If a person’s self-image is far apart from how the world sees him, the whole situation turns into a tragic comedy. I had a chance to witness that in *cough* BBC online news. The article Why are British actors playing Americans? says British actors are flourishing in the U.S. mainstream media because they are seen as a cost-effective yet talented alternative to the U.S. actors.
British producer Andrea Calderwood, who worked on Generation Kill for HBO, agrees that cost is an issue.
"American producers are going for the best talent. Obviously there is an element of cost involved."Once you become an established actor in the US, you can command huge prices - so people are looking for fresh talent that doesn't cost that much."
Strangely, she and the news touch only half of the “cost” issues. The other and arguably the bigger half, tax sheltering, is left out. Wikipedia explains the British tax shelter scheme as follows:
The same copyright can be sold again to a British company and a further $10 million could be raised, but UK law insists that part of the film is shot in Britain and that the production employs a fair proportion of British actors and crew. This explains why many American films like to shoot at Britain's major film studios like Pinewood and Shepperton and why a film such as Basic Instinct 2 relocated its action from New York to London.
The action film Wanted showcased that trend well. It was directed by a Kazakhstani-Russian (Timur Bekmambetov), shot in Hungary (Budapest), and starred a British (James McAvoy) and a German (Thomas Kretschmann). The only visible “American” elements were Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman in supporting roles.
Well, nobody wants to admit that they had an advantage from the beginning, but omitting what everybody knows only highlights the missing parts. And it’s not just the producers who seem to be missing the big picture:
"More value-for-money, that's really what it is. If they wanted someone experienced and I was American, they'd pay a lot of money - and I'd be better known, I suppose. We're cheaper."
English actor James Purefoy, who played Mark Antony in Rome, believes the network of British actors is perceived by American colleagues as cheap labour.
"We are often referred to in Los Angeles as white Mexicans," he told an audience of British hopefuls at a seminar on how to make it in America.
Considering the fact that James Purefoy is still alive, I bet he never said the above comment to a real Mexican trying to break into Hollywood. When did British/Irish actors become underdogs? They have always been the most privileged among the non-American acting peers. They are the only “minorities” whose cultural inheritance works for them, not against. Even the same article admits this point.
Moreover, anything with a sword-and-sandals theme offers employment opportunities to British thespians. It has often been suggested that American audiences expect their Romans to speak like the English. So the HBO/BBC mini-series Rome was peopled by British and Irish stars.
Those are not the only juicy parts. The same article quoted Helen Mirren as complaining that Brits always play the villain.
Speaking at an event in Los Angeles to celebrate British success in Hollywood, she said: ''I think it's rather unfortunate that the villain in every movie is always British, we're such an easy target that they can comfortably make the Brits the villains.
''It's just nice to say we're not snooty, stuck up, malevolent, malignant creatures as we're so often portrayed. We're actually kind of cool and hip!''
I seriously wanted to be a reporter for a moment. Here are the *some of the* questions I wanted to ask her.
- Have you shared your opinions with French or Russian actors?
- In which part of the world does the James Bond series make the most money?
- Batman is directed by a Brit and played by a Welshman. Is he a British character too?
- Name one major British film that has a non-British/Irish hero/heroine.
BBC Magazine also listed a number of comments following the article. One that also touches on the reflexivity you mentioned as producing tragi comedy, points out the cross over with recent and coming films such as Sherlock Holmes and Robin Hood casting an American and Aussie in lead roles. It's the logic of empire IMO. Speaking of which, I can finally toss my old thrift store copy of criticisms of Joseph Conrad's collected works for one focused only on his Heart of Darkness...thanks to the Salvation Army and 'Progress' (as if that doctrine is purely racial and not about money at all.)
Posted by: Account Deleted | May 07, 2010 at 09:58
P.S. you do have insight Isao. >'.'<
Posted by: Account Deleted | May 07, 2010 at 09:59
Thanks Heidi...your comments are touching and insightful as well. I totally forgot about Sherlock Holmes! Well, that film was not exactly a "British" film imho - if they had chosen Hugh Jackman as James Bond, I might have softened my attitude.
I might be slowing down but I will definitely continue writing. Encourgements such as yours are what drives me. Thank you always.
Posted by: Isao | May 07, 2010 at 13:18
What do you think of the blond Bond by the way?
Posted by: Account Deleted | May 09, 2010 at 11:03
I think it was a bold move. Daniel Craig knew he had to establish himself as the new Bond, not as the KGB spy. And he chose to go through an untraveled road - and he made it. People have mixed feelings about the blond (and I personally prefer black), but that blond is a medal of honor for an actor who took a serious gamble and won it. He deserves to show it off for as long as he wants to.
Posted by: Isao | May 09, 2010 at 17:03
In my opinion, British actors can disguise their accents much better than Americans. And I am not surprised in Hollywood they call them "white mexicans", that's America for you.
Posted by: Kofla Olivieri | May 09, 2010 at 19:32
I agree - they master the accents perfectly, whereas the American fellows...suffice to say that you should watch Robin Hood (Kevin Kostner's version). Or Far & Away (Tom Cruise playing an Irishman). Have you watched "In America"? The dad, an unemployed actor, mimics different British accents impeccably. It's a good film, all in all. Highly recommended.
Posted by: Isao | May 10, 2010 at 09:00
My thoughts almost to 'a tea'! I haven't seen the latest one with him though, and should make time too. I was in the middle of a 'blond moment' when that one came out.
Posted by: Account Deleted | May 11, 2010 at 04:14
Defining Corporatism is part of the 'moment' I was describing to Iaso about Daniel Craig's ascent into the Bond franchise. Note 'franchise'... I think of corporatism as large multi nationals and as a cultural phenomena second, mostly due to having worked for Marriott International off and on over a ten year streatch as a Massage Therapist...which is not unlike Health Care in the U.S. and it's relationship to Alternative Health where 'subversive' ideologies are concerned. Hence, I've been thumping on 'Alienation of Affection' and the way it is portrayed and it's relationship to culture that is corporate, rather than to corporatism. Corporatism is often derided as an Islamification of American values in many generes and I am working on making more time for it on my blog.
Posted by: Account Deleted | May 11, 2010 at 04:21
The latest one is great, if you consider it a showcase for Daniel Craig. Unfortunately the movie tried to immitate the predecessor's success too much and ended in a commendable action film without the James-Bondness. (Oh yes, it has some Bond-ness. One Bond girl is named Strawberry Fields.)
Posted by: Isao | May 11, 2010 at 08:43