Swell, one more foreign actor taking an American lead - Past Life (2010) Discussion

[–] mistygracie 14 years ago

I agree. remember back in the 90s, there was the "Aussie Invasion", where many Aussie actors were making it in Hollywood, & I have nothing against foreign actors, as long as our own struggling actors here in the US who are just as talented find work!

reply

[–] dmfaust 14 years ago

There is nothing wrong with having a "foreign" lead, though I would agree on the bad accent issue. If an actor of any nationality can't do a particular accent, they have no business being cast in that role to begin with(that goes for Americans as well of course). And if the powers that be really want that particular actor, then they should simply change the background of the character rather than force a terrible accent.

And while there is certainly something to be said for the fact that accents fall under the art of acting to begin with so in theory "shouldn't be an issue", if it is not a particular actor's strength then it shouldn't logically be brought into the equation. No one would (hopefully) cast Larry the Cable Guy in a dramatic role(or anything that didn't involve him being a cliche redneck in that example :x), so why cast someone who can't pass for the particular nationality in question.

reply

[–] forherwealth 14 years ago

how can you quote gandhi and then show your blatant american prejudice? ugh, american patriots, get over yourself. there are more than enough american actors on mainstream television, maybe some other people should get a chance.

Buffy vs Edward: Twilight Remixed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZwM3GvaTRM

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

Oh, you're right. How could I possibly forget about all the American actors making it big in Britain, Ireland and Australia.

I can think of no particular reason why the American television industry should provide a home for all the actors of the English-speaking world when the rest of the English-speaking world prefers to have Irish, Australian and British parts played by Irishmen, Aussies and Brits. Canada, which seems to export half its actors to the U.S., is quite protectionist about its own television industry.

Gandhi stood for, among other things, keeping in India the rupees going abroad to pay for British textiles. He preferred that every Indian woman spin her own cloth. Don't give me crap about Gandhi.

Do I have to list all the leads (and we're talking about American characters, not people like Jesse Spencer on "House," using his own accent) crowding American TV now? I didn't complain for years, until now; I was delighted when Hugh Laurie started working here. But now Americans are being frozen out in their own television industry.

You already despise Americans. You prove it by, among other things, refusing to capitalize the word "American." It's not as if you give a damn about us, so we'd better give a damn about ourselves. I'm not going to be lectured by you for wanting American actors to get more of the breaks in their own country.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] dmfaust 14 years ago

I would have to disagree that this is really an issue. You are completely right about most everything, I am just not sure it adds up to a problem with foreign actors taking American lead roles. I am a strong believer in, above all else, the skill of the individual(again, playing into the accent issue mentioned in my other post). I would far rather have a skilled British actor playing an American, than a lousy American actor. I would point to The Dark Knight as the perfect example of why talent should rise above all other factors.

Now in this case, yes, this was not the guy for the job. But the issue is not simply that he isn't American, it's that he doesn't play the role well.

I would also strongly caution against the general line of thinking, as more and more production shifts to the Vancouver area. (Not to mention that several major move corporations are owned by foreign business. Sony is of course about as Japanese as it gets, Fox was founded by (albeit an ex-patriate) Australian, and many long established names that own and run the day to day production companies and direct projects hail from around the world, just think about all the Americans that the Scotts alone have made stars).

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

I understand your point, but it doesn't change my opinion. The participation of foreigners behind the camera and in the boardrooms doesn't make up, as far as I'm concerned, for the slighting of American actors in the competition to be before the camera. Indeed, the former may explain the latter.

This is, at the end of the day, American television we're talking about: American characters in American settings acting out American stories. And the primary and initial audience, before anything starts playing in international syndication, is still an American audience.

If that were not so, Vancouver and Toronto could stop pretending to be New York, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Boston, Atlanta and Philadelphia. They could just be Toronto and Vancouver, and the next Michael J. Fox wouldn't have to pretend to be an aide to the Mayor of New York. He could play the Canadian he is.

We have been far from insular in allowing our television industry to be internationalized (in other countries, it's national as hell). Our actors shouldn't be victimized by that. And I'm afraid we have reached that tipping point.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] rlil2001 14 years ago

I can think of no particular reason why the American television industry should provide a home for all the actors of the English-speaking world when the rest of the English-speaking world prefers to have Irish, Australian and British parts played by Irishmen, Aussies and Brits. Canada, which seems to export half its actors to the U.S., is quite protectionist about its own television industry.

More agreement. :) If the makers of the Harry Potter movies refuse to have anyone other than citizens of the UK in the cast, that is their prerogative, but gee, Actors Equity was fine with bringing Daniel Radcliffe to Broadway. Just one meager example.

***********
Don't click 'reply' unless you're replying to this specific message. Thanks!!!

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

I don't blame the British for being proprietary about Bridget Jones, but I would point out to you that the money to make the Bridget Jones movies was made available because Renee Zelweger was a bigger star than whatever British actress at the time might have been available to play her. Same goes for Gwyneth Paltrow and Meryl Streep, who have also played British characters in movies.

Notice that I'm not complaining about movies, which are much more international, and I don't mind Jeremy Northam, Cate Blanchett, Jude Law, Emma Thompson, Gabriel Byrne, Patrick Bergin, Gerard Butler or others playing American parts in movies, which they often do.

But Nicholas Bishop is completely unknown in the United States, and probably didn't put one single American butt in front of a TV. Hugh Laurie was known to some Americans who are fans of BBC America. Simon Baker was already a movie name. Some of us knew who Damian Lewis was, and a few more of us had seen Kevin McKidd before, in "Rome" or in a Mike Leigh film.

But most of the foreign actors I'm complaining about are not stars brought in to shine up American series. They're foreign actors taking star-making roles away from Americans. Stephen Moyer, Alex O'Loughlin and many others only became known to Americans after they had snagged American series leads.

Their track record isn't that splendid either. What happened to "Journeyman" or "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" or "Moonlight" or "New Amsterdam" or "Life on Mars" or "Night Stalker"? If foreign actors are so indispensable to American TV, why aren't they all keeping their shows on the air any better than Americans are?

Except for "Keen Eddie" (which was conceptually transatlantic, and in which Paul Valley played an American) I can't think of an American actor in a British series lead in a long time. Robert Vaughan, a long-established international name, had one, and so did Elaine Stritch, some years ago, after a lengthy career in both America and Britain (she was a favorite of Noel Coward). If there were a lot of unknown American actors playing British parts in British television you wouldn't have had to bring up Bridget Jones.

So please don't think you can excuse the presence of no-name foreign actors in American TV leads by bringing up international American superstars like Renee Zelweger. Not only are these people slipping into American leads unheralded, I don't think the networks even want the public to know they're not American -- at least not until the series click.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] eviltwit73 14 years ago

...and are quite versatile.

In the US, I find many actors and actresses are made up mostly of people who look pretty but couldn't act their way out of a cardboard box.

When American actors are more well-rounded, and directors are more concerned with their acting skills than their ability to look skinny and airbrushed on screen, than perhaps the US won't need to import English-speaking actors from other countries. I personally couldn't care less. Find me an American actor that could act act as House. Find me an American actor who could play John Noble's Walter in Fringe. Anna Torv's Olivia in Fringe? Simon Baker in The Mentalist? Also, these actors aren't looking for money to fund their expensive lifestyles, so I bet it's a win-win situation for all. If you're looking for solid actors who can take a role and make it something special, it just happens they're coming from overseas right now.

If you bother to watch foreign films or tv, there are plenty of Americans doing crap British, Irish, etc. accents.

I don't see the problem.

I wouldn't call it a lie; more like a truth deferred. -- from "Dean Spanley"

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

I'm not even going to bother providing you with a list of good American actors. Completely superfluous. The United States has a population fourteen times that of Australia. It has world class theatre, and the most popular movie output in the world. No nation, even before this influx of foreign thespians, syndicated more television to foreign markets. It is the height of absurdity to claim that we need to hang our heads.

Especially since Americans (as I just read) provide 40% of the funding for the Royal Shakespeare Company.

John Noble is unique, and I love him. He may indeed be the best man for the job. Anna Torv is good but completely replaceable, and so -- for all his charm -- is Simon Baker (a very handsome man whose looks you apparently don't consider a sure sign of a lack of talent, since he's from New Zealand). He's not one bit more engaging than Nathan Fillion is on "Castle." They both turn on the sex and the twinkle, but give me a break. Besides, Baker paid his dues in American movies before getting an American series lead. He didn't jump to the head of a class he hadn't even joined till the day before.

The other trouble with your argument is that every foreign actor you've named shares his/her show with American actors who don't suck either. Not one of them has to carry the show on their own foreign-trained shoulders.

Yes, I've heard bad British accents from Americans. I've also heard the otherwise excellent Kevin McKidd struggling with an American one, and fine actors like Ray Winstone making the most cliched choices in constructing one. The fact that British actors since Vanessa Redgrave are doing better work with American dialects doesn't mean there's anything genetic about it. Give me a choice between Meryl Streep in "Plenty" and Northam in "Happy, Texas" and I know whose voice work I'd pick.

I watch a lot of movies and TV from many nations. I've heard some very good British accents from American actors, and I've also heard Jeremy Northam trying to sound Italian. One of the biggest hoots when I watch BBC America is the occasional chance to hear a British actor on British TV who is not a big star try to play an American, in some broad and generalized, bombastic, Piccadilly Brooklynese.

But you know what? The male lead on this show is supposed to be American. If you're seriously suggesting that no available American actor could play a New York detective more convincingly than Nicholas Bishop can, you are just shooting off your mouth.

I'll bet you're an American. Is it not time, at long last, you stopped conning yourself into believing that foreign cultcha eclipses anything we produce in the arts? We've more than earned the world's respect. Just because we cast a lot of soap operas here doesn't mean our run of the mill is any worse than anyone else's. I once saw a documentary with excerpts from Australian soap opera. Soap opera acting seems to be the same everywhere.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] eviltwit73 14 years ago

Soap operas around the world are mostly crap. That's not to say they're not addictive.

I've been watching British tv on PBS and now from other sources since I was five. Most of my favorite shows have been from the UK. I've yet to find any US show which rivals Yes, Minister.

Foreign culture? Geez. Well, as far as I'm concerned, there are a lot of countries doing a better job in the "Arts" that the US right now, where it's the first thing to go down the toilet in general.

What the US does better than a lot of countries is flat out entertainment, which is much appreciated. What it doesn't do best is quality. Maybe if the US concentrated on quality, the actors would get to show off their chops a bit more. Sure, there are tv shows and movies here and there. But, there are too many compromises. People are slow to comprehend quality. And then the shows get canceled, and my favorite shows are often short lived. (Life, with the fantastic British actor, Damien Lewis being one of them).

Again, I don't think it's a problem that the US casts "foreign" actors in English-speaking roles or that other English-speaking countries cast Americans in like roles. Whatever works.

The world gets smaller every day. It was bound to happen.

-------------
"I tolerate this century but I don't enjoy it." -- The First Doctor

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

What the US does better than a lot of countries is flat out entertainment, which is much appreciated. What it doesn't do best is quality. Maybe if the US concentrated on quality, the actors would get to show off their chops a bit more.

What, please, are all these higher quality British and Australian and Canadian television shows? Name them.

I presume I'm seeing the best of British TV on BBC America and "PBS Masterpiece," and I'm not especially wowed. Yes, they still do good classic serials, but it's been a very long time since one of those raised its head above the crowd in any notable way. In fact, they are producing so many fewer than they used to that "Masterpiece Theatre" had to change its name and start running some of their more pedestrian crime dramas.

As for the latter, the British still do reliable (but rather samey now) crime investigation dramas, but frankly it's been a while since the excellent "Prime Suspect," and although I like Robson Green as much as the next guy, his projects are starting to bleed together.

"Torchwood" and "Dr. Who?" are original, but they are both continuations of a franchise that was invented quite a few years ago, and both are uneven in quality. And "Torchwood" in particular is being ruined, in my opinion, by the switch to a different BBC network and the removal of all its gay content to placate more conservative British viewers. Yes, there are British TV viewers with narrow and unexceptional tastes.

I laugh on "Torchwood" when they add a little featurette explaining how they did their supposedly brilliant special effects, which, compared to those on American TV, resemble a baking soda volcano. The laughable monsters in Sci Fi original movies like "Chupacabra" are just about as good as "Torchwood"'s Pterodactyls, etc.

That leaves "Skins," which is original, moving, well acted, and which fell down notably in quality during its third season when it lost most of its original cast,. It leaves some lovely sketch comedy shows like "Little Britain." It leaves whatever Ricky Gervais happens to be doing at the moment.

None of this product exceeds in quality "Lost," "24," "Prison Break," "The Wire," "The Sopranos," "Dexter," "Breaking Bad," "Nurse Jackie," "Hung," "30 Rock," "Fringe," "The Simpsons," "Scrubs," "Law & Order," "Curb Your Enthusiasm," "Seinfeld," "Burn Notice," "The West Wing," "House," "The Family Guy," "Entourage," "True Blood," "Dexter," "Weeds," or "Californication." The American version of "The Office" is just about as good as the British original.

British movies, other than those of Mike Leigh, aren't especially interesting these days, unless you like Guy Ritchie (I can take him or leave him). And to suggest that the British are all about "art" and Americans are only about "entertainment" hardly explains Ritchie, or Jason Statham and the "Transporter" movies. It hardly explains entertaining but undistinguished British TV series like "Demons," "Primeval," or "Being Human," which -- compared to the best recent American TV -- are simply weak.

The British try just as hard to produce pure "entertainment" as everybody else, and Americans happen to be better at it. We're also better these days at producing high quality "artistic" TV. They make crime dramas and sitcoms and sci fi and other genre shows, just like every other country. They grind them out, just like ever other TV industry. They are not leading the world in television. The United States is. If Damian Lewis, Kevin McKidd and Hugh Laurie had been offered irresistible artistic challenges in British television, British television is where they would be.

And while we're at it, British writers, painters and sculptors aren't exactly setting the world on fire these days either. A lot of what's in the Saatchi Collection or the Tate Modern these days gets noticed simply because it's provocative (Damien Hirst floating dead animals in tanks of formaldehyde), and except for a few people like Zadie Smith, British literature seems to be represented these days by J. K. Rowling. If any books are to be called purely "entertainment" it's the books in the Harry Potter series.

I'm starting to think you're nothing more than a Eurocentric snob, without a wisp of justification for your unexamined opinions. Prove me wrong.

Again, I don't think it's a problem that the US casts "foreign" actors in English-speaking roles or that other English-speaking countries cast Americans in like roles.

Other English-speaking countries do not cast Americans in like roles. That's my point. They send their actors to us. They rarely share their television industries with our actors. I don't think American actors should be victimized by such large numbers of foreign actors taking American series leads (especially not as American characters). British TV rarely even casts American actors as Americans, let alone allow them to adopt British accents and play cops from Birmingham. They hire a British actor, to play an American, and encourage him to speak the the flattest, broadest, and loudest American accent he can manage.

We've been talking only about Britain. Lets's talk about the rest of the Commonwealth. Once, quite a few years ago, the Australian film industry gave us a number of brilliant directors: Gillian Armstrong, Peter Weir, Fred Schepisi, etc. That was, as I say, long ago. The last director of note they gave us was Baz Luhrmann, and I don't admire him much at all. I don't even think he makes real movies anymore. I think he makes very costly jokes at the expense of people who like actual movies. "Australia" was a joke epic, and "Moulin Rouge" was a joke musical.

Every once in a while, a low-comedy Australian TV series is shown on American cable, and I'm not blown away. New Zealand has sent us Peter Jackson (another "entertainer"), who is impressive, but not more impressive than Tim Burton, Martin Scorsese or Steven Spielberg. Canada has some good movie directors in Atom Egoyan and Denys Arcand, but I can't even remember the last time (other than "Slings and Arrows") they sent us a decent television series.

So explain to me again why Americans are all philistine, mouth-breathing, tasteless dolts whose actors have no "chops" and who need to bow down to the Masters of Their Arts from every single country other than the United States of America. I'm not trashing other countries or their art; I watch a lot of foreign movies, and when I get the chance to watch foreign TV I generally give it a whirl. But I don't watch American movies and television simply to improve our balance of payments. I watch them because we have nothing to feel inferior about, on any level whatsoever.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] eviltwit73 14 years ago

I just came on this board to see what people thought of Past Life, because I was thinking of taking a peek at it.

As a Kiwi/American, I quite enjoyed Flight of the Conchords.

Each to his own, I guess. Nobody's right here. This is an entirely subjective debate. If you want to keep insisting that you're the end all and be all in your opinion, that's fine. Insults aren't necessary. This isn't really important enough to me to write an entire treatise on it, though. (Yes, I do know about/have watched all the shows and actors you mentioned. For one, personally, I think Lost is highly overrated. West Wing was great, but it's no longer on.)

I wrote and you highlighted: "What the US does better than a lot of countries is flat out entertainment, which is much appreciated. What it doesn't do best is quality. Maybe if the US concentrated on quality, the actors would get to show off their chops a bit more."

Okay, I amend that. Perhaps if many US actors weren't so worried about getting anorexic and botoxed to death (with the collusion of the industry), they could concentrate on their acting instead of trying to simply emote through their stiff visages. Then, they could show off their acting chops (which, yes, I agree, they do have) better. Also, while the US obviously does develop quality shows (some of which don't get canceled within 8 episodes), they need quality actors. If that means SOMETIMES looking elsewhere...

Actually, lately I've seen quite a few American actors pop up in British tv and movies.

I stick with my assessment that the US does entertainment very well. I never said the US can't do Arts. I hail from Cleveland, home of one of the best orchestras in the world - I know because I played alongside them while I was in high school. They are fighting for their livelihood right now, as well as all musicians in orchestras in the country, because the Arts doesn't pay enough in the US, Although I grew up surrounded with music in my family, I grew up in a small town outside of Cleveland, where people wouldn't know good music if it whacked them in the face. (My time spent playing at Severance Hall in the Cleveland Orchestra Youth Orchestra was like an oasis for me. No, I'm not a classical music snot either. The only music I can't stand is Christian "Rock".)

The great majority of Americans could care less about the "Arts", and consequently the "Arts" are going downhill. You want to try to prove that that isn't true in the US? Go ahead. And, good luck with that.

And, please don't put words into my keyboard. I never called all Americans "philistines" or "mouth-breathing, tasteless dolts.", etc, etc.

What I am saying is that collectively, Americans do not value the Arts and it shows. This might go hand in hand with Americans being so anti-intellectual. If you want to try to argue that, go ahead as well. And keep arguing, when that ignoramus from Alaska gets elected president.

(You obviously do value the Arts, as do I. We are in the minority.)

Prove you wrong? Right. Just because I don't agree that America and its TV shows and actors aren't the greatest thing since sliced bread? You clearly are quite entrenched in your opinions. So, why bother. I do actually have better things to do with my life, which I'd probably better get to.

Back there somewhere you said, you said something to the effect of "skill of the individual" - no matter which country they hail from? So then if YOU think they're not the right ones for the rolls, "Foreign" actors are not a problem, maybe casting directors are.

But wasn't the whole point of this thread was, "Those foreigners are taking over our roles".

Of course, my Aussie friends say that maybe the reason why are so many of their compatriots working as actors in the US right now is because they're just better. But, that's just their opinion.

Cheers.

p.s. "Australia" was a joke epic, and "Moulin Rouge" was a joke musical - YOUR OPINION. NOT FACT. While, I didn't love "Australia", some my "foreign" friends adored the movie because it spoke to them (beyond the cheesy love story). Just because it didn't speak to Americans, doesn't mean it was crap.

-------------
"I tolerate this century but I don't enjoy it." -- The First Doctor

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

Well of course it's the casting directors (and producers) who are the problem. I haven't said anything to indicate I blame foreign actors for going where the best jobs are. In many cases, these are actors I already know and like from their foreign work. Let there be no doubt about who I blame.

Hell yes, there's a lot of anti-intellectualism (and philistinism, which happens to be a noun describing people who "couldn't care less about the arts") in the U.S. I'm sure there's a lot of both in every country. John Howard in Australia was George Bush's intellectual twin.

Fortunately there are more than three hundred million Americans, meaning that (unless you're saying we're all anti-intellectual Republican philistines) there are more than enough intelligent Americans to support a vibrant artistic, intellectual and entertainment scene. And if more proof is needed, we actually have a vibrant artistic, intellectual and entertainment scene.

I regret a lot of things about my country right now, but not my country's acting profession. Even Iran, a nation about which I loathe virtually everything, has a stunning film industry. If a religious theocracy can't keep Iran from producing a Khiarostami, tell me how Sarah Palin, who lost the last election and who has a favorability rating of only 37%, indicates an absence of intellectuals in American life.

I don't know if you've looked at the papers in the last few months, but the man who did win our last election is a former constitutional law professor, a graduate of Harvard Law School, and the author of several best-selling books. And, in case you also hadn't heard, he recently won the Nobel Peace Prize.

All this Botox and liposuction nonsense of yours is a red herring. We're talking about American series leads usually accorded to actors and actresses in their twenties, thirties and forties: not to movie stars trying to hang on, or soap opera cuties.

The most notoriously Botoxed actress in Hollywood is surely Nicole Kidman, whose eyebrows haven't been at their natural level for years. She's Australian, in case you've forgotten, and married to Keith Urban. The Botox hasn't prevented her from being a fine actress, though.

And the actress I most suspect of anorexia, and worry about the most, is the extremely talented and Oscar-winning Jennifer Connelly. There's no correlation between over-attention to physical appearance and a lack of talent or training. Connelly has been acting (and doing it well; check Leone's "Once Upon a Time in America") since she was a child.

The most reviled performer on this thread (for taking the role of Bridget Jones), Renee Zellweger, not only isn't obsessed with her weight, but gained 20 pounds to play the part. I personally think British actors (I hope this is changing) have a tendency to let themselves go. There ought to be a happy medium.

Lastly, where do you get the idea there's something "Americentric" about disliking Baz Luhrmann's films? Luhrmann is having a huge American career, both in the movies and on Broadway. His recent movies spoke to lots of Americans, just not to me. And I love the work (both in Australia and America) of many Australian directors. If I'm not cutting a break for Luhrmann because he's an Aussie, tell me why the last movie of his I liked was the all-Australian "Strictly Ballroom."

I just shudder to think what Luhrmann is about to do with "The Great Gatsby." I happen to think a movie of "The Great Gatsby" ought to speak to Americans, including me.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] eviltwit73 14 years ago

1. Nowhere did I say that you were Ameri-centric because you disliked Luhrman's films. We disagree on Moulin Rouge, but I do love Strictly Ballroom. Again - opinions, not facts. I can't tell you why you liked that movie of his last. Why should I? You accuse me of being a Eurocentric snob just because I happen to like many British actors better than their American counterparts and just because I've been pointing out that the the majority of the US doesn't value the "Arts", which is true. Just returning the pointlessness of the insult.

2. Can barely look at Kidman in roles anymore. She's super botoxed and really didn't need to be. Agreed. Personally, I think she's starting to look like an alien. It's distracting, precisely because she is a solid actress and I'd like to focus on that.

3. I'll assume you did see Gatsby with Redford, Farrow and Waterson? I had to see it for English class way back when. Thought RR was perfect in it. Yes, a remake would have to be stunning to compare with that. They got Fitzgerald's written vision down with that movie.

4. Yes, there ought to be a happy medium with looks and weight. I don't agree with the whole "British let themselves go". I like that they look more normal in movies and TV. But, that's just me.

5. I do like Jennifer Connelly and agree she's wasting away. I think the US doesn't know what to do with actresses once they get past a "certain age", especially the good ones. Connelly is lucky. She's gorgeous in addition to being talented. You think she'd be getting those roles if she weren't gorgeous??

6. Actresses are getting botoxed and plastiqued in their 20's nowadays. See Megan Fox. Of course, I use the term "actress" in conjunction with here quite liberally. Botoxing is getting used earlier and earlier. Not just with soapsters and "aging" actresses. Of course, Marilyn Monroe's look completely changed by the time she'd become big, so perhaps it's just more noticeable these days.

7. Since I live in New Zealand (and actually travel quite a bit) and therefore, do not live in a box in a closet under the stairs, I know that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize; Kidman is Australian and is married to Urban; and that Australia pretty much rivals the US on the whole anti-intellectualism thing. However, at least Australia political structure isn't in danger of or already been hi-jacked by Christian fundies - neither is NZ's. And, although NZ can hardly be called super-intellectual, neither us nor Australia are anywhere near debating a women's right to an abortion due to Christian morality police in politics and on a rampage... Oh, I could go on, but I'd rather not.

7. Really? The fact that someone like Palin can get so close to the presidency is not at all indicative of the state of intellectualism in the US?

-------------
"I tolerate this century but I don't enjoy it." -- The First Doctor

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

Nowhere did I say that you were Ameri-centric because you disliked Luhrman's films.

You accused me of not liking them because they supposedly "don't speak to Americans." Six of one.

You accuse me of being a Eurocentric snob just because I happen to like many British actors better than their American counterparts.

No, I called you a Eurocentric snob because you said this:

What the US does better than a lot of countries is flat out entertainment, which is much appreciated. What it doesn't do best is quality. Maybe if the US concentrated on quality, the actors would get to show off their chops a bit more.

I provided you with a long list of television shows whose quality is rarely excelled, and not often equalled, throughout the world.

I thought the 1974 "The Great Gatsby" was mostly a train wreck. I blame several factors, but the decision to give the director's chair to Jack Clayton (coincidentally, a Briton) was not a minor one. I'd welcome a new "Great Gatsby" film, and I don't mind if the director is not American (Ang Lee, for example, can apparently direct anything). I just shudder at the thought of Luhrmann doing it.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] eviltwit73 14 years ago

Lost? I got bored really fast. Watched the first season, didn't really bother with the rest. IMO, highly overrated. West Wing was the only one on that list I thought was absolutely fantastic.

Current absolute US favorites: Glee and Fringe

Past hands down US favorites: Firefly and Wonderfalls

Gatsby - Disagree.

Ang Lee though - love him.

-------------
"I tolerate this century but I don't enjoy it." -- The First Doctor

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

Both "Glee" and "Wonderfalls" belong to the category of charming and unusual shows I don't think rise to the first rank. "Dead Like Me" and the first season of "Pushing Daisies" -- both Bryan Fuller shows like "Wonderfalls" -- I think were better. I should have added them to my list.

I've always been impressed with the way "Lost" -- while sustaining a through-line mystery about the Island -- could also provide every week a satisfying self-contained plot, usually based upon a particular character's backstory, and even spin out that backstory from episode to episode and develop it.

The show is one of the most amazing feats of multiple narrative I know of, and on television my best other example is "Seinfeld" and the brilliant way three strands of plot on every episode could be spun interestingly and always converge at the climax. It was like seeing a 30-minute Feydeau farce every week.

I can't think of a single original foreign series that has mastered multiple narrative as well as these. Even Frederic Raphael's "The Glittering Prizes" -- which is pretty damn good -- did not achieve as much. It was only six episodes long.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] eviltwit73 14 years ago

Riiiiiiight.

-------------
"I tolerate this century but I don't enjoy it." -- The First Doctor

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

I didn't say no series was better. I said I wasn't aware of an original series (not, for example, the superb French miniseries of "The Count of Monte Cristo") that was better at handling complex narrative lines. If you are, pray name it.

I haven't said there are no better shows, period. The West Wing" is a great series, but not one I would cite in particular for the complexity of its narrative.

I'm still waiting for the long list, from you, of foreign television series that put my list to shame. All you've done is say ehhhh to everything on it but "The West Wing." If you can't do better than that, you need to abandon your argument about all the superior "quality" overseas.

"Riiiiight" doesn't cut it as a brilliant riposte.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] eviltwit73 14 years ago

Your premises is basically, "Those foreigners are taking our jobs."

I don't agree that this is a problem.

My opinion doesn't match with yours, plain and simple. End of story.

-------------
"I tolerate this century but I don't enjoy it." -- The First Doctor

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

No, this is also the story of my long, thoughtful posts with their many examples, and of your evasive and fatuous replies. And that story, it appears, is not over.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] eviltwit73 14 years ago

1. I see no problem.
2. I still don't see why I should give your opinions any more credence than the people actually in charge of casting these shows and, in my opinion, have done a decent job (even if some of the shows got canceled).
3. I don't love Lost and Seinfeld. And somehow just the fact that I say "eh" to some shows is wrong? Well, that's my opinion. These shows are just "eh" to me. To me, they don't really merit any more justification for me not liking them as much as you do. Why do I get the feeling that even if I said more than "eh" it wouldn't make an adequate enough argument in your opinion. Fine. Here goes. I could say that, in my opinion: Lost=Survivor+sci-fi for people who don't like sci-fi+soap opera - just didn't grab me. And, in my opinion, Seinfeld = boring, annoying and unfunny - not my thing. (My husband loves it, so I have watched a lot of episodes). Just my opinion. Big whoop.
4. Evasive...hmmm...yeah, perhaps it seems that way, only because I've given up trying to argue with someone who clearly believes that her opinions are THE TRUTH. So, excuse me if I really don't feel like I should answer challenges like, "Prove those were the best actors for those roles" with any rationality, if at all.

-------------
"I tolerate this century but I don't enjoy it." -- The First Doctor

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

You don't have to respect my opinion at all, but at least I've tried to support it. On the other hand, show a little respect for your own opinion.

If your opinion, as you have stated, is that foreign television is focused more, and with more telling results, on quality than is American television, then where is your evidence? If you have no evidence, then what is the value of your opinion?

I value an informed opinion more than an uninformed one, and a considered opinion more than a hasty one. You seem to value your own as much as anybody else's, not because you think you know your onions, but because in your view all opinions belong to the same category -- Opinions -- and are not to be differentiated.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rooney72 14 years ago

No to mention, this is getting a little OT!

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

We do not have fewer actors in the United States now than we had in the year 2000, and at any given moment only a fraction of SAG's 200,000 members are employed. Demand does not seem to be higher than ever, and American actors do not seem to be more "difficult" than ever.

And it isn't just this show. A couple of years ago, when Kevin McKidd was on "Journeyman," Damian Lewis was on "Life," Alex O'Loughlin was on "Moonlight," Lena Headey was on "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" and Nicolaj Coster-Waldau was on "New Amsterdam," I sat down and compiled a list of all the leads and featured roles (as American characters) that were, at that time, apportioned to foreign actors.

It took me a bit of time, and I posted it on the message boards for one of these shows. I can't find it now, and I haven't got the heart to try and compile it again. It required cross-referencing the cast lists of every show then on TV with the actors' bios. If you don't want to believe that there are a lot of foreign actors skimming a lot of the cream parts in American TV these days, you don't have to, but the list was pretty impressive to me.

And I simply don't understand how you can't find an American actor with the right appearance and temperament, with sufficient talent, of the right age, and available, to play any of a large number of parts paying, conservatively guessing, $30,000 per episode (which is where his network started Hugh Laurie on "House," before the show hit and they voluntarily raised his fee per ep to $80,000).

I'm willing to believe some Americans were rejected for the reasons you cite. I'm willing to believe some Americans turned parts down. I'm even willing to believe there was no American actor more suitable than Nicholas Bishop for this particular part, who was willing to accept it (well, not really, but I'm willing for the sake of the argument).

What I am not willing to believe is that suddenly, all across the American television landscape, there is such a dearth of American actors of talent, professionalism, and physical attractiveness that we have to aggressively recruit overseas to fill such a large number of parts.

And it's not an "us versus them" argument about actors. I'm blaming the people who do the hiring, not the poor slobs who take the parts offered them. I make no apology for caring about my own country's artists. Do I post when a garment manufacturer moves jobs to Mexico? Not on IMDb I don't, no. These are message boards for the movie and television industries.

I'm not "resorting to" anything. I watched foreign actors come to American television for years with considerable pleasure. I'm not against it reflexively. I just woke up one day to realize that foreign actors were taking an unacceptable (to me) number of our choicest acting jobs, even when the characters in question were American.

I'm not particularly a flag-waver, and I'm far from xenophobic, but for being a proud American I'm not apologizing to anybody -- and particularly not to a foreigner whose own entertainment industry is protectionist while mine is not.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] eviltwit73 14 years ago

were a perfect fit.

I don't see a problem.

Next.

(Meaning that this is the single most pointless argument I've ever been in, and I've certainly got better things to do than answer to anymore of your "foreigners are taking our acting jobs" diatribe - an argument that you seem pretty worked up about and I am really not. You'd probably enjoy this conversation better with someone who passionately gives a damn, and would love to write 10 page counter-opinions to yours. They are just opinions. You seem to take yours as fact. Seems a great waste of time, arguing with that. Like I said, pointless. Good bye.)

-------------
"I tolerate this century but I don't enjoy it." -- The First Doctor

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

Next: the same. Prove no American actors would have fit those parts perfectly. Besides, some of those shows flopped. Next. You're ignoring my last direct post to you? You're just not going to put up or shut up, are you?

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

The remark about foreigners referred more to forherwealth, who, from the post, seems not to be an American, though from where I don't know.

Rolltop, I don't have to post even once about the manufacturing jobs drain to have the right to post about this subject, just as I don't have to write a thousand words or more about cancer before I get to talk about spina biffida. Deflecting me from one subject by pointing to other "more important" subjects -- that's the dodge here -- and it's a cheap one.

Sure it's a "comparatively small number of jobs" compared to the larger economy. So's white unemployment compared to black unemployment. So's American unemployment compared to world unemployment. These comparisons only matter when you don't want to talk about white unemployment or American unemployment.

If you don't want to discuss this subject, nobody's asking you to. You're not shutting me up by talking about American jobs going to Mexico. My opinion on that is actually none of your business.

Pilots dominated by foreign actors
Aussie Passmore in 'Masterwork,' season's last major role
By Nellie Andreeva
March 26, 2009, 11:00 PM ET

After a long search, Matt Passmore has landed the lead on Fox's drama pilot "Masterwork," the season's last central pilot role that hadn't been filled.

Tapping the Aussie -- it's Passmore's first Hollywood gig -- is a fitting conclusion to a pilot season dominated by non-U.S. actors.

Foreign players have been gaining ground gradually during the past few years following the runaway success of Brit Hugh Laurie on Fox's "House." The trend exploded this year with almost 60 non-Americans cast in broadcast pilots and another dozen in cable pilots, the vast majority of them on the drama side.

Like Passmore, a well-known TV actor in Australia, several virtual unknowns in the U.S. but established in their native U.K. have been tapped to lead pilots this season: Charity Wakefield ("Legally Mad"), Christina Cole ("Maggie Hill"), Rupert Penry-Jones ("The Unknown") and Sophie Winkleman ("100 Questions"), along with the more familiar Brit Indira Varma ("Inside the Box"), Aussie Jason Clarke ("U.S. Attorney") and Canadians Tyler Labine ("Sons of Tucson") and Paul Campbell ("No Heroics"). They could join U.K.'s Tim Roth and James Purefoy, who topline the new drama series "Lie to Me" on Fox and "The Philanthropist" on NBC, respectively.

Additionally, non-American actors have been cast in other major pilot roles, including Brits Hugh Bonneville ("Legally Mad"), David Lyons ("Day One"), Miranda Otto ("A Marriage"), Jeremy Northam ("Miami Trauma"), Warren Christie ("House Rules") and Ben Hollingsworth ("Beautiful Life").

A number of pilots this season feature three or more major non-American cast members: four in Fox's off-cycle drama "Virtuality" and three apiece in ABC's "Flash Forward" and "Inside the Box," CBS' "U.S. Attorney," and Fox's "Maggie Hill" and "Masterwork, which is still casting.

All three roles cast so far on the 20th TV-produced "Masterwork" have gone to foreigners: Passmore and Brits Natalie Dormer and Tom Ellis, whose characters also are British.

The project, from "Prison Break" creator Paul Scheuring, centers on an FBI agent (Passmore), a specialist in the acquisition of stolen art and a fine-arts expert who teams with an MI-5 agent (Dormer). Ellis plays her fiance, a special agent at Scotland Yard.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:Ng4bhIS8ZMkJ:www.hollywoodreporter .com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3i46b00e47f06110d828ffb8ad61e 3d93f+%22Pilots+dominated+by+foreign+actors%22&cd=1&hl=en& ct=clnk&gl=us

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

I just think it isn't a big deal.

Depends on whose ox is being gored. It's an extremely big deal to those whose livelihood is affected, even if it's not a problem in your mind. Nobody says you have to give it a high priority, but neither can you make it a non-problem by the simple act of not giving a damn about it.

Everybody is the center of his own world of concerns. If you're an Australian actor (hell, if you're Nicholas Bishop himself) it's not only not a problem, it's great. His problem, if he has one, is the job picture for actors in his own country.

The fact that the shows may flop doesn't necessarily mean that a foreign actor didn't benefit or an American actor suffer. Nathan Fillion had several series shot out from under him, but each gave him a larger personal fanbase, and now he's on "Castle," which appears to be popular. When "Moonlight" didn't work out, nobody blamed Alex O'Loughlin, and now he's in another American series lead.

I don't care whether foreign investors are involved or not, or whether foreign casting directors are involved or not, or who owns Fox Television. What they have bought for their money isn't the right to tell Americans like me to put up with whatever they do. Unless foreign investors intend to run American networks at a loss, and renew unsuccessful shows, my opinion -- along with those of other Americans -- does matter.

I've never subscribed to the notion that because I am one, I am too few to matter. Everybody is only one person, and that includes you, me, Brian Silber and Rupert Murdoch.

The guy whose job just got shipped to Mexico is only one person also. You think maybe his company wasn't owned solely by American stockholders? If not, will that cause you not to give a damn?

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

Sorry, I missed that. No, I am not. Nor am I a member of Actors Equity or AFTRA. I am not an actor. But it wouldn't really matter if I were. Whatever argument ad hominem you may have been preparing still comes under the heading of a logical fallacy. I am an American, and that does matter to me.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

It just bears on how much weight your opinion should be given. The same as when a billionaire argues that the tax rates are too high and should be cut, but doesn't note he's a billionaire and will save millions in tax dollars when they are cut.

How much weight it should be given by whom? We've established that it doesn't matter to you, and I don't know what you could learn about me that would cause it to.

That which a billionaire says doesn't become untrue because he's a billionaire. Warren Buffett is an oil man who wants the country to become self-sufficient in renewable energy. George Soros is a billionaire who doesn't feel the rich in this country are overtaxed. If a billionaire claims taxes are too heavy on the middle class, maybe they are. If an actor claims there are too many series leads going to foreign actors, maybe there are.

Every bandwagon has people on it who identify it with their own interests, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have bands. It's cheap to dismiss an argument with no regard to its merits, just because of he person making it, especially if -- for your own reasons -- you had no intention of entertaining the argument anyway, no matter who is making it. You'd already given your opinion, before knowing beans about me.

The actors I'm worried about aren't rich, but as a matter of fact, although I'm not sympathetic to the tax whining of the rich, I actually would worry about the ability of Americans to rise to great wealth if our economy suddenly came to be as much dominated by foreign billionaires as our television series are coming to be dominated by foreign actors.

And I don't mind saying that I would prefer so much of our media not be dominated by an Australian billionaire whose politics are entirely determined by his own economic self-interest, and who will become a citizen of whatever country lets him establish a more lucrative, interconnected, and politically powerful apparatus. I do not view Mr. Murdoch's control of our media as an act of God, and I do not extrapolate from it that as News Corporation goes, so must go Fox Television.

As an American, I feel that I'm a stakeholder in my own country's culture -- more, even, than Rupert Murdoch, because I care about it as a culture, not simply a Monopoly game. My interest in it is not particularly motivated by economic self-interest; it is spiritual, patriotic, aesthetic and intrinsic.

I'm not sure how those things are to be measured. If you are going to apportion weight to them based on their dollar value to you, or even to me, you will naturally give them no weight at all. Clearly they hold no spiritual, patriotic, aesthetic or intrinsic interest for you.

But that's not because the situation is "complex." The situation's complexity is in direct proportion to your lack of personal interest in the situation, just as a hill becomes higher the less interested you are in taking a steep stroll. The situation is obviously not really as complex to you as you claim, if knowing my biography becomes so determinative of the merits. And you certainly don't seem to have much interest in unraveling its complexity.

What you do, rather, is diminish it by comparing it to allegedly more important things, subsuming it into my own allegedly parochial concerns, or subjecting it to allegedly proper comparisons meant to make working actors sound as greedy as Wall Street moguls. In other words, you oversimplify it.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

You are the one who simply counts numbers - and nothing else - and makes judgments without any other consideration. Yet, I am the one over simplifying. Riiiiiiiight.

And what do you count? I went to the trouble, just for you, of posting an article from The Hollywood Reporter. If you say you won't believe anybody but a statistician, okay, but I somehow suspect that anybody who came in here with "standard deviations" you'd reject as well. The "other consideration" I put forward is the demonstrated ability of the American acting profession, which is the equal of any in the world. You've reduced the subject to the simple absence of a statistical study. From there to nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah will be but a step off the curb.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

Some things actually are pretty simple, without being simplistic. The reasons for this phenomenon may be as complex or as many as you want them to be: money, foreign nationals in executive positions, international syndication, etc.

But this part is simple: television programs set in the United States, geared primarily to an American audience, supported mainly and initially by American subscribers, advertisers and consumers, have been apportioning the job of playing American characters -- largely in leading roles -- to non-American actors in larger and larger numbers.

That this harms American actors professionally is both simple and true. I don't see how it can be argued away.

These shows don't do any business in international syndication unless they do a business here too, and here first. It's still American television, and in my opinion American actors deserve to have first crack.

I haven't proposed any quotas, but I do think there should be a heightened awareness.

Nobody thinks it's awful when you point out that the number of black or Hispanic or Asian-American characters on TV doesn't represent the country. Nobody thinks it's awful when you note that regular and recurring gay characters on TV (never that many to begin with) are dwindling (and being ghetto-ized onto gay cable networks).

I don't see what's so awful about noting that American actors aren't getting a fair shake in their own country's television industry, and to suggest that American characters (especially star-making leads) should go, not exclusively but predominantly, to American actors.

At least I can do my bit to raise consciousness about the problem, and obviously somebody needs to, since so many of you are furious when asked to hear it. Some of the worst problems are exactly the ones nobody wants to worry about.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] rlil2001 14 years ago

And I simply don't understand how you can't find an American actor with the right appearance and temperament, with sufficient talent, of the right age, and available, to play any of a large number of parts

I don't quite know why this trend is there. I mean, hire whom you want, you have all the power, but it does seem to help to be from another country. Is it the accent? I've trained in other countries, and most schools have similar formats as far as I've seen. I'm no world traveler, but in my small experience, the only thing ultimately different is the color of the money. Similar techniques, schedules, politics, social vibes. Different exchange rates.

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

Other countries do have quality television programing. And while the U.S. has MORE quality programing, the U.S. has a higher population of actors.

At least you admit we don't have a substandard television industry occasionally classed-up by the injection of actors from the Lands of the Good Thespians far far away.

I'm not sure what you consider a Canadian series masquerading as an American one, but I do know that there are American series with mostly American leads that shoot in Vancouver or Toronto (calling it NYC or L.A.), bring in American guest stars, use Canadian crews, and cast the less important roles with lots of Canadian actors. Showtime, in particular, seems to do quite a bit of that. There are also a lot of American TV movies that do the same.

When those shows end, and the American actors lose their Canadian work permits, they have to leave the country. I'm not aware of Canadian actors having to get the hell out of L.A. when their American series are cancelled.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] movielover2011 14 years ago

I figure I may as well join in too... I'm not sure if you are aware of the American immigration laws considering that you are American, but any Canadian can enter the U.S. and stay for as up to six months and then they can leave the country and come back for yet another six month...that is without a work visa of any sort. Many Canadian actors have dual U.S. citizenship because they like there or green cards. Canada allows for the same.

Also there are loads of Canadian made and filmed shows that are exported to the States over the years, currently, there are a few. Some of the shows mention on screen that they are in a Canadian city, and others pretend to be in an American city, though the show is Canadian and filmed in Canada:

* Flashpoint (airs on CBS in the States)
* Corner Gas (airs on the WB in the States)
* Being Erica (airs on SoapNet in the States)
* Degrassi (has been airing for about 30 years in both countries)
* Durham County (airs on PAX now ION in the States)
* The Border ( " ")
* Trailer Park Boys (the TV show and also made a movie - airs on Direct TV)
* Sue Thomas FBeye (canceled, the star is now on Heroes)
* Kenny vs. Spenny (airs on Comedy Central in the States, but they are embarrassing to all Canadians)
* Little Mosque on the Prairie (FOX plans to develop an American version of this Canadian show)

All of those shows are Canadian made and Canadian filmed with Canadian and foreign actors, including Americans with characters either portrayed as Canadian, American, or the actor's own nationality. Durham County, Flashpoint, and Being Erica are E X C E L L E N T quality shows.

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

"Degrassi" is the only one I've heard of from that list (and I hated the one episode I tried to watch), but I've seen other Canadian series here, mostly ones I didn't like (the recent "Flash Gordon," the old "Forever Knight," "Paradise Falls" on Here!). But occasionally I'll see one that I love. Years ago, I was addicted to "E.N.G." I was really bummed when they stopped showing it. There was another series, a comedy, that I liked about a vain local news anchor, but I can't recall the name of it. And I do think very highly of "Slings and Arrows." They're re-running it at the moment on Ovation.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] movielover2011 14 years ago

Flash Gordon was not a Canadian show; it was an American show that was filmed in Canada, like Smallville, The X-Files the L-Word, Fringe, etc., etc. Canadian TV has changed in recent years for the better in that quality has increased because budgets have increased.

From skimming some of your posts on this subject it seems like your argument is "Der takin' all our yobs" (South Park quote) I doubt the powers that be for these shows intentionally say "let's get an Aussie, Brit or Canadian!" They simply have the casting call and the person who fits he est in THEIR opinion gets the job. How is this different than any other foreigner taking a job in the States? If you want to have a protectionist attitude towards your actor's jobs, I'd guess you'd need to be consistent and have the same attitude. Just imagine if the U.S. adopted that policy, then other countries would respond by creating similar policies and boom, no more immigration.

What is so wrong with hiring the better suited person for the job. Look at that show Fringe, Johnathon Jackson is Canadian, Anna Torv is Australian and they are the lead actors, they make a good team though she has slipped on her accent at times, most people don't even know they aren't American. A person shouldn't get an American job just because they are American, it goes to the person who the person hiring feels can do the better job. Plain and simple.

The thing is that while the States always had more quality actors (bigger population than the actor export countries = more quality actors) but now the other countries are being noticed for their talent, and if the actor can "act" American as the script requires, and is the perfect fit, why WOULDN'T they hire them? Because their foreign? Really? It is called "competition" and now that there are quality foreign actors being noticed, competition for jobs has increased which will/should mean that the actors will have to be better. That's only better for us, so we don't have to watch as much crap actors on TV. Every heard of "May the best man win?" Surely you don't think the casting director says "that American was the best, but let's go with the Aussie instead" no, the job goes to the person who they feel is the better fit, so what are you complaining about really. Did a foreigner take your job? how is this different from other foreigners in the States on work visas? No difference at all. Best person gets the job.

I think the responses lashing out you see here is due to the fact that American ALWAYS complain about foreigners doing this or that. Your society is very protectionist, but not in a good way, in a "get the hell out" way. Keep in mind, Americans are on Canadian made shows too, and foreign made TV shows and especially films. The only complaint is against those who can't do a proper accent (like Tom Cruise in Valkarie, he didn't even bother trying).

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

I'm not talking here about movies. I've said so several times. I'm not objecting to foreign actors in American movies, because I consider it a much more reciprocal situation. I'm talking about television, and only television.

I don't know why you accept on faith that the person who got the job in every case was the best person for the job. All I know is whether he/she is doing the job well. Since the days when foreign actors weren't dominating American pilot seasons, what made all these Americans less desirable candidates for all these American jobs? Why, all of a sudden, did it become necessary to go overseas for reinforcements when casting American characters?

One article I've been told of suggested that the networks want new faces, want experience, and can't get experience and a new face unless the experience was acquired on other shores. Another theory is that the foreign actors will work cheaper (the network certainly got a bargain on Hugh Laurie in his original contract).

I think producers overestimate the value of a "new face," and one reason they do so is that they overvalue their own brilliance. If audiences demand new faces all the time, the person who finds them becomes more important. If they want to see people they've seen before and already like, the glory goes to the actor.

It's an incredible bum rap to call America a protectionist society. Sure, we have a protectionist body of opinion, along with a free trade body of opinion. Some nations seem to have only the former. If we were really protectionist, you and I wouldn't even be having this conversation. If we were protectionists we wouldn't be voting to expand the WTO, and wouldn't be party to several free trade agreements. If we were protectionist, our jobs wouldn't be going overseas and our balance of payments would be better.

If you want to talk about protectionism, talk about Canada, China, Japan and the European Community. It seems to me that foreigners do a hell of a lot more complaining about the United States than the United States does about foreigners. We are a nation of immigrants: multicultural, multi-ethnic, of many faiths.

I'm not aware of all these Americans you claim are on Canadian series, but if "Flash Gordon" really is an American series then it must be the only one I know of that has no American leads. Flash is from Alberta, Dale is from British Columbia, Baylin is from Quebec, Ming is from New Brunswick, and judging from his other credits, Zarkov is Canadian too.

An American actor, cast in America, who shoots a TV show in Canada, can't just hang around there after it's cancelled and hope he gets another series. The Canadians kick him out. Foreign actors who in the U.S. who have a green card pending can get a temporary work permit, and once they have the green card (which is a certificate of permanent residence) they can stay forever. And many do.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] movielover2011 14 years ago

Nobody here has yet to shed any light on the situation for you, you just keep coming back with even longer posts.

Flash Gordon was an American show filmed in Canada that has a predominantly Canadian cast. Likewise, the ever-popular Fringe on FOX is an American show, filmed in Canada with two Aussies and Canadian lead, all the Americans play supporting roles, but it is still an American show.

Canada also has an equivalent of a "green card" and Americans can stay if they have residency established, so you don't know what you are talking about. The actors aren't thrown out any more than Canadian actors are thrown out of the States. If you have documentation, you stay, if you don't you leave, the same for both countries. You can visit both for 6 months at a time but cannot work without the work visa.

The States is protectionist "their taking out jobs!" is a fine example. And despite being a nation of immigrants (just like Canada) we show acceptance while at best, the States shows tolerance... that is a huge difference.

The network gets everyone who is not established in the country "cheap" on their first season, so what is your point about Hugh Laurie? He commands a higher salary now that he has the ratings and fan base.

The reason you are seeing more foreign actors does not require you to read articles on the internet. Its actually pretty simple, filming is cheaper in Canada than in the U.S., so if they are creating a show and filming in Canada, it just makes sense to use the local resources in filming. If a casting call is made in Canada, then more Canadian actors will come to the audition than any other nationality, hence the heavy Canadian cast in some American shows filmed in Canada. Why would a casting call be in New York if filming is in Toronto? Another reason is also simple, Canadian content has grown in quality, attracting more actors, so even if the show is filmed in the States, Canadians will actually fly out to the States for the audition unlike the Americans who typically don't even have passports and won't go up to Canada for a casting call audition. the majority of Americans do not travel outside of their country, this is a well known fact, well documented by your own government.

Another reason, hiding an accent has become quite popular, so if any actor can do it, why not try? So the foreign actors go to the States to try to make it big enough to have world scale recognition. Again increasing COMPETITION. Why you doubt so much that the job goes to the person who the casting director feels is best for the job behooves me, what is there some conspiracy?

Its not that Americans are less attractive, it is that there are actually other good actors out there as well. Look at Vampire Diaries, an American show with a Canadian lead.

This conversation is going no where fast. You don't even realise that you have the same protectionist attitude that you are so arguing against.

I'm going to give up and just say what you want to hear so that maybe you'll just drop it. Here: American actors are so much better than foreign actors, so when an American show is hiring, there is no possible way that a foreigner should win the role because Americans have always been better and will always be better. There's no room for industry growth in any foreign countries and no way that their actors are good enough to take a foreign role. Canada kicks everyone without documentation out immediately after filming and Canada does not even allow American actors any form of residency status if they fill out the proper paperwork. And the U.S. lets everyone stay forever, indefinitely. All countries should only use their own actors in their own TV shows. There, happy? I am abandoning this board like everyone else, this was obviously a slow Sunday for me. I'm exhausted from typing a few responses, I'm not sure how you've managed to type so much, you've replied to every single poster with an essay. Good for you, but I have a life and must get on with it.

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

Reduce opposing arguments to absurdities!

Mischaracterize contrary opinions!

Caricature your opponents!

How's that strategy working for you, parkavenue?

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

Posts like that expose only the intellectual poverty of the person who leaves them. If a some people can't counter an actual argument, they turn it into an extreme argument they can counter. I've been very explicit about the fact that I don't want to close our TV industry completely to foreign actors. That would be a ridiculous statement, and that's why you pretend I made it. Because ridiculing the ridiculous is easier than carrying on an adult argument with a sensible person.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ducdebrabant 14 years ago

Why don't you just say "I'm rubber and you're glue" as long as you're racing to the lowest level of argumentation.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]