To think that acting isn't an especially difficult occupation?

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

I'm prepared to be met with strong opposition here, which is great and leads to interesting discussion, but both in threads on here and IRL, a lot of people seem to fawn over actors and actresses* and the ones who make it to the top are lauded on TV, BAFTAs, Oscars etc, paid ridiculous amounts of money - and a lot of them seem to think they fulfil such a crucial, serious role in society and should be given huge respect because of their outstanding skills and not just because of their fame/celebrity.

I'm not denying they entertain a lot of people - and that there are other professions, such as top-flight footballers, where they get paid even more money for a relatively frivolous job - but is what they do really so incredibly difficult? Isn't it just pretending to be somebody else and learning and saying words that somebody else has written? A lot of them have body and/or stunt doubles to take over the more difficult or less palatable parts, so they aren't even having to face those challenges.

*I also don't get why the word 'actress' is considered as offensive by many in the profession. There are no complaints that the sexes are separated when it comes to awards, which often include the word 'actress' in their names (and this makes great sense, as there are currently very few cross-gender roles, so the highest-regarded actress in the world most likely would never be considered for traditionally male roles, which are still routinely written as more important, given greater prominence and paid more for reasons of pure historic and enduring sexism).

However, the standard response is usually that we don't call female medics 'doctresses'; no, but we DO call restaurant servers waiters or waitresses, depending on their sex.

Grossly patronising phrases such as 'WPC', 'lady doctor' or 'male nurse' - where it's 'assumed' what the 'normal, expected' sex of the person will be unless you specifically tack on an extra word because you feel the need to draw attention to the 'shock' that 'it's a police officer - but it's a WOMAN!!!!' - have thankfully now been largely dumped except by the Daily Mail.

But when you have two equal-status words, depending on the sex of the person in question, neither of which is considered the default or more or less important - waitress/waiter, man/woman, schoolgirl/schoolboy, postman/postwoman etc. etc. - why should actress/actor be any different?

Fair enough if you just use a neutral word - waiting staff, person, schoolchild, postal worker, member of the acting profession etc. - but why should the male version automatically be considered the default and the female equivalent perceived as somehow of lower status or importance - or even an insult???? If that is somehow the case, then surely the word should be preserved/reclaimed and not just dumped, thus giving in to idiots like the one in Notting Hill, who claimed that the word 'actress' was synonymous with 'prostitute', making them feel validated and letting the ignoramuses win?

Gender issues aside, i think acting well.is probably quite tricky yet the fawning over them makes me feel quite nauseous.

It is nice to be entertained but it isn't the most imporrant job in the world.
I guess they earn so much as people love to pay to see films.
Being a good musician is more impressive imo.

Um, well, that's a few different issues wrapped up in a whole lot of angst.

And yes tgere are people with far more imporant roles who are treated like shite such as teachers, nurses, paramedics and the police.

Typos agggrrr!

I’ll play, first to your first point:

It is a hard job in terms of making that pretend character realistic and believable, there are shocking numbers of terrible actors out there and an even more shocking number of actors who are brilliant but unrecognised. It’s a hard industry to make a living in, the ones you talk about are ridiculously lucky to have got where they got. I might be biased because I’m a director but actors are artists and the general populace engage with their art more than any other - I suppose rather than comparing them to footballers (disclaimer I have no interest in sports and think it’s insane someone gets paid so much for kicking a ball around a field) one should compare them to composers, musicians, visual artists in every form. It’s not a frivolous job, it’s something that bring joy and sorrow and connection to our lives on a daily basis - you engage with the art of an actor almost constantly and when that art is good it can be transcendant.

I see what you mean about entitlement but I think a) you get entitled people in every industry - that’s the personality not the job and b) actually when you’re that well known your voice does actually matter and I’m just glad they’re all fellow liberal snowflakes who get their voices heard!!

To your second point, I don’t have an opinion and nobody in the industry I’ve worked with has ever brought it up either, I’m not entirely convinced anyone cares - they just want to be recognised for their art. The ones who prefer not to be referred to as actress are trans or gender queer performers, which is fair enough I suppose.

My tuppence - FWIW

Oh, it's an MRA thread.
I thought it was about acting

@malificent7 I wholeheartedly agree woth you but also consider the absolute vast majority of actors earn an absolute pittance

I would also disagree about musicians being a higher calling - both are worthy forms of art capable of educating, inspiring and building connections between people and communities

Oh, it's an MRA thread.

Yep.

I see that - though I stopped reading the OP when the wittering about actor v actress started

Thanks, whatwouldyoubelikeat28 - just wondering, though. Not really angst - more a pointless little rant!

Partly inspired by the other (recently resurrected) thread about Barbara Windsor, but which expands to cover a whole load of celebrities. Fair enough if they don't want to be bothered or to chat when they aren't at work, but certain of them seem to be so full of self-importance and routinely treat ordinary people who actually do useful jobs like dirt. Other celebs do too, granted - not just those in acting.

The fact that it's so easy to spot terrible acting would say to me that yes, acting "well" ( I'm talking about film acting, theatre being a whole other kettle of bollocks) is probably something that takes a fair amount of skill.
As to Whether they should be fawned over - well you don't have to, it's not compulsory, so not reading the DM, celebrity magazines or watching certain TV shows should see you right on that score.
Fame and celebrity has always been valued, rightly or wrongly. I don't think actors work particularly hard for the rewards they get when I compare what they do to the slog that is my life, for example. But equally they have to be always "on" for the public which I would hate, so the price they pay for their wealth and privilege and recognition is higher than I would be prepared to put up with.

@DeliveredByKiki
Actually, everything you said but managed to put much more eloquently. I'm standing in my pants waiting for the kettle to boil so my debating head isn't on properly yet.

I think throwing all performers into the box of the tiny minority of high profile actors is a bit unfair. Most of my closest friends are actors, from a very high profile A lister to those who are still working temp and bar jobs into their 40’s, it’s like saying accountancy is easy, you just have to study maths and also by the way all accountants are boring and bad at sex....I don’t know any accountants personally, I’m going on assumptions based on jones about accountants. Not entirely fair, is it?

Sorry to have offended people with my afterthought about the word 'actress' - my main AIBU really was the one in the title and I didn't know whether to include the tangential thought, which unintentionally ended up being longer than the actual one.

I left it in because I've always genuinely wondered about why it seems to have fallen out of favour and didn't know what opinions or thoughts others might have.

I don't see what it would have with MRA - as far as I can tell, most men (actors or otherwise) don't care if women choose to call themselves actors and I'm not aware of any male actors wanting to be known as actresses (unless they're trans and consider themselves to be women anyway, of course).

I don't care what people choose to refer to themselves as - just mildly interested why. A minority of people do still refer to themselves as WPCs or male nurses (not so much lady doctors now), which is absolutely their decision and not mine.

Anybody, please feel free to discuss the AIBU and completely ignore the tangent, if you so wish.

Your thread is breathtakingly offensive to a lot of very good actors out there, many of whom have never had a break. My response having gone through professional acting training is you don’t have a fucking clue. Yes, a lot of actors, who are paid bucketloads are pretty shit, just beautiful. But there are a lot of dedicated and talent people out there. Ditto footballers. Being patronising to the general public is shit. But then people can be so intrusive and scary. Unless you’ve actually seen what goes into being them you really shouldn’t be commenting.

I think calling them all actors regardless of gender makes sense personally. But I do think that actors and people in the public eye in general are hugely over represented in the honours system, for instance.

Thanks, DeliveredByKiki and others - very interesting points.

Apologies for my use of the word 'frivolous', which was, on balance, uncalled-for. I know drama/theatre/film - like a great many non-essential-to-life roles - bring a lot of joy to a lot of people (as does football, for that matter - not to me personally, though!) and that a lot of actors do work hard at their craft, maybe making it look more effortless than it is through their skill at it.

Also, that the majority of actors are not famous or well-paid - and some of the most famous ones are also NOT the best ones.

I think I asked the wrong - and an unfair - question (so apologies to all hard-working and skilled actors out there). I think my actual AIBU should have been targeted at the minority of famous ones who appear to believe themselves to be BETTER than people in ordinary everyday jobs, those who are given knighthoods and damehoods (still not sure why acting, sports etc should merit that, but that would be another tangent) who refuse to answer to anybody who addresses them respectfully by their name but forgets/omits the 'Sir' (Ghandi springs instantly to mind). Then again, other non-acting people such as Alan (sorry, Lord) Sugar are like that as well.

Also, the fact that they get the Oscars and the like for doing an already very well-paid job, when minimum-wage shopworkers don't - but this is indeed only a very small minority who get the break and make it big (through talent, connections or other) - and it isn't that different from celebrities in other high-profile occupations.

Also, in adding my four penn'orth, I think I may have largely answered my supplementary pondering.

'Members of the acting profession' is a mouthful, so people do usually tend to revert to just saying 'actors'.

Therefore, I suppose it probably can be seen to be the de facto default word when talking about a mixed-sex group of people/the profession as a whole and one which women may with very good reason therefore feel excluded and possibly effectively demoted by if they identify as 'actresses'; in the same way that 'men' used to be used as a catch-all to refer to all people, male and female, but isn't commonly now.

That also sort of answers the pondering about 'best actress' etc. awards as, by definition, they only include females.

Mummyoflittledragon

Apologies again for causing offence, and I take your points - and have addressed similar further along in the thread.

I've significantly amended my AIBU to what I was intending to ask - i.e. targeting the certain top-flight actors who act as though they seem to think they're single-handedly saving the world and are vastly superior to ordinary folk who work hard in very important unsung jobs - but I do accept that, in response to my original question as I (poorly) worded it, IWBVU.

Most actors dont just act. They have to know a lot of little things that go with it. For example an easy one would be horse riding but then theres other times where they have to do their own stunts or sing as well for a role. They also often have to work over 14 hours a day. They make it look easy which i think is impressive.

It's not the most important job by a long shot but when I watch a film or tv show where the acting has been amazing I think it's great. Such as the kids in Stranger Things. They are unbelievably talented.

Most actors won't do most of the riding actually- the risk of injury is too high for it to be worth it.

But yes, when filming they do work very long days and could easily be on set 20-30 days without a break. Then, suddenly, they are unemployed and have to look for another role.

To be honest I think that is probably the hardest part- the constant instability, the regular rejections, having to say yes to things you perhaps aren't comfortable with for work, and potentially having to go through that regularly.

But yes, there are definitely other jobs that are harder.

I loved Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes ripping into that very subject. Its on YouTube. Hilarious.