To find it sad that privately educated actors dominate telly/film?

[chulast]

6% of the population go to private school yet the majority of successful British screen actors have been privately educated.

I just find it quite bleak really and makes it feel like it's nigh on impossible to make it in that industry without a leg up and connections.

I think soaps are a different genre. They are not the serious drama or films that most actors aspire to. But they do provide work of course and have provided some great actors: Suranne Jones, Sarah Lancashire (Privately educated). I think the commentators were referring to drama that tells us about injustices of the day and serious social matters. Even Toby Jones (Mr Bates vs Post Office) went to Abingdon School. Does it matter? Don’t we value actors for their ability or is it just about what their parents chose for them?

Anyway OP, YANBU and I think this inequality is worse now than it was decades ago. I find it jarring when working class parts are played by middle or upper class actors - there are many talented working class actors who really need these opportunities.

"The middle class ‘RP’ neutral accent is a blank canvas on which you can almost ‘paint’ anything"

Disagree, RP is a non rhotic accent and it's easier to knock an r out than add it in.
Plenty of people with natural regional accents can mimic other accents well- Jodie Comer being a prime example. Andrea Riseborough (granted went to private school but does have a bit of a northern accent) did a passable Belfast accent in Shadow Dancer, and Timothy Spall (not posh and went to a comp) got pretty close to Ian Paisley's distinctive voice in The Journey - instead of trying to do an off-the-shelf "Belfast like so it is" Norn Iron accent.

It’s probably more to do with the acting on these shows were shit.

I imagine he didn’t have to work 2 jobs just to be able to eat!

People fall over themselves to cast Bono’s daughter in their show or Kate Moss’s daughter in their fashion show or Brooklyn Beckham to be the face of their new hot sauce or whatever as it’s free publicity. None of these people would get a look in if their parents weren’t famous.

The popularity of stuff that speaks to a broader definition of the world shows people want to engage with media that speaks to them by them, not for them. Like businesses do better with equal representation of women at the top levels, I imagine media would do better if there was a genuinely more diverse group of people involved in it.

They just happen to have gone to private school. However, it isn't because they went to private school.

It is because their parents can afford- singing lessons (£220 per term), theatre school (£320 per term), dance classes (£56pcm), LAMDA (£280 per term), afford to pay for all of the costumes (£260 for my child's dance dresses for 2 shows, and that's before her two theatre shows this year which will be another £100 each).

I have also taken her to London twice for auditions this year, £90 on the train x 2, plus other expenses of food/tube/ accommodation.

£1,044 per term for just her extra creative lessons and that's for only one, and doesn't include her netball club and swimming lessons.

Life can take you in odd unplanned ways I whizzed up the food chain in my profession by sheer chance - I ended up knowing a lot about a new and lucrative area of law. Ended up in a place where literally everyone else was public school / Oxbridge / Yale which was quite an eye opener (me comp and red brick).

I agree, OP. The same goes for scriptwriting - and music, book publishing and most creative industries. Of course some non-rich people scrape through, but they're in the minority. The quality is going down because the work is going to those with 'connections' made through nepotism or old boy's networks (or in the case of publishing, already being famous). I have to grit my teeth at all the praise for the Emerald Fennells, Phoebe Waller-Bridges etc of this world. Not that they're talentless, but they're not all they're cracked up to be, either. It's easy to be a creative genius if you're already mates with everyone you need to know to be a success, and you don't actually have to work for a living. See: every male author in history up until about 1970.

I imagine not,

Well, a great many TV and film actors will have gone to theatre school from a young age, most for the secondary years, so obviously those people are going to be more present on screens, due to the quality of training and exposure to auditions and agents.

Theatre training is expensive, even if don't attend a fee-paying theatre school. My little boy is really interested in theatre, and even the summer school to go one Saturday a week is £300 for 6 weeks.

I’ve already said wealthy parents can help as it can with ANY career choice, but my point is it’s still always going to be selective in the sense you still need to meet very high academic requirements. You can’t get all Cs for examples and wriggle your way in to uni studying medicine as your mum is a consultant. There’s little comparison between medicine and acting in this respect.

You can be pretty mediocre as an actor and get a shot if you’re wealthy and/ or well connected.

I’m a millennial I don’t know if things have changed but back when I was at uni you did not need any experience in a hospital. Some of my close friends and flatmates at uni where medicine students and my brother was as well. None of them had hospital experience.

I actually had some nursing student friends in my home town who did do a little ward experience - not sure if it was compulsory or not - but not the ones studying medicine.

And I’m not aware of any paid training for the interviews anyone did unless it’s slipped my memory. But again, I do know money can play a role in supporting your child with anything but the role it plays in medicine versus acting is worlds apart.

Training in theatre school for years doesn’t mean they have talent. A lot of respected directors purposely avoid using “theatre school kids” as they’re all trained in the same way.

I didn't say they have talent (or 'more talent' would be more accurate here). I said they receive higher quality training and have more exposure to actions and agents.

You can teach skills but you can’t teach talent.

Once again – I didn't say you could. Though plenty of exceptional actors and actresses have attended theatre school – most likely because they already exhibited a talent for it. Kate Winslet, Olivia Coleman, Andrew Garfield, Ewan McGregor ...

Your perception of incredible actors is very different to mine and vice versa.

Righto – why don't you pop off to write a letter to the Laurence Olivier Awards rather than banging on to someone on the internet about a subjective opinion on acting credibility? The attitude isn't welcome.

Darling it’s a public opinion forum, don’t go on one if you can’t handle other people having an opinion 🤣

VERY MUCH seems like you're the one that can't, 'darling', or you wouldn't keep erroneously correcting what people haven't actually said.

You appear very sensitive, this site may not be for you.

Bingo – classic Mumsnet response to having lost any footing in a disagreement.

It's completely different for doctors and solicitors. Anyone with the right grades, aptitude, etc, etc can get in. It costs nothing to do some work experience in a care home. Performing arts, training in classical music, etc is extremely expensive. Contacts are used to a completely different extent to in the professions you mention. Nowadays, people mainly get jobs on their own merit, very little nepotism is possible.

In theory for doctors - I have been liaising with our local sixth form chemistry teacher as a link to get potential medical and similar students to visit where I work and going through the proper channels and it is getting harder but each summer I see various young people around (that is Dr x's son or daughter). When DC was at med school nearly every other student they encountered had been to private or grammar school. And yes I did help a little with the work experience what parent wouldn't. Medical students do not get the long university holidays to top up their bank accounts.
A friend's DD struggled to get the experience for the law - apart from the hen's teeth paid placement most were voluntary and she couldn't afford to not do paid work during university holiday.

I read an interesting article on this that for the life of me I can't find. People with family money or wealthier parents are able to go into the arts more easily because they typically have fiscal security, additional options and networks that mean they won't be in the same situational as people from average or lower income families. It isn't that they are more talented but couple private school confidence and opportunities with money in the bank, they continue to be able to take risks, study and survive on a meagre wage b/c paying rent isn't reliant on what they earned last month and they also know they typically have significant inheritances in their futures. I'd say this isn't just actors but also classical musicians, art history/museum roles etc.

I agree that the UK's privately educated actors/arts professionals are disproportionately the norm. Out of something like the top 30 British actors listed, 28 went to private schools, most of which were very elite (read: some of the most expensive in the country). The same could likely be said about many other professions in the arts.

Of course this doesn't mean that private schooled people are more talented actors, it's that they have a climate that makes it easier to get to the top. I think it's fabulous that Christopher Eccleston has spoken about this topic so passionately.