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?

I heard that at any one time, 90% of actors are “resting”. One of these resting actors sometimes worked as a supply teacher at my secondary school. Many years later, he appeared in Game of Thrones and I believe he no longer works as a supply teacher. He was lucky to hit his stride in his 50s.

I remember an actress who’d had a bit part on Eastenders as a gangster’s (played by Goldie?) girlfriend. She very briefly appeared in an episode of King of Queens as a flight attendant I think. She was then on something like Celebrity Big Brother and described as the ‘star’ of King of Queens which must have come as quite a surprise to Leah Remini, Kevin James and Jerry Stiller!

My brother-in-law is an actor, as well as several friends.

It is an incredibly difficult industry to thrive in. My BIL has been extremely famous at one point, had great film parts, brilliant TV series and has acted alongside very revered actors on stage. But he still struggles to get roles. He's stunning looking, always has been, and we do sometimes wonder if that works against him because he is very distinctive.

Another friend has been in everything from Bond films to Midsommer Murders. Small parts, but he gets lots of regular work and earns more than enough to live a decent life. He has a very unmemorable face, although he's a nice-looking guy. He claims this is why he is quietly successful: he's no threat to anyone on set.

A third friend is A-list famous. He's almost a national treasure. He had his lean years but he's been a major star for a long time now.

A fourth friend was in Game of Thrones and is incredibly charismatic. He walks into a room and people hold their breath; he's that impressive. But he has had to move abroad to get the parts he wants.

The whole industry is like alchemy. Thousands of actors out there are easily as brilliant as the biggest stars... and we will never hear about them.

Because the same people get the majority of roles. Like the music industry, acting is very difficult for newcomers to break into, unless they know someone with influence.

Hmm...I wonder why acting, music etc have this so much? Of course nepotism occurs in many industries but it seems like it's particularly bad in these.

The broadcasters stick to the names they know get the views. Hence why you seem to only have the same 8 actors on the BBC.

It does drive me nuts that the same actors are used over and over again regardless of their suitability for the part

• this! I'd much rather other people with talent were given a chance rather than constant reusing. I'm sure actors like this are a draw but plenty of people will surely go to a film if it's good. That's how plenty of now-classic films with then-unknown actors happened, after all.

I don’t think it’s anything to do with not being a threat. Unless you’re a totally leading man type, a jobbing actor is better off not being too distinctive-looking and more of a chameleon. You want to be castable as Laertes, a cop and the guy on the washing up liquid ad, ideally.

It’s an absolutely brutal field. I know an extraordinary actor who got her start in a two-hander play that took off and her co-star, not one whit better than her, went on to global fame on stage and screen, while she was dropped from the film adaptation, and only realised when she accidentally found out they were doing auditions. She’s still made a career, and a good one, but it was a brutal introduction to the vagaries of looks, luck, etc.

It's not only that so many people want to be actors. Many will get a little work - enough to keep them trying - but not really enough to call it a very successful career. And that includes many who had a good role in something fairly significant.

Here is the thing though - if they spread the work around more, would there be enough for them all to make a living?

There are only ever going to be so many roles. It's better if some can make a good living at it.

It's not as simple as that op, it's just as important for the actors to choose the right part as it is the part to find the right actor. I have some experience in this and followed the method actings principle, do you have any idea of how exhausting this is? One cannot simply turn up for a role and 'give it a go'.

There’s also the law of diminishing returns. I gave it a really good crack for 5 years post drama school, but I’m working class and had no family support at all. Eventually - because I wanted to do things like eat and have a home and a life - I had to move into work that would actually support me, rather than waitressing 70 hours a week while trying to audition.

The people that I know that built a sustainable career lived at home/came from well off families and so managed to do a few shifts a week while they waited on jobs coming in, while also doing unpaid stuff and workshops and all the rest of it. Sometimes it’s not so much nepo baby as reasonably well off and well supported baby.

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?

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.

From what I know it seems that method acting is a valuable system but I think there were also pluses to traditional systems like the repertory one which put less focus on this. It was probably less emotionally draining.

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

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

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.

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!

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.

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

Indeed that is true. Wise words.

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.

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.

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

Dude, are you high?