A hypothetical scenario.

Buster is like an example I gave. My wife knew him when she was in a youth theatre. But he had done hundreds of polished amateur productions before he took the plunge.

• 11 years ago
• 41

PS Yes Equity was still a closed shop but when you have won awards for what would now be called fringe shows it is not surprising he was given a contract at the Connaught.
I saw him in The Entertainer in the 60s and in my opinion he was much better than Olivier.

• 11 years ago
• 42

Uhm actually I am trained and I agree with you Forbes :) - might be because I've heard too many variations of "We don't want you(r kind) here" aimed at me or friends of mine...

• 11 years ago
• 43

I have a long long post to add in time....but Forbes hits it on the head. It was the Connaught artistic director who gave Buster a job . He would turn up in his Jag...and put on a brown work coat and happily sweep the stage.....he proved consistantly he was professional and right for the role of Albert and others. RIP buster!! How many "trained" actors can say they created a very well known comedy charcters known to millions by the name of the role alone!
I have a solution to all of this I think....but will post when I have composed it properly!!

• 11 years ago
• 44

I've been reading these comments all day and can see both sides of the debate, but here's my problem with it.

There's an automatic assumption in the original post that Actor C doesn't deserve the job.

Actor C may not be reliable, he may not be very good, he may treat the whole job as a big joke. If that is the case, actors A and B will undoubtedly go on to have better careers - actor C will develop a bad reputation so he won't be hired for anything after a little while, or he'll give up acting when he realises it involves actual work and effort.

On the other hand, Actor C may have retired from his old job after building a credible work ethic that he then goes on to apply to his second job, he may have a natural talent that he will then spend the next 20 odd years spending his time and effort - time when most people would have stopped working altogether if he is supposed to be retired - developing so he can build a CV every bit as impressive as the other two's.
If that is the case, what right do actors A & B have to prevent him from doing so?

As for the value of drama school training, it is supposed to equip you with a set of skills that make you a better actor than joe bloggs on the street, thus improving your chances of getting a job. It gives CDs a clear indication that yes, this person has this set of skills, and it's very useful. But it's not, and it shouldn't be, an automatic entry to any job because it's not necessarily an indication of talent or reliability.
If you went to drama school, can you honestly say that every person you trained with was a greatly talented, fully committed actor?

To put it another way - Plumber A trained at college and passed his exams but he shows up three days late and your cellar is now flooded.
Plumber B did an apprenticeship, set up on his own and accidentally mixed up the hot and cold water so now your sink only runs cold and your toilet flushes hot.
Plumber C is your neighbour, he has a spanner and a love of DIY, but he showed up when he said he would, did the job you asked him to and everything works perfectly.

That's not the way it always goes, but sometimes it does. And if it does, who would you want to fix your pipes?

• 11 years ago
• 45

I have to admit I cringe at the sense of entitlement some trained actors exude in their comments, as if they are somehow owed a career simply because they spent money on drama school. This business owes none of us anything, trained or untrained.

• 11 years ago
• 46

I have read all the arguments so far and have to say that people hoe have trained are better or richer than those who haven't; but what is so good about going to a drama school is that you have three years to find out if you can do it and to often fail badly on stage and learn from it.
Sadly I have worked in my 35 years - since leaving drama school - with many untrained actors and ex bankers and ex policemen ex teachers ex lorry drivers etc, and in some cases it has been a terrible and frightening experience especially in dangereous emotional or fight scenes.
I think there will be many of you out there who would agree with me.

• 11 years ago
• 47

sorry that should have read I cannot comment on people who have trained are better or richer (affording drama school) than those who haven't;

• 11 years ago
• 48

Better and richer? Interesting phrase and one I can't agree with!

Much as though I'd have loved to go to Drama School and, in my teenage years even had the acceptance letter in hand, my financial situation made it impossible. When I returned to acting in my late 30's there were other reasons why I couldn't choose that route, again primarily financial, and with this government sticking £9,000 a term onto all new entrants to tertiary education in this country one really has to think long and hard about saddling yourself with 30K of debt in order to follow such a fragile and subjective career path.

The current regime will result in anyone without significant financial comfort behind being excluded from any tertiary education including drama school! So instead of looking down your noses on the untrained within your ranks think yourself bloody lucky you had the opportunities we didn't!

Acting is no longer the exclusive territory of the landed classes...in fact it's not that long ago that actors were only one step up from prostitutes in the eyes of society.

As untrained as I am I'm still kicked your trained butts on a regular basis in the audition room!

I'll see you on set guys!

• 11 years ago
• 49

Our messages obviously crossed! I stand by my response though!

• 11 years ago
• 50

ha i think i'm now so far into forbes corner i'm holding his spit bucket and mopping his brow!

just been re-reading the opening post again and turns out i do have another penny to throw in!

what we are not asking is if despite his/her lack of training and experience is actor C any ruddy good and are they right for the role - and, based on the scenarios outcome the answer to both, in the eyes of the CD, is yes.

so actually the hypothetical question gets much uglier because it becomes

should 'we' find a way to exclude and withhold opportunities from people who, given a level playing field, could become successful.

now if answering yes to that isn't elitism i don't know what is!

• 11 years ago
• 51

Once again the ugly beast, that is the perennial and maybe eternal slanging match between training/no training, rears it's head and devours a debate.

Angharad, the question you raise is your question, that you wrote. It is not the question I am asking.

Passions run high whenever the afore mentioned beast leaps into the room. Different perspectives that must be respected. Those passions are both sides of the same coin.

My point, if I even have one anymore, is this. If those coins continue to flow off the mint into the industry completely unabated, that currency will eventually become devalued and worthless. Many people agree here that the industry is becoming over subscribed and the wages are dropping.

Quid pro quo (excuse the pun) all us, and I mean all, who as actors have chosen this path at whatever age etc, at the expense of a more stable and comfortable career. Will we be existing on our part time, flexible resting jobs, and any acting work will be done purely for the love of it?

Please understand I am asking about how to maintain a grass roots, jobbing actor living, and ensuring this for all. Not about exclusion and elitism.

Now please excuse me while I grab my broadsword and go and hunt down that beast.

• 11 years ago
• 52

David, Angharad's point is a completely valid one based on your question. You asked, perhaps inadvertently, should actor A and actor B deserve job protection just because they have been actors longer.

The answer is no, because experience does not equal ability or commitment.

Any skilled job that does not have a formal entry route pits the inexperienced against the veteran, the point is that the veteran ought to be able to hold their own by dint of their greater experience, years of training and on the job development. If all that by itself is not sufficient to secure them a job, then they need to look at what they could have done better, not blame the other guy.

As for your other point - There are fewer jobs around than there used to be, that is true - but we are in a recession! There are fewer jobs for everyone.
What we ought to be doing, and what we ought to be using Equity for, is ensuring that pay standards are met for everybody, regardless of their experience.
Sharing insight with people who are new to the industry so that they can see when they are being taken advantage of and stop working for below par wages because they think they have no alternative if they want to be considered on the same level as "proper" actors.
If there wasn't such an emphasis on having x amoount of credits on your CV to get a fairly-paid role, people wouldn't be willing to accept any kind of treatment just to get experience.
And trying to prevent new actors from getting to professional castings will only propogate that issue.

• 11 years ago
• 53

Could it be that what we are experiencing and need protecting from is the general state of the whole industry as a whole?

Crew as well as actors are scrificing drawing a wage to attain experience; as sometimes that is there only way in due to the oversubscription in both departments.

Everyone that finds themselves doing low pay/no pay work experience are looking to make the right connections and hoping that somebody is going to give them a leg up onto the next run.

I just thought I'd throw that the mix and is in no way to be considered as my fixed opinion on the matter.

Best.

• 11 years ago
• 54