‘Don’t think about working in America unless you are met at the airport in a
limousine’.
I read this in The Stage twenty years ago, written by an actor who had just
come back from a largely unfulfilled exploratory trip to Hollywood. I
honestly don’t think much has changed. Having lived here now for some
years, Los Angeles is still one of the most transitory cities in the world. It
ebbs and flows with daily arrivals and departures of every nationality and
level of acting ability under the constant sunshine. Everyone pursuing their
dream. Which for most people I think means never quite catching it up.
Not everyone who comes to Hollywood is an actor of course, it just seems
that way. Fortunately, when I first arrived in Los Angeles in the early
nineties, I was met at the airport in a limousine. I’d just played one of the
two leads in a television series called ‘Partners in Crime’ with Francesca
Annis. I was asked by the sponsors at PBS Masterpiece Theatre to travel
all over the States to talk about the filming, how I made a living as an actor
and England.
I have now made a living as an actor, and a director, in both countries and
have found some striking differences. I think it starts with the difference in
training. It seems that most American university and college drama
departments work under some sort of disciplinary umbrella. One college,
one technique. Students devote themselves to Stella Adler or Lee Strasberg,
Michael Chekhov or Sanford Meisner or other well marketed techniques.
So different from the dear old basic Stanislavski training that English drama
schools rely on. I’ve often thought it must be very confusing for the young
American actor entering the profession to find that their approach,
sometimes exclusively learnt, does not seem to reach past the first day of
rehearsal. The rest of the cast have learnt a completely different technique
and the director had never heard of Robert Cohen. Of course, all the
famous approaches to acting have great and fundamental things to say, but
it’s the concentration on one particular discipline that provides a sort of
early divide in a huge country already divided by it’s chief industry
locations.
New York is best known for it’s on and off Broadway theatre, while Los
Angeles is the centre for the majority of film and television made for
domestic and international distribution. And they are nearly 3000 miles
apart. New York does have some television and film, but not nearly enough
to go around. So actors are constantly migrating in the Spring of each year
for TV ‘pilot’ season in LA and back to NY if they are passionate about
working in the theatre. Los Angeles claims a thriving theatre community
but for some totally weird reason, most of the theatres are 99 seats or less
and exist on providing actors a casting showcase for film and television. A
grave disservice by Equity to their members here I feel. It rather diminishes
the way that actors are perceived by the public, and often, themselves. And
there are only half a dozen theatres in LA which are not on this strange 99
seat contract for which actors don’t get paid. There are other centres of
excellence in the American actor’s world; Chicago, Washington, St Louis,
Boston, Seattle, Minnesota for example: but few actors base their careers
there and expect to make a reasonable living.
England in contrast is more centered. The headquarters of most theatre,
film and television based in the same city. Actors crossing between the
media and incorporating all the other perks that make up a successful
English actor’s career. Radio, voiceovers and commercials all expected to
be apart of an actor’s repertoire, with regional theatre still providing a
standard of excellence despite woeful underfunding. Laudably, casting
directors, directors and producers actually go to the theatre and will often
know an actor’s work before that actor goes into audition. Which is not
always true of their US counterparts. It doesn’t seem to matter what the
actor has done or how well known. Everyone has to audition, sometimes
many times, to get a part, and they succeed in being cast for what they
bring to that particular part at that particular time. Not because they are part
of the ‘luvvy’ network in dear old London. Which actually can be quite
refreshing for the actor and certainly keeps them on their toes. Not as much
resting on laurels in Los Angeles as there is in London. I’ve always been
incredibly impressed by the way that American actors are always working
like beavers on every aspect of their careers.
As a freelance director, I’ve now directed around 30 productions in US
regional theatre and in New York. The last play I directed there took nearly
two weeks to cast from around 100 agent submissions and over 300 actors
auditioning at two days of Equity required open calls. There were seven
parts in total to cast. Practically every one of those 400 actors came in to
the audition thoroughly prepared and having learnt the scenes from the play
they were given, usually only the day before. Very impressive and an
indication of just how competitive this profession can be.
And yet still young people come to train as actors in institutions all over
both countries. I now am President of Theatre of Arts in Hollywood, one of
the oldest acting colleges in America. I travel extensively, auditioning young
talent who are looking for a comprehensive, practical conservatory training.
I used to worry that despite what I believe to be the excellence of our two
year program, faculty and resources, I was actually increasing the numbers
of the unemployed when students leave us to enter this seductive but
insecure profession. I now believe that if the college gets it right, training as
an actor can be the best training for life you could get. The young actor has
to dedicate himself, persevere and apply his talent at all times to make the
most of it. It’s overall, a unique and absolutely wonderful way to spend a
life.
