You said you’re not even handsome enough to be a character actor. That’s ugly by pretty much any standard.
What you’re saying is that you can’t act . . .
. . . out of one side of your mouth.
And out of the other side, you’re saying you’re a good actor.
You’re also strongly implying that good acting is simply good line delivery, which isn’t true.
I’m saying I can deliver a line naturalistically, which most of the amateur actors I have encountered seem singularly incapable of doing, even though it ought to be the simplest thing in the world. Why is it so hard for them to achieve it?
I know there’s more to that to become a successful actor, but there’s really not much more to it to be a capable one.
They get it because the producers are stupid enough to pay it.
Going back to the OP, I think the basic reason certain professions (actors, athletes, singers, and other entertainers) make so much more than others (even ones that require equal or larger amounts of talent/effort/training/whatever) comes from the fact that what the first category ‘produces’ is able to be ‘consumed’ by unlimited numbers of people.
An elementary school teacher’s ‘product’ is consumed by, what, about 24 children?, and then it’s gone.
The singer’s album can be sold millions of times, and it’s still there to be re-released twenty years later maybe.
A GP sees maybe six patients an hour on average. She may benefit those people enormously, but again, it’s ‘consumed’ and gone and that’s that.
An actor’s performance may be seen by millions.
You might even be able to come up with some equation to cover it. Factors like 1) How valuable does the benefit seem to each consumer? and 2) How many people get that benefit? and, yes, 3) How easily could that same benefit be gotten from someone else?
So a store clerk doesn’t get paid much: even superb customer service isn’t all that valuable to the customer, she benefits only a single person at a time with no continuing value to others, and new clerks can be hired and trained in little time.
OTOH, a top notch baseball player gets big bucks: the viewers get somewhat more pleasure from watching great players than mediocre ones (else we’d all be attending Triple A games in hordes), the audience can be anything from a stadiums worth of people to millions watching tv, and you can’t simply drag any Joe Schmoe off the street and turn him into a star caliber hitter in a two week training program.
It may seem unfair but that’s the way it is. More people getting some benefit from what you do = more money in your pocket.
I think I read the exact same article about three or four years ago in Entertainment Weekly. Hollywood has a fit about salaries any time a big special effects movie with no big names becomes a big hit. This happens every time, without fail.
The Chicago Tribune every once in a while prints the salaries of people from all walks of life. All entertainers recieve the highest wages. They do make out- rageous salaries, they do make a lot of sacrifices (as well as their families) But people think nothing of paying $40.00 or more to go to a concert or even hundreds to see a game or some celebirty, but would complain if they had to pay $40.00 a year more for health care, or schooling for some child. Look at the poor wages our soldiers etc. make, and they sacrifice every day to make it possible for us to go to such events.
As long as people are willing to pay, the businesses will be happy to charge, and entertainers will be demanding higher saleries. Years ago Stars were paid less than the average salary. One could go to a movie and see a star as well for less than a dollar.
Brett Farve will recieve $25,000,000.00 for 2 years with the Twins!!
Even if you grant the claims of the article in The New York Times which says that big stars are paid too much given what their draw is, it doesn’t mean that their salaries should be dropped from $20 million to $100,000 a picture. It means that their salaries should be dropped to something like $5 million to $10 million a picture to account for just how much additional revenue they bring to a picture. Until such time as people quit choosing what films they see based on the stars of the film, famous actors will continue to make lots of money.
Moving thread from IMHO to Cafe Society.
The sister of one of my best friends makes a little more than this per hour as a performer at Disney World. She is able to make this much because she plays several different “face” roles (two of the Disney Princess and a couple of other characters); when she had only one face role and was playing masked roles as needed she made less money. She has a BFA in Acting, and AFAIK is the only one of her former classmates actually supporting herself by working full-time as a performer of any kind. Since she works for Disney she has steady year-round paid work and health insurance. The former is rare for all but the best actors, and the latter is almost unheard of.
She’s also appeared in at least one independent film (nothing artsy, it was a slasher movie), which she took on with the understanding that she’d be making $2,000. She didn’t get a contract until right before shooting was scheduled to begin, and learned then that she was to be paid up to $2,000 as a percentage of the film’s net profits. She went through with it for the experience, although she correctly figured out that she’d never actually see a dime for it.
She’s planning to leave Disney within the next year or so and get her teacher’s license, in part because she’d make a heck of a lot more money as an elementary school teacher than she could ever reasonably expect as an actress. I wouldn’t recommend acting as a career to anyone who wanted to make decent money.
I have a way to settle this whole debate with GuanoLad. GuanoLad, why don’t you film a short audition tape showing you performing a few monologues and post it here so we can judge how good of an actor you actually are?
I don’t have to prove myself as an actor. I do not want to be an actor.
My point, as you all seem to be missing, is a lot of amateur actors seem to have trouble sounding real, and instead sound like they are reading lines off a page. I find that very odd, as it’s a fundamental part of acting, and for me is the easiest part.
However, if you want to hear me, I am the narrator and some of the background parts in this production.
I think I know what you mean. People who talk normally in their everyday life somehow lose the ability to talk normally when they’re delivering lines.
That was pretty neat. I thought you sounded a little stilted but it sounded similar to some old time radio narration, so intentional, right?
Right, it was meant to be a 1940s kind of narration.
I admit it’s no great shakes, and sort of contradicts my point by being deliberately formal, but it’s all I have online.
Are you really that oblivious to the fact that this is about as good a working definition of “not easy” as anyone is likely to come up with? (“Most people who try can’t.”)
I can’t see any content in your posts other than pure ego stroking.
I am not saying I am a great actor. I am barely an actor at all. I am saying a simple thing, talking like a real person, which we all do every day of our lives, seems to elude these people, people who want to do this for a living or serious hobby, and yet it ought to be the first thing they master simply by opening their mouths and speaking.
Please explain to me why this is so difficult.
Explain, explain, explain. Because it makes no sense to me.
There are lots of difficult challenges in acting, but talking should not be the one they stumble over.
I’m not claiming that it is difficult. YOU ARE. Even though it directly contradicts your claim that it should be easy and is, in fact, easy for you.
So now you’re saying that in addition to the major thing that most people can’t do – but you in your awesomeness find totally easy – there are lots of other aspect to acting that are difficult too.
Everything you’ve written is a defense of the idea that acting isn’t easy. Everything you’ve written also expounds on how cool you are because it’s easy for you. It’s really quite an impressive display of passive-aggressive dick measuring.
It reminds me of how many of the ego stroking topics play out on this board, and it’s really quite off-putting. Try starting any of the following threads to see a flood of it:
What’s your IQ?
How big is your dick?
Ladies, how many orgasms can you have?
How old were you when you learned to read?
Jumping somebody’s shit for them saying they’re good at one little thing can be off-putting, too.
You have **GuanoLad **all wrong, Ellis Dee, and IME you would have trouble finding anyone on these boards generally more unassuming than he.
Correct me if I’m wrong GL, but I think I see where you are coming from. There are a couple of overlapping issues. Firstly, just speaking naturally should be easy to do, since it is of course what we all do all the time. If you are one of those people who can just relax despite all ears/eyes being upon us, then it is easy (in the sense that it’s not as if talking naturally is of itself an additional skill). But at the same time of course, many people can’t just relax and speak normally under acting conditions. So in that sense it’s a difficult skill.
On top of that you have the fact that so many actors seem to feel that in order to do “acting” they have to declaim and overact and you have a smaller pool of good actors than you might have (if you consider naturalistic acting to be “good”).
I don’t think GL is being egotistical. He’s just pointing out that naturalistic acting is or should be easy given that if you can just relax and do it it is not - like say juggling - a thing that we don’t exercise outside of performance.
Crikey.
Thank you, Princhester, for saying exactly what I was trying to, and more prosaically too.
And it never occurred to me that it was due to having all the attention on them that is causing some of their troubles, but I ought to have realised because it took a long time for me to get over it. And every time I’ve filmed someone new to being in front of the camera, those nerves are always evident.
I apologise to all the actors who think I was belittling their craft. That wasn’t my intent, I am merely curious about what I have seen, which doesn’t correlate with my own personal experience in the art.