MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Are British actors generally better than...

Are British actors generally better than American actors?


This thought train started when I realized that oftentimes American characters in movies are played by British actors. After so-so performances by Toby Maguire and Andrew Garfield, it took British Tom Holland to finally deliver a great Peter Parker. After Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and George Clooney, it took British Christian Bale to deliver a great Batman. After Brandon Routh it took British Henry Cavill to deliver a great Superman (in Man of Steel at least).

And it isn't just in superhero movies. It is film/television in general. The following is an interesting explanation for the difference in the quality of performances between American actors versus their British counterparts:




This is an issue that extends beyond superhero films, to films in general. America has a young actor crisis. The topic has received quite a bit of coverage over the last couple of years, especially after the totally American story of Selma came out and people realized four of the primary characters were played by British actors.

The Atlantic did a feature on it, in which Michael Douglas commented on the issue, saying:

"Clearly, it breaks down on two fronts. In Britain they take their training seriously while in the States we’re going through a sort of social media image conscious thing rather than formal training. Many actors are getting caught up in this image thing, which is going on to affect their range."

Young actors from Britain, Ireland, Australia and other locations have grown up with their television dominated by American shows. They have heard American voices coming out of that box, every day, and they've mastered mimicking those accents. That means the best of those actors can cross the ocean and compete on a level playing field against the best young American actors. Add in the emphasis on training, overseas, and those young foreigners acquire an edge over many of their American counterparts.

Many young actors build their foundation in television before breaking into film. All one has to do is watch some American television and some British television and some structural differences will be noticed - differences that help young British actors and hinder young American actors.

The following is, of course, a generalization. Exceptions are easy to name. You might be tempted to reply with "What about Walking Dead and The Wire?" Well, they both starred British actors playing Americans. One doesn't need to be an absolute to have impacts.

American television has a heritage and tradition of glamor. American television characters are supposed to be better looking, better dressed, more articulate, and more superlative than the people watching television. There is a perspective that for a story to be interesting, it has to be about the best. The protagonist of a cop show should be a super cop. Police detective Kate Beckett, on Castle, has to be supermodel beautiful and thin, and yet still able to tackle a 240 lb bad guy. She has to be able to chase down a teenager in Nike's while she is wearing five inch heeled Christian Louboutin shoes. She does all this while wearing a $2200 jacket (that she'll have replaced next week with another $2000 jacket), and $600 jeans. She'll do all of this without sweating or getting a hair out of place. The protagonist of a law show has to be a GQ underwear model with an eidetic memory for the law and the charm to win over every jury. Soap operas are about the rich. Sitcoms like Friends are about beautiful people that rarely go to work. They sit in their palatial apartments wearing designer clothes and seemingly spouting spontaneous witticisms that took nine writers a week to refine.

American television has a foundation of depicting youth, vitality, exceptionalism, and wealth, and doing so in a weird warped world where everyone lives in either L.A. or New York, but has a nondescript middle of the country accent.

This is tough on actors. Rather than developing their skills at disappearing into multivariate characters, their job is to always look cool. Their job is to become a brand.

Conversely, British television has a foundation of reveling in the linguistic, economic, and cultural diversity of that small group of islands. A young actor will go from playing a cockney thug one week to a Yorkshire farmer the next, to a member of the 1920s landed gentry the next. Their job is to depict characters that feel real, not fantastical. Their skills get regularly worked and enhanced. Their job is to become a chameleon.


https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Hollywood-keep-casting-British-actors-to-play-American-superheroes

TLDR: An American actor's job is to become a brand while and British actor's job is to deliver a compelling performance.

reply

Yes

reply

I think there are three strings to British acting success. The first is the performing arts schools, such as RADA, CSSD, LAMDA, Guildhall and the Bristol Old Vic. Most British actors will have studied acting at some point rather than learning on the job. There's a career path.

Second, there is a long theatrical tradition. Many actors first prove themselves in the theatre and then have a kind of gravitas and confidence that translates well into screen performances (Patrick Stewart, Judy Dench, Ian McKellen, etc). Many schools and universities have strong drama programmes based on theatre (Footlights, OUDS).

Finally, the UK traditionally has a few main TV channels. There are a number of long-running drama shows that enable young actors to cut their teeth. Time and again the same shows will appear in young actors' filmographies: Casualty, The Bill, Dr Who, Eastenders, Midsomer Murders, Coronation Street, Inspector Morse, etc. Most of these are BBC shows. Young actors will do the rounds on these shows and 'quality' programming such as period and literary dramas, improving their skills and widening their range. US TV seems far more diffuse, both geographically and in terms of production companies/outlets.

There is a comparatively small pool of actors in the UK and a number of ways for them to train and learn their craft. The result is that talent is nurtured and recognised within these systems, generally with a lower requirement for luck or the focus on appearance that you get in the US. British actors are rarely 'discovered' in the way models are.

I suspect the same is true in Australia and Ireland.

reply

So I missed this comment because I was a newbie here at the time and newbies often post and disappear for extended periods. As a non-Brit, most of what you typed is both new to me and very interesting, especially what you say about theater. It seems as though all truly serious actors (in the USA included) have some experience performing in theater and that makes a big difference.

reply

Honestly, I don't think there's better or worse when it comes to country. I think England has a reputation for producing some amazing actors, but it's the reputation the US held for ages beforehand. So I think it's more that foreign actors have been given more screen time, have done so well with it and gained so much attention in recent years that we're forgetting the plethora of incredible talent the US has consistently produced over time.

So I'd say it's still pretty equal. Even when I think of my favourite actors, there's an even ratio of foreign/US actors on that list.

reply

I guess Robert Pattinson, with his performance in The Batman, has joined Christian Bale in my OP.

For the record, I am not British and this post isn't intended to bash Americans. The best American actors are on par with the best British ones.

reply

I think they used to be mainly because they learnt their trade in theaters and British TV which doesn't demand every actor fit a cookie cutter definition of good looks before they can get a role.
With all the channels now available I'm not sure that's necessarily true anymore. Though I often notice British actors mixed seamlessly into American shows.
On a side note, I'm often surprised how many Canadians there are in American shows. Canada seems to punch far above its weight in producing talented actors.

reply

Generally speaking actors from the Five Eyes countries (UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) can play American characters so effortlessly that you'd never know they aren't American unless you looked it up. Actors from other countries usually have tell-tale signs that they're not American. There are exceptions though, for example Hera Hilmar who I thought was British but is actually from Iceland, the Skarsgards (Stellan, Alexander and his brothers) who are Swedish, Michael Fassbender and Alicia Vikander who I think are German.

reply

Probably because we all grew up watching American TV shows with the original voices? If you have an ear for accents (I don't but assume actors do) it would be relatively easy to produce an American accent.

reply

The British start with better material than Americans, especially in regards to tv. American tv appeals to the dumb and dumber. The Brits had Monty Python.

reply

I don't agree. Tobey Maguire was better than Tom Holland as Spider-Man. Michael Keaton was better than Christian Bale as Batman. And Christopher Reeve was better than Henry Cavill as Superman. Evan Peters was better than Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Quicksilver.

reply

Most people I've spoken to tend to feel that Tobey Maguire is a great Peter Parker but not a great Spider-Man, while Andrew Garfield is the opposite: a great Spider-Man but terrible Peter Parker. We believe that Tom Holland is the first to marry the two personas perfectly.

reply

And you forgot about Christopher Reeve’s Superman because . . . ? You weren’t even a sperm then, perhaps?

reply

Nope. This post isn't about older movies. Older movies weren't about "creating brands" as the quoted text in the OP stipulates. The tendency to focus on looks and coolness and marketability is a more recent trend. American actors from older movies are generally exempt from the observation the OP makes.

reply