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'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.

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

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.

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. 🤷🏻‍♀️

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.