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

[Jane379]

I love plays, musicals etc and I was recently thinking : there's clearly a huge amount of theatre shows, TV etc happening. And presumably there must be a limited pool of actors given that its reputation of being hard to make a living from surely puts many people off who would otherwise want to try.

Obviously many people will not be able to have a big part but why are so many actors unemployed often compared to other jobs? Are the same people being cast again and again for nepotistic or other reasons? Are there other explanations?

There are more people wanting to be actors than there are jobs? It's not rocket science.

What a strange question. There are limited jobs and lots of people want them.

There is an unlimited pool of actors. A huge, ocean of them. Vast, vast numbers!
Behind the scenes jobs in TV easily get a hundred applicants per position and ours are less oversubscribed than on screen jobs!

A huge number, though? I suppose I'm going from my experience at school & university which both had strong drama departments but virtually no one who took it further as a career due to concerns about employment.

Competition is equally fierce in the field of rocket science, I believe 😉 🎭 🚀

There are so few paying jobs, but there are 1000s and 1000s of wannabe actors.

Also so many productions pay so poorly if at all that actors earn more money in other temp work. An unemployed actor probably has another form of employment.

Obviously enough still want to pursue it though! Enough people think the risk is worth the potential reward.

Or no one took it further because they did not gain employment -

its notoriously competitive with a
huge pool of trained performers/ actors and a lot of the shows will be drawing from an international pool,

only a tiny fraction will be gainfully employed in the industry in reality

Too many actors, not enough parts. It's as simple as that.

Of the 30 people in my year at drama school only 3 had any sort of career. Even then, you are looking at working for maybe 12 weeks a year and that's success!

Because the money men want a 'name', to guarantee return on their investment. That's why you see the same actors over and over again in film and tv. It's incredibly difficult for even seasoned supporting actors to get anything these days, let alone newcomers.

Uh, more actors wanting roles than there are roles.
I

a lot of the shows will be drawing from an international pool,

• this is interesting, I wonder what impact globalisation has had? Before probably this factor at least would have been less though obviously it was still competitive.

Everyone uses the same actors that’s why! Had a conversation with my brother about this just yesterday. Netflix use Richard Armitage and/or James Nesbitt in most of the Harlen Coben adaptations. Channel 5 use Sally Lindsay and Jo Joyner in their dramas.

Actor with a supporting role in a TV show or film - maybe in a couple of scenes. What’s that, one or two days work? Not really going to pay the mortgage, is it, unless you get plenty of it.

There are an estimated 52,400 actors, entertainers, and presenters working in the UK. While the wider acting pool is substantial, the industry is heavily concentrated, with over 60% of all UK actors based in London, and the majority of the remainder residing in cities like Manchester, Glasgow, and Birmingham.

From Google.
London restaurants, coffee shops and bars are awash with actors as waiting staff.

We're lucky they do, otherwise there would be no good films, plays etc

Otoh arguably it's unlucky so many want to do it...I suppose acting is a victim of its own popularity in a way. If it were less popular there'd be much less competition for roles.

One of my friends does quite a bit as an extra. More like a hobby for him though.

OP have you never noticed how actors leave TV soaps then reappear years later having failed to get enough acting work beyond the soap?

Lots of people who would say they are actors if asked their profession in fact spend most of their time doing other work. I knew a woman once whose husband spent most of his time painting and decorating but once in a way got a TV part. I also had a job where we employed temps occasionally and two were resting actors (both pretty hopeless at basic admin, sadly, but entertaining company). Another was trying to make a career as a drummer having trained as a dancer (she was very good at our work). In another job we hired actors to do role playing with students. Some of them were able to get occasional work in film, TV, theatre, voiceovers, audiobooks - all much better paid than our work, but harder to get. The remainder of our actors had basically given up on conventional acting work and supplemented what they got from us with dogwalking, teaching drama classes, running craft workshops and anything else they could get. It's a very tough life. If you can get work, though, you can often carry on working well into extreme old age.

Good point. There's a lot of talk about nepo babies recently but arguably there's always been some degree of this. And also the situation you mention: the same person being hired due to ability but also probably stuff like reliability, working well with others etc.

Also screen work especially probably is affected by how audience respond to a particular person since screen actors are more likely to be more in the public eye.

You've really thought this through. Well done. If acting was less popular there really would be less competition for roles, yes.

Because there are about 2-3000 actors applying for each role. There are about 100,000 registered actors and 90% of them are not in an acting role at any given time. There are about 26,000 new roles for actors every year. These range from film to TV to commercials and theatre, starring roles to background. So not every role is going to be lucrative or even last more than a few days. It’s a very tough business.

I think it’s the same for all of the creative fields. There are vastly more people wanting to be actors, writers, artists, musicians and dancers than there are jobs.

It does drive me nuts that the same actors are used over and over again regardless of their suitability for the part. I know that they are considered to be box office draws, but I would far rather watch an unknown actor who fits the part over a big name who doesn’t fit the part at all and distracts from the story.

I remember reading about an actress who had a part in EastEnders, now she is a security guard for B&M.
My DB went on a similar path. Got a few screen acting jobs, then dropped down to teaching acting... is now an office cleaner.

A lot will slip into allied professions - drama teaching, agents, voice coaching. I’m aware of a couple of barristers who are former actors.