Why do actors and actresses refuse to admit that acting is unskilled labor and is not creative at all?

Question

Why do actors and actresses refuse to admit that what they do is unskilled labor and continue to think that they are somehow creative when all they do is follow what someone else has created?

The creative part is coming up with the story. They don't add anything artistic at all. All they do is follow the story. Thats like saying that the slave has control of the master. Gary larson is creative, Victor Hugo is creative, Motherwell is creative, jackson pollack is an artist, jimmy hendrix is an artist- they create, actors just follow what someone else creates, and do what the director tells them.

Answer 1

Try it, and see how unskilled it is.

Even American professional actors and actresses show some level of compotence.

You can see that if you ever watch student films using amateurs.

Answer 2

Hmmm...interesting perspective.

So, lemme make sure I'm understanding you correctly. If you attend a classical music recital, the dude at the piano banging out Mozart's concertos really is merely an unskilled laborer, because (following your example) Mozart was the only "creative" artist involved. All the pianist did was "follow the notes."

You obviously haven't worked in the performing arts. If you'd had any significant contact with writers -- the people you credit as being the only real creative individuals in the process -- you'd know how highly THEY value the contribution of actors to their work. Until actors and directors breathe life into a text and make a PLAY (or a FILM) of it, it's just words on a page, which would never be an acceptable outcome for a playwright or screenwriter.

Answer 3

I think your first mistake is not understanding the difference between creative arts and expressive arts.

Violinists don't write the concertos, but the music wouldn't exist without them. The same goes with scripts - there's no point in writing it if it's not going to be performed, is there?

Most good actors will agree that the acting must be slave to the story. To good actors, the script (at least when it's good), is sacred, and they know that they're there to serve the story. And it takes a lot of skill to be able to do so effectively.

You either have never tried acting or else you watch too much reality tv.

Answer 4

Acting is creative because they have to bring to life (visually) something that is otherwise just words. In the same way that a painter looks at a landscape and recreates it on a canvas to bring about a particular emotion or reaction to the viewer. A (good) actor can take a script and create a completly different feeling for the viewer.

If your statement was true, everyone can be an actor and thats not true because not everyone can portray a particular character or bring about a particular emotion...so i believe there is some kind of talent needed there.

by the way i'm not an actor or actress...

Answer 5

Actually, acting can be considered a skilled labor. Granted, they do not (normally) have a part in creating the story or setting the scene as writers or directors do, but they have to help bring the story to life and make it believable.

Most actors have degrees in theater and/or acting and/or communication. There are programs and schools, like the one at New School in New York City, that are specifically designed for acting.

Also, most actors research the various roles they play. An example would be Sean Penn. For his role as Sam in I Am Sam, he spent time working in an actual Starbucks because that is what his character did for a living. John Cena visited a Marine bootcamp for his role in The Marine. There have even been movies about what actors do. Micheal J. Fox starred in a movie called The Hard Way, where he played an actor researching a role as a cop.

Actors for the most part are paid handsomely (at times insanely) for what they do, but I think that (for the most part) they are skilled laborers.

Answer 6

When's the last time you had to do a speech in front of people? Most people would rather die than give a public speech! And most speeches involve choosing the message you want your audience to recieve, memorization, voice control (enunciation, speed, tempo, and duration), and hand gestures. There is a huge difference between an okay public speaker and a great public speaker, and that involves skill.

Now, imagine being a theatre actor. Not only do you have to do everything required of a public speaker, but you also have to deal with: moving within the stage (remembering speed, tempo, duration, and your character's intention); interacting with other characters on stage; continuous rehersals for weeks on end; controlling shadows; conciously controlling emotions on stage; and expressing a potentially wide range of characters - who can be from a very different culture, family background, occupationbelief, native language, body type, life motivations, etc; making decisions on your actions based on scripts that only show your dialogue, basic directions ("enter upstage left", "(smiles)"), and little else; perform in front of unnatural (and sometimes painfully bright) lights; and remember to perform two weeks at a time, flawlessly, every night. It takes a lot of skill to do all that!

Now imagine being an actor for the camera. Not only do you have to deal with almost everything required of a theatre actor, but you also have to make sure you've hit your precise mark and move only as perscribed, so you stay in the camera's narrow focus; repeat lines and movements precisely, for filming different camera angles or in case you or another actor screws up; be prepared to potentially change locations, times, dates based on shooting schedule; and maintaining your character throughout the shoot. Very skillful.

So, as you can see, camera acting is at least as skillful than theatre acting, which is much more skillful than public speaking, which most people dread and which requires much skill on its own. It's hard work to pull off acting!

Don't believe me? Do a public speech :)

Answer 7

Actors add a great deal to the process as well. I'm a director and we have worked with many different actors of various abilities have you ever tried making someone believe that you have just witnessed your lover die and are in grief. Try it, if it's so unskilled then why the hell are you not making millions doing it??

Answer 8

I have to disagree with you here.
Yes, it is true that actors recite another's words and accept direction from another person but they find the reality and truth in those words and direction and transfer it to their bodies and minds.
Take a look at three actors playing Hamlet. Each of them have the same words at their disposal and, very possibly, similar directions, but each actor will find something in themselves that offers three very different interpretations.
I think you are doing a great disservice to a noble profession.
D

Answer 9

- the difference is knowing what looks like bad acting and good acting. we can all follow directions to a certain degree. but how many can turn on hate or anger convincingly at a moments notice and then back off when not needed. stage acting is quite a different realm than film acting. on stage, you're under pressure not only to know your stuff, but to maintain it for the length of the play. many hours of preparation go into what you see. whereas film acting, it's done in fragments, a shot here and shot there. and even times, what you see in one scene may have taken month to do.
- it's one of those skills that look easy, but is actually hard to do.

Answer 10

you know people who are bad at telling jokes or stories?
they have a "script" but their delivery stinks.

I mean, would you want to watch a movie if the main actor studders?
or is passionless in delivery?

I hear some actors like robin williams go off script to add more humor.

would you rather see a play by highschool students, or thespian actors?
would you go see star wars with the parts being played by children?