To wonder why so many actors are often unemployed when there are so many plays, TV etc being made?

Think show business seems particularly bad for repeatedly empoying the same person whether they were any good. It stops young gaining experience
My thoughts mary berry/bruce forsythe etc its not necessarily they arent good its that we are employing 10-20y more so thats a whole short career for a person!

But some honestly arent good but still get the work. Harry potter /radcliffe really wasnt good in that but got other parts.
Ant and dec/holly etc etc maybe good but do some stars need to be presenting everything?

Likewise i like brad pitt and cruise but they are multi millionaires.

Also eg the casting for ginny - most kids too old/tall/short not ginger etc etc.

It's similar in a lot of industries. I initially worked in the heritage sector - again very poorly paid (given you needed at least a master's degree), lots of short term temp placements etc. It was fascinating work and I loved it but after a few years I had to consider whether I wanted to carry on spending the next decade in houseshares moving jobs every few months (or even if I got a permanent one struggling for money), or if I wanted to do a less interesting job but afford to live!

Those who stayed were either very passionate and prepared to exclude all else, or had rich partners/parents so their career was more of a hobby than a necessity.

How do you qualify 'so many'? Nowhere near as many as there are qualified actors wanting work. It's a popular profession and the successful ones get lots of work. Leaving even less for the others. But many do adverts and extra work and can just about get by.

Do let’s mention Laurence. Why on earth did he destroy his acting career for whatever he does now? He seems happy enough and is married to a very beautiful woman.

We're only talking about the high-profile, glamorous acting jobs, though. There's a lot of great stuff in Theatre in Education, although I'm sure no drama school hopeful necessarily dreams of doing that. But it is a source of employment and the groups I've seen were really good.

Yes - I like these people. Good for them for being down to earth and non-primadonna-ish.

I don't know if anyone remembers Tristan Bonham Carter, who played Mr Bingley in the 1995 production of Pride and Prejudice, but he left the business to become a teacher and a few years ago - maybe still - was the Deputy Head of a big state school. I think that's really impressive. He's clearly good at a very demanding job and with his looks, family connections etc etc, could probably have made a reasonable success as an actor.

Most people who have what are perceived as glamorous jobs in acting or say, art, have to do something else too. My daughter is an artist - she really is, because she has exhibitions and her work always sells out - but she accepts that she needs to work 5 nights in the local pub along with other jobs. I think it's healthy. Any creative artist benefits from living in the real world with regular people - I'm sure it keeps them grounded and stimulated with useful experiences.

Because Olivia Colman and Helen Mirren have to be in EVERYTHING?!

The chances of making it as an actor are something like 1%, there are far more talented people than there are superstar opportunities.

One of the teachers at my kids’ primary school used to act on Corrie

I have a friend who trained as a stuntwoman, which is incredibly difficult to do if you actually want to qualify and be able to register yourself with the stunt registry or whatever it’s called. Took probably 8 years of training. She worked on and off for maybe 2 years. It’s incredibly hard to get work. Most jobs seemed to go to sons and daughters of other well known stunt people. A lot of nepotism. She’s a builder now. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Honestly, I don't mind having familiar actors in roles if they are good. I'm happy they get regular work.

It's the ones that are very meh that you wonder about.

And I think it's also the case, as with music, that you also have to be good at running yourself as a business. Some people just aren't even if they are talented actors.

But it's also the case that acting is a very romantic and prestigious profession. It's a bit like studying forensics or archeology, people think it is cool and exciting, so far more study it than could ever be employed.

There is only a small proportion of Actors that "make it" ,many others have second jobs .Marshall Lancaster who played Chris ,in Life On Mars .said there were no jobs after so he runs a plastering company .Likewise Sally Geeson from Bless this house (old comedy 1970s) worked as a special needs teacher when her roles dried up.directors will often use the same tried and tested people for their roles

There's a lot to unpick here. I think it's worth noting that most acting jobs really don't last very long unless you're in a soap. A significant guest role in one episode of a big drama with hour-long episodes probably means about 7 days' work. A major role in a BBC/ITV drama with 6-7 x 45-60 minutes episodes will keep you in work for 5ish months of the year, maybe slightly more. The American system of 21-4 episodes of 45 minutes takes about 8-9 months a year to film. If you're in either of these two categories you've still got a good chunk of the year not working, meaning even very successful actors have big gaps of time without work if they don't get anything else. So lots of actors are "unemployed" even between good, guaranteed roles.

Audiences like familiarity and are drawn to theatre/TV/films by names they know and like, so there's a big incentive to cast recognisable people over unknowns if the latter aren't startlingly better. Although some famous actors are horrible, like with any career, it's possible to get "references" confirming that so-and-so will be good to work with, which is obviously easier if so-and-so has actually worked! Equally, an impressive showreel comes from having been given the chance to do impressive work on screen. A production company saves itself lots of hassles by welcoming back someone who's been a pleasure to work with rather than taking the risk on an unknown quantity. It's obviously easier to rehearse actors for an open-air performance who've got experience of that kind of challenge - same for different styles of work, so once you've had one job it's easier to get more. And that means the work gets concentrated into more experienced actors. Actors also get better by acting, like with any profession or sport or art form.

Lots more people want to be actors than are good at acting. Drama schools and university departments churn out thousands of graduates each year who are pretty similar to the thousands who graduated the year before. Very few actors (particularly women) "make it" without being of at least average attractiveness and/or of slim build. There are not many roles for women over (the appearance of) a certain age either.

Dude, are you high?

Also, much as I like Emilia Fox, her dad Edward, mum Joanna David, Uncle James and brother Freddie...er, let's not mention cousin Laurence...it has to be said that Edward and James's mother Celestia was, I think, a famous theatrical agent. They're a talented lot for sure, but so are many other unknown actors.

Contacts, connections, contacts, connections etc etc

Ethnicity appears to play a part in the demand side of this. I wonder when the EDI people will introduce measures to address the under-representation of white people in these areas?

Depending on the specific area of tv entertainment, advertising actors /models and fashion it seems that ethnic minorities have a higher proportion of roles and jobs compared to their proportion of the general population at 16-17%.

On-Screen Television Roles: According to the Creative Diversity Network's DIAMOND Diversity Report, non-white (BAME) talent accounted for roughly 23% to 26% of on-screen television contributions, which is higher than the national population average at the time of the study.

UK Advertising: Industry body audits, such as Channel 4’s Mirror on the Industry, show that non-White individuals make up roughly 20-30% of main roles, although representation fluctuates highly across specific product categories.
US Digital and TV Ads: Content analysis indicates that white actors account for roughly 72.5% to 75%of on-screen appearances. This leaves non-white actors with approximately 25% to 28% of advertising roles.
Streaming Media: Representation is higher in digital formats; recent UCLA Hollywood Diversity Reports show that People of Color (POC) make up over 45% of lead actors in streaming movies.
2. Modeling & High Fashion
Runways: During major fashion weeks in cities like New York and Paris, approximately 40% to 45% of runway models are non-white.

Other aspect is there's lots of "middlemen" now profiting from lots of aspirational out-of-work actors and actresses - whether it's Stage Schools, or creepy agents, or "acting coaches"...

I met a " dance mom" type who proudly said her daughter had been told by her local stage school she was "in the top 25% of acting talent", so could have a small fee reduction...Mum was working shifts in a supermarket to fund this. Its just exploitation.

The media will report on individual actors and actresses as if they managed to work their way through the ranks, and if others are as talented and put the energy in they'll get to the same place. Billy Elliot style stories. It's all fantasy to keep the money machine going.

If it were less popular there'd be much less competition for roles.

Indeed that is true. Wise words.

Equity has 49,000 members. Even if half are no longer in the profession in practice, that is a lot of people chasing the parts that are available.

Absolutely.

I think open auditions are as rare as hen's teeth. Casting directors have their favourites which is why we see endless shows with say, Suranne Jones, Sally Lindsay (who I think owns a production co, so that helps), Joanne Froggatt at one time etc etc etc.

It drives me bonkers. TV people think we want to see the same old faces over and over but - do we? I don't. I'd like to see some unknowns either fresh from drama school or older people who've done other work.

But even having said that, there are too many actors for the available opportunities - there's no getting away from that. Before TV took over in the 50s this country had a wealth of regional repertory theatres which did employ a lot more actors. Now, live theatre is so much more London-based and eye-wateringly expensive. There were more opportunities then.

I think people wanting to study drama have to be realistic - their chances of becoming an actual actor are vanishingly small unless they have contacts - that's largely how it's done. (I did an Art History degree and that's fine as long as you don't expect to get a job as an Art Historian!)

I remember a story told by a contemporary of Benedict Cumberbatch at Manchester University. They said Benedict was a lovely guy and totally unpretentious as a student. The big divide only showed when they had their graduate production and Benedict's parents, both established actors, had arranged for no less than 6 theatrical agents to attend the play and observe him....it's who you know in this life!

I think, like @Bulbsbulbsbulbs that you’re confused about acting/theatre. ‘Method acting’ is essentially a set of rehearsal techniques derived from the work of Stanislavsky via Lee Strasberg. The repertory system just means a resident company that has a number of plays in its repertoire for performance at any one time. In the UK, it relied on local audiences in provincial towns and cities going to the theatre weekly, and was pretty much killed off by tv.

I Agree and I have concluded OP is quite clueless / naive / daft when it comes to the performing arts industry!!

You don't understand acting at all! Perhaps Google the terms you are using.

Sure you can. Some people don’t go to drama school, don’t do method acting, don’t give a part very much thought. They’re just very good at pretending to be someone else, and don’t freak out at auditions.

It's an interesting discussion, thanks OP.

Cronyism and power structures dominate amongst professions and cultural institutions, from academia to acting.

They also network with other power institutions.

Many rich tech bros have "artist" wives who make these fairly medicore sculptures and paintings

And when the City board decides what sculptures and paintings should decorate public spaces, they of course pick the "artistic talent" they are told to.

It's very Citizen Kane. Its a shame as there's so many amazing talents, but of course it makes more money putting established names forward.

In opera, one of my favourite singers, Sarah Connolly is clearly super-mainstream. Had an amazing career as a late bloomer, I think she's been made a Dame.

You always know her voice after the first time. I wouldn't enjoy opera if I hadn't first seen her perform.

She's spoken about how the big paid roles and recording contracts still circulate amongst the same names.

Even when she appeared to be super-established (and her talent was undeniable) she had to self-fund an album using an inheritance.

Even now that "content creators" are mainstream, the big ones have developed power dynamics where they pass work and followers amongst each other.

MrBeast is a talented businessman who got ahead of the curve, but do we really need the MrBeast theme park and more of his inane content squeezing out all the talented young creators?