliberately excluded that from my initial thesis, because it just gets too muddy. I would highly esteem an expose on Darfur; better if it were taken sincerely and seriously.

We are lucky that we live in a world where such things can coexist. We should, I think, as serious people make choices and not be so taken in be deconstructionists that we cannot differentiate between what is good and what is bad and fair game for our derision. For instance, Jewel's book of laughably bad poetry, famously taken to task by Kurt Loder, of all people, where her word usage is just plain wrong, verses the aforementioned work of Mr. Fry. Shouldn't we be able to judge which is good and which is bad, or should we fill our heads with all sorts of good and bad nonsense while being too timid to pass judgement or differentiate?

 

[Hemingway Jones]

.

I don't want to get too much into the realm of the use of celebrity and Cause-Celebrity, or cause celeb, if you will. What my original idea was to discuss why there seemed to be a trend amongst actors in the UK to differentiate themselves in academic circles, including letters, that seemed to be lacking amongst American actors.

I once saw an interview with Brad Pritt and his former wife, Jennifer Anniston, and in it she was going on and on about how Brad knew everything there was to know about architecture, a rather bold claim. I like Brad Pitt very much and I think he is a much better actor than often given credit for, but I never considered him to be an American John Rushkind. So, I was hoping a book might be forthcoming. I have yet to see one.
[huh]

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I must look up some of Branagh's Shakespeare books (i admit i've never heard of the things). I'm well up on my Arden and Oxford editions. It'll certainly be interesting to see what he has to say . . .

bk

 

[Girl Friday]

Do you suppose the media in the states is to blame, ie. celebrities who really aren't famous for anything but having money like Paris Hilton (I know she is not an actor, but she is in a movie, and a tv show).

Certainly there are excellent American actors, and certainly tabloids are bad everywhere. There's a lot to be said for being classical trained, and where better than the land of the Bard.

 

[Fletch]

Do you suppose the media in the states is to blame, ie. celebrities who really aren't famous for anything but having money like Paris Hilton (I know she is not an actor, but she is in a movie, and a tv show).

Our media are a lot to blame. But basically, they reflect our cultural values and/or lack of same.

I didn't want to come off as shrill as I did about the commercial ethic in our culture, BTW. It's not as inescapable as I made it out to be. But you escape it at a price – usually obscurity, if you're at all ambitious in the arts.

Culture and money are inseparable in America in a way that they were not even in the days of court patronage in Europe. High culture largely caters to, and transmits, the values of the comfortable educated, with the hot-house radical appearing now and then in the name of free speech.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

but would it be a problem for those holding such views (media or whoever), let's say, if an American actor was a really good actor, got big films and acted well in them AND, for want of a better example, wrote excellent, well regarded, top-of-their-field books on some historical subject? Is it bad to be really good at more than one thing?

bk

 

[DOUGLAS]

Bk, I think the main issue is here, many if not most actors are not good at their primary pursuit. American actors are not trained any longer they are discovered, and because their talent is limited to how they look, they are chewed up and spit out as quickly as they were found. Actors here have no time to hone skill or even to learn. Fame is the goal not acting.No selfrespecting Yale graduate is going to spend ten years or more doing summerstock in the hinterland in the hopes of actually learning a craft anymore.
It is a bad way to make an actor but I can't really blame them. The audience has a part in so far as we/they would rather see 10'000 performances of the Lion king with Brad Pitt and Paris Hilton than a well written play well acted by unknowns.
Theater in New York is all but dead. No one can get a new play up. The days of Joe Papp and the Public Theater and Shakespeare in the Park are gone. All the great adhoc theater groups like LaCuccaracha are dead.
If an actor can read his /her lines and god forbid remember them and look good and hit a mark then BAM fame is at your door. Two or three films under your belt Bam an Acadamy Award then Bam Broadway. Then good bye! If you are smart you get a couple of pet projects just to keep your name in the papers and then maybe a bit part in some TV show. We have no tolerance or reverance for age or talent just fame, celebrity and the newest cover of save the world.
We don't praise great talent and skill we toss it away. We like our celebrity shiny and new, and those shiny new things confuse fame and box office draw with skill. That is why many think that they can write a book or sway opinion.
We tell them they can.
A shame really.

 

[herringbonekid]

What my original idea was to discuss why there seemed to be a trend amongst actors in the UK to differentiate themselves in academic circles, including letters, that seemed to be lacking amongst American actors.

... there is no such trend Hem. it exists only in your imagination and the brief examples you gave at the start of this thread.
i should also add that theatre and cinema are completely different acting disciplines. completely different. cinema is down to so much more than acting and is mainly about the director's vision. great theatrical actors do not equal great screen actors.

 

[DOUGLAS]

Hummm.HBK, I think that most of our best screen actors come from the theater,especially New York Theatre. I will agree that the two are different,and good actors who started on the screen are for the most part horrible on stage.