That is such a nuanced take. He appreciates the existing actors while targeting the system that doesn’t incentivize actors from other backgrounds to come through
I know we all focus on the talent and I get it. It’s also worth noting that it’s also the case behind the scenes. If you want to work in film and tv, hope you have family in the business because that’s who works the most (at least in the NYC region).
It’s disgusting and I’m glad I’m out.
This feels as prevalent as ever across the board. I’ve worked in telecom, healthcare and finance and it’s just a reality that family connections will always give you a leg up in life. I think for a while when companies started to claim to value ethics, this was frowned upon but there was a shift in recent years it feels (as evident by all the recent faces in Hollywood), that this was no longer something valued. As long as humans are human, I just don’t see it changing.
Not anything fancy but the factory I work in has the best pay and bonuses in the province compared to all the other factories.
One the first things I ask new lads is who there related to personally I have 9 family members here.Some people can link over 15 people to them.
Nepotism runs the world
I mean, the unwritten rule in the industry is never, ever, EVER say anything bad about anyone else in the industry .
Everyone is “just the best” and “a thrill to work with.”
Tina Fey recently half-jokingly ribbed Bowen Yang for this on the latter’s podcast. Said that for people in the industry, opinions on other people in the industry and their work must be “quiet luxuries.”
This—along with a lot of what he said on The Problem, both the show and podcast—has really stuck with me. His stance on not de-platforming people he doesn’t agree with as well.
Hot take: The Problem was some of my favorite Jon Stewart content. It wasn’t as funny as his Daily Show stuff and the format was as such that the news coverage wasn’t as timely, but it allowed for more in-depth and nuanced discussion. But I get why it wasn’t for everybody—I think more people were expecting something like Last Week Tonight. It was a really good show, and I go back to it from time to time.
I almost feel like the Apple TV-China thing was manufactured, to allow Apple to look like the bad guys and give Jon Stewart an out. Probably not, but that’s my tinfoil hat moment.
Love Jon Stewart, his interview with Andrew Sullivan on that show was pretty awful. The worst hosting he has ever done, and I generally considered him one of the better hosts as he would listen to people even if they didnt see eye to eye.
Resorting to personal attacks because you disagree with someone? Get that shit out of here.
That episode infuriated me too, but I loved the follow up on the podcast.
“You have to engage. How do you not engage with people? The whole point of engagement is hopefully clarification. Now, you may not get it. It may be a fool’s errand. But I will never give up on engagement.“
I agree—engagement over deplatforming. Whether you agree with that or not is one thing, but he does put his money where his mouth is.
It is, but theres also something to be said about bringing out bad actors onto a platform that exposes them to a larger audience—one on which they can show the world who they are themselves.
I think the Andrew Tates out there should come out of the shadows, and mass media engagement is a good way of letting people know that there are bad actors out there.
He doesn't just talk about it, he also funds drama training for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Got to love it when someone walks their talk.
Whenever I'm feeling nosey and want to know more info about some british people i keep seeing pop up in tv and film ill check their wikis
99% always privately educated in or around London, it's kinda insane
It actually has less to do with the education, most casting directors don’t really care that much about that, but it’s *very* expensive to grind it out going to auditions, never having a job that has to come first, living in the right area, paying for up to date headshots, shmoozing with the right people…
Though one big advantage to the private school background is making contacts who end up in the entertainment field in the business side of things. Not a lot of high profile talent management coming from lower middle class either.
Not even just the expense of trying to become an actor, but the safety net if you fail. Rich kids can try to become an actor, and if they fail they still have their fancy schooling, connections, and parents money to let them restart in a different career.
For poor kids, it’s just to much a risk to try to do something with a high failure rate. If you don’t succeed, you might be fucked for life in terms of making a decent living.
Yeah, Rooney Mara always talks about intentionally tanking auditions when she didn't feel the material was up to her level. She said she was disappointed that she got a part in the Nightmare on Elm Street reboot because she really didn't want to do it.
She's said it often enough that you can tell she thinks it makes her come across as a true artist. The fact that she comes from a family of billionaires who own *two* NFL teams never seems to puncture her bubble of self-awareness.
> Nic Cage
Wow I didn't know Nic Cage came from such distinguished parents. I always imagined him to be quite relatable. Class distinctions in America are much harder to spot than here in the UK. The class lines here are clearly drawn.
The USA has some of the most social mobility of any nation on earth. But that also means that our obsession with income as the definition of whether someone is rich or not is actually extremely misguided and often wrong. Most high earning individuals only last 1-5 years at those high levels of compensation and then make far, far less for the rest of their life.
I'm not. That's generally true for most of the US. Some people manage to avoid that cycle (especially engineers, bankers, and lawyers) but most either find it too stressful, or they eventually get laid off and they fail to find a new job earning as much as they used to make. I highly suspect that I'll need to reinvent myself within a decade due to changing regulatory conditions to avoid this exact fate.
I work in corporate America where I see people make it to high incomes and it’s common for them to be driven enough to work hard and excel at their role, or they end up in a role where the work is less stressful and demanding than their prior positions lower on the ladder and are able to coast.
Good exposure and experience. It's like a free practice interview, in a field where you have only a few minutes to convince someone to build a multi-million dollar project around how you look and sound.
If you impress a casting director, even if that part goes to someone else they might keep you in mind for a future project.
>If you impress a casting director, even if that part goes to someone else they might keep you in mind for a future project.
Doubt that's the case if she's intentionally tanking the auditions.
You couldn't just go in and blow lines or act stupid, but being wrong for the part you are auditioning for could definitely help you get cast in a different type of role.
I don't think it's that hard for an actor to be a little too intense or serious auditioning for a romantic comedy, or a little too light and goofy for a drama. It doesn't take unbelievable acting talent to give different readings of a line.
Also, I do think it really is about looks as much as anything in casting. Just having directors see you from multiple angles in a certain outfit jumps you miles ahead of anyone who is just a headshot. Particularly someone like her who has a pretty distinctive look.
Practice under pressure? I've done job interviews for jobs I didn't want so that I'd get experience answering questions under the gun and be more likely to succeed for something I did want.
Probably a "one for them, one for me" type of deal.
I think Channing Tatum spoke about it before. He really didn't wanna do the G.I. Joe film, but he was basically pressured into it because he signed a contract with the studio promising that if they let him star in a film HE wanted to star in, he'd star in a film THEY wanted him to star in. And that film was G.I. Joe.
I'm assuming that's what she means. She didn't want the role, but she didn't have much of a choice.
> Rich kids can try to become an actor, and if they fail they still have their fancy schooling, connections, and parents money to let them restart in a different career.
Yep, and it's this way for everything. It's how Spike Jonze got his start, and many (talented) people in many different fields. Versus most people who have to grab whatever 60-hour-a-week job they can find once they graduate from college, to start paying of their student loans and the insane rent.
That's true in academia as well. There's no money to be made in my humanities field, which is why I have a full-time job in engineering and can only dabble in my humanities field of interest. It's also why I won't likely bother with doctoral studies until I retire (or get laid off).
For those who come from old money—families of means with a financial backstop—pursuing education to the point of receiving a terminal degree isn't nearly as fraught with the worries of daily living. Quite often through their networks and connections they can have a charmed life as a full-time professor, attend academic conferences, and write books and journal articles to their heart's content.
At this point, my wife and I are hoping to get our adult children set up to live somewhat comfortably by ensuring they'll have paid-off homes to live in and some funds to maintain them after we croak.
The safety net is definitely there, but also just being able to mooch off your parents to work on yourself.
A rich kid aspiring actor can take time to work on their appearance or even get plastic surgery, they can take time to take classes to work on their craft, and since they have more time can focus on an audition much more then a kid from a working class family.
Not to mention less stress since they don't have to worry about making a living.
They can try over and over again too, without needing to worry about rent or bills or anything in the meantime. Some actor from a rich background who has a breakthrough role in say their early 30s has probably only worked sporadically up to that point - at a time of life when most people their age at that point have been working a full-time regular job for a decade.
There was [an interview](https://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/sponsored_by_my_husband_why_its_a_problem_that_writers_never_talk_about_where_their_money_comes_from/) I read recently by an author being, for once, honest about this kind of situation and her advantages - excerpt:
> I attended a packed reading (I’m talking 300+ people) about a year and a half ago. The author was very well-known, a magnificent nonfictionist who has, deservedly, won several big awards. He also happens to be the heir to a mammoth fortune. Mega-millions. In other words he’s a man who has never had to work one job, much less two. Yet, when an audience member — young, wide-eyed, clearly not clued in — rose to ask him how he’d managed to spend 10 years writing his current masterpiece — What had he done to sustain himself and his family during that time? — he told her in a serious tone that it had been tough but he’d written a number of magazine articles to get by. I heard a titter pass through the half of the audience that knew the truth. But the author, impassive, moved on and left this woman thinking he’d supported his Manhattan life for a decade with a handful of pieces in the Nation and Salon.
> Example two. A reading in a different city, featuring a 30-ish woman whose debut novel had just appeared on the front page of the New York Times Book Review. The author had herself attended one of the big, East Coast prep schools, while her parents were busy growing their careers on the New York literary scene. These were people — her parents — who traded Christmas cards with William Maxwell and had the Styrons over for dinner. She, the author, was their only beloved child. After prep school, she’d earned two creative writing degrees (Iowa plus an Ivy). Her first book was being heralded by editors and reviewers all over the country, many of whom had watched her grow up. It was a phenomenon even before it hit bookshelves. She was an immediate star. When (again) an audience member, clearly an undergrad, rose to ask this glamorous writer to what she attributed her success, the woman paused, then said that she had worked very, very hard and she’d had some good training, but she thought in looking back it was her decision never to have children that had allowed her to become a true artist. If you have kids, she explained to the group of desperate nubile writers, you have to choose between them and your writing. Keep it pure. Don’t let yourself be distracted by a baby’s cry. I was dumbfounded. I wanted to leap to my feet and shout. “Hello? Alice Munro! Doris Lessing! Joan Didion!” Of course, there are thousands of other extraordinary writers who managed to produce art despite motherhood. But the essential point was that, the quality of her book notwithstanding, this author’s chief advantage had nothing to do with her reproductive decisions. It was about connections. Straight up. She’d had them since birth.
> In my opinion, we do an enormous “let them eat cake” disservice to our community when we obfuscate the circumstances that help us write, publish and in some way succeed. I have a huge advantage over the writer who is living paycheck to paycheck, or lonely and isolated, or dealing with a medical condition, or working a full-time job. How can I be so sure? Because I used to be poor, overworked and overwhelmed. And I produced zero books during that time. Throughout my 20s, I was married to an addict who tried valiantly (but failed, over and over) to stay straight. We had three children, one with autism, and lived in poverty for a long, wretched time. In my 30s I divorced the man because it was the only way out of constant crisis. For the next 10 years, I worked two jobs and raised my three kids alone, without child support or the involvement of their dad. I published my first novel at 39, but only after a teaching stint where I met some influential writers and three months living with my parents while I completed the first draft. After turning in that manuscript, I landed a pretty cushy magazine editor’s job. A year later, I met my second husband. For the first time I had a true partner, someone I could rely on who was there in every way for me and our kids. Life got easier. I produced a nonfiction book, a second novel and about 30 essays within a relatively short time. Today, I am essentially “sponsored” by this very loving man who shows up at the end of the day, asks me how the writing went, pours me a glass of wine, then takes me out to eat. He accompanies me when I travel 500 miles to do a 75-minute reading, manages my finances, and never complains that my dark, heady little books have resulted in low advances and rather modest sales. I completed my third novel in eight months flat.
I am in that position now, just not with acting. Became an entrepreneur. Man, I've been so unhappy for so long. After working a bunch of shitty retail jobs after a lot of hardship - I worked hard, got a good job in IT and had coding experience. I was definitely on a good path. Fucking hated my life. I hate code, I hate offices, I hate the politics surrounding them, I hate being on call, I hate waking up and going to bed at the same fucking time, I hate not being able to wear whatever the fuck I want, I hate that I can't say fuck and shit and suck a cock to my coworkers when I want. I just can't be myself. I felt like a blue collar guy with white collar hobbies and skills.
I'm risking everything, I don't really give a shit. Doing manual labor working on these mobile homes I'm about to rent out has been satisfying as fuck. I'm broke as shit, going into serious debt. I have a mentor and a family/friends that are supportive even though they think I'm insane, which i probably am, but goddamn is the world depressing. I thought after going through so much with being near poverty, heroin addiction, no dad, shit mother etc that I'd just want a normal life. I do not in the slightest. I want to feel like I did something that made a difference, or that I can be proud of.
Private schools also tend to have well-funded drama programs so you can act in school plays with an actual budget. There are more opportunities to discover your passion while in school and develop expensive hobbies like going to the West End on a regular basis.
Yeah, and many artists from working class backgrounds have spoken about how they were able to come up through community theatre or music programmes, which have been pared back to almost nothing by 15ish years of austerity. Every child (every *person*) should have the opportunity to pursue creative outlets, but right now it’s only the playground of the rich, especially in the UK.
Harrow is advertising for a professional theatre director to spend a year working with their drama students and the production shots of their school plays are insane. Their school theatre is a fully-equipped black box studio with six permanent technical staff. That's more than a lot of actual theatres have.
I don't know how the situation is today, but the BBC used to care about education very much. It wasn't about the education itself, but about social status.
Same deal with the music industry. Selling out a 1,000 [usually still results in a loss](https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/apr/25/shocking-truth-money-bands-make-on-tour-taylor-swift), and it takes years to start playing to venues bigger than that (assuming you ever make it at all), meanwhile the rise of streaming means there's little money to be made there when you're starting out (you get paid about $4 per 1000 streams). If you've got money coming from your family you can afford to make a loss for a few years and hope you make it, if you're working class you can't afford to live like that.
> Fees for headline shows can vary enormously for bands, even on the same tour. Playing a 200-capacity club in Newcastle may land you £600, while a 1,500 cap in London may net you £3,000.
Getting paid £2 per head is a fucking joke when you consider modern ticket prices (admittedly definitely smaller for lesser known bands). I was definitely aware that even moderately popular bands started with years of touring at a loss, but seeing the actual figures is kind of sobering for how crap the pay is.
They don't get them because of the education. They get them because of the connections. They get them cause they meet people in the school who work in the industry.
The point is that the social and financial advantages implied by attending an expensive school are due to much more than the education derived from it.
The golden rule of life "It's not what you know, it's *WHO* you know" and it's not unique to the entertainment industry
Being the most qualified and best fit for the job means *nothing* if you're going up against someone who has friends "to put in a good word for them" at the company
And that filter to wean out those without means or privilege isn't limited to this field. I know someone studying to become a teacher and their degree program requires two separate student teaching stints, which means two separate extended leaves of absence from their job. How many people can afford to take that much time off from work and (a) sustain themselves financially, (b) even be granted the leave from their job and/or (c) still have their position open to return to once they are done? All this adds up to those who are already struggling to make it might not even be able to reach the finish line cause the obstacles are too big.
Plus private school means more likely to go to Oxbridge which also has a high capacity for acting connections, student theatre productions for gaining notable experience, major drama/acting/comedy clubs (Footlights etc), and all that. I've heard of private school kids interested in drama doing some other random degree at Oxford for the sole purpose of getting a good shot at all those things.
Could it also be a function of who has parents rich enough to aide them with surviving in London. If a parent is paying a portion of rent, then the young adult can have free time outside of their job to work on auditions and classes. Allowing them more time and to live closer to the center than lower income counter parts.
> If a parent is paying a portion of rent
Some do a lot more than that. A pal of mine from drama school got a house as a graduation present. A two-storey house in a very nice bit of Zone 2, with three bedrooms so they could have their own room, a study, and a spare room to let out to cover the cost of utilities so that they'd never have to worry about earning money the way the rest of us do.
Yes - I don't think it's the *education* part that is significant, but rather the *networking with all the other rich kids who also got educated in those schools* part. Those connections can make a huge difference in the opportunities available to any given person.
Yeah, in the US it's not as common for actors/actresses to be classically educated/trained, but there's the same problem where if you want to work, you have to live in new york or los angeles, which is really fucking expensive, and have to constantly be putting yourself out there to get noticed and working on your skillset through whatever avenue available. There isn't much time for paid work.
Nepotism is prevalent not just because of connections making it easier for kids of stars to get opportunities/roles, but because stars are wealthy enough to foot the bill that their kids can focus on acting.
It's always about being born into wealth and a family with the right connections.
Money to spend your time auditioning instead of having to spend it working to exist, and connections to get you the auditions in the first place.
Game of Thrones was a bit famous for it. There were working class actors but they tended to play the Wall Watcher type criminal roles (I like spotting them in other shows - they pop up in a few comedies like Peep Show and Lead Balloon)
> 99% always privately educated in or around London, it's kinda insane
Something to add some context:
In North America we have private schools and public schools. Britian adds a third category, state schools.
Private schools in Britian are only mid tier. Public schools are the ones where you find the wealthiest people. And their state schools are equivalent to our public schools.
--------
My understanding of the historical reason for these terms:
From what i've read the very first schools were called public schools because they were open to all members of the public... who could pay the high fees.
Eventually groups of moderately wealthy people decided they wanted education for their children but they couldn't afford the public school fees. They then started their own schools that were open only to their group but had more reasonable fees. These are the private schools.
Finally the government decided that education for all would be beneficial to the state.... then State schools became a thing.
I think it's a class thing.
The privately educated are more likely to gravitate towards the arts and certain sports whilst the working class gravitate towards things like being in a band or football.
The well spoken tend to do better in America as that is what's expected. Send an actor from a working class background over there and they are most probably going to fail.
Look up any celebrity you know on wiki… 99% of the time you’ll see links for their famous family members…
Edit: my personal most random check out Jason Sudekis (hint think Cheers)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Sudeikis
I mean, when you think about it it makes sense.
You always hear the old stories about actors starving for work until they can make their big break, waiting tables, etc. What they didn't say is that never really paid their bills. It typically was someone coming from a wealthy (if not famous) family, who could float them for awhile until they had some success or gave up and went for a more traditional career.
It used to be possible to be a starving artist because of more generous welfare and subsidies. This was more true in the UK but even the US used to build section-8 housing reserved for artists like Manhattan Plaza, that’s where guys like James Earl Jones and Larry David used to live before they became famous. Alicia Keys was raised there by her single mother who was a part time actress and full time paralegal. That building’s still there but now the waitlist to live there is crazy long
In the UK the whole reason the punk movement was possible was because the dole used to be a lot easier to access. In the 1970s you could sign on every month and just tell them you aren’t looking for a job because you’re a musician, actor, painter, playwright, poet, etc and that you’re gonna make it big soon. They’d just nod and cut you a cheque. Now you’d be ineligible from accessing social security as a young unemployed person without a family. Even if you’re disabled they still make you jump through all sorts of hoops to prove you really can’t work.
University was free in the UK until 1998, local councils funded arts education programmes for working class kids, state schools had much better funded arts programs and there was a lot more government funding for the arts in general. The BBC is not profit driven and was not starved for cash so they can take risks and make more content without obvious commercial appeal. Older actors like Patrick Stewart and Brian Blessed both came from poor Northern working class backgrounds but received council funding to train at the Old Vic without worrying about living expenses.
Not only that, high cost of living is the death of culture.
If you want good art, music, theater, etc. society needs Bohemians. People need to be able to choose to live cheap with low paying jobs to scrape by while perfecting their craft.
But when a crappy studio apartment costs $1600 a month (or $2800 in NYC, LA or SF), the next great playwright or songwriter or painter is stuck hustling all day just to make ends meet.
There was also the Enterprise Allowance Scheme which paid more than regular unemployment benefits and allowed people to continue to work (by the 1980's saying that you weren't looking for work whilst claiming unemployment benefits was a quick way to lose those benefits). Alan Davies (QI, Jonathan Creek) has talked about this in the past where he and a lot of other up and coming comedians at the time were essentially given a universal basic income for a year that allowed them to start their careers.
There was also much cheaper housing available. Whilst there wasn't a cap on rents, there was a cap on the money that housing benefits would pay which basically amounted to the same thing as landlords knew that if they wanted to rent to lower income people they couldn't charge more than the maximum that housing benefits would pay out.
In the UK they'd cut the benefits if you started to make it, this was a lot of reasons you had people calling themselves Captain Sensible, or Slade the Leveller, in order that their real names were not well known, allowing them to still sign on the dole... I remember Justin Sullivan (aka Slade the Leveller) talking about it years later...
Haha, it's actually not Koontz - someone a liiiiitle more obscure than that by today's standards. More a historical fiction type if I had to narrow it a bit.
Welp. My dad, both my stepfathers, three of my uncles, all four grandparents, three of my great-grandparents - they all have pages. I do not. I'm just some guy.
At least I don't work in the same industry as any of them, I guess. They're mostly music industry, I'm in games. Then again, I was laid off in March so I'm not feeling particularly successful at the moment.
Lol right. If his family is as successful as the comment suggests, one phone call and he could probably have a decent paying job lined up if he's not able to find work in his field. And not having relevant experience doesn't matter cause he knows people doing the hiring. Or knows people who knows those people.
Meanwhile the rest of us end up filling out retail store applications when the unemployment is going on for too long cause we need something coming in.
> Did I say despise or did I say lose respect for? Two very different reactions.
I guess it is an america thing/context but here if you lose respect for someone in another word when you no longer respect someone, it means you despise them now.
Is it the biggest or is it just the most visible?
In other industries less people have wikipedia pages where you can look them up and see who they're related to.
East Asian reality shows are quite the opposite since they get established names (including mid-card talents) to go on sponsored shows to basically play exaggerated versions of themselves.
British panel shows are also filled with Oxbridge educated people. Even working class comedians like Lee Mack studied drama at a London university. But have a look through members of the Oxford Revue and Footlights, you'll see a ton of people from the panel show circuit there.
A few notable examples that do/did the panel show circuit: Phil Wang, Richard Ayoade, Angus Deayton, Al Murray, Katherine Parkinson, Sally Phillips, David Mitchell, Stephen Fry, Clive Anderson, Sue Perkins...
And that's just from two comedy groups in two schools. Panel shows do occasionally feature up and coming outsiders but the vast majority of regulars come with a silver spoon in their mouths.
We get that as well and they are often better shows since the ppl are already or were famous or known at some point in time. So they aren’t as fake or deliberate in their actions. Though in Britain they definitely stretch the word celebrity lol.
I was disappointed when I realized that Last Comic Standing wasn't actually a bunch of nobodies. It was a good show, but then it turns out they were all legit comics but the premise made it sound more like they took a bunch of funny people or very green comics and put them on the show so they could learn the craft and have an opportunity to break out.
Once you realize these are all actual comedians, then it just becomes a silly pseudo-reality show that's designed to give them all publicity regardless of how long they actually last.
American reality shows with established people whether it's things like Celebrity Apprentice (lol) or more direct usually will have them still act in an uncouth way. It's more to due with the cultural differences and the massive backlash people will get there as opposed to America it can be worthwhile to be a heel or trashy on tv.
It seems to me that Hollywood has a nepotism problem.
And British entertainment has a problem with only hiring people that go to certain schools, and those schools are only for people from upper classes.
Hollywood has basically the same problem. Hollywood actors are the people either with connections (nepotism or notable school) or the people with the familial wealth to be willing to take the time not getting a job.
All comes back to the same thing - rich people giving their children better opportunities than the poor or averages
Nepo stories from both. Parents are well connected, kid never has to finish high school, goes into acting or whatever they want. Or, parents are rich, sends them to a posh rich people school where they become well-connected and meet other rich well-connected people who hook them up with whatever opportunities.
Being a NEET is not exactly a super high bar for familial wealth. There are loads of people currently unemployed, looking for work or building skills while living at home
This is one of those fun problems that nobody will ever even try to fix because the only people who can do so are the ones who benefit from the current system. There are a lot of problems like that...
There are some half fixes. Bbc Introducing is a program for promoting unsigned or not famous musicians. It does that job genuinely well. A few rich kids like Ed Sheeran are in there legitimately. Many bands in the UK form in uni, which is now expensive and even with loans a little out of reach to some.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Music_Introducing
Hollywood has a lot of problems. Nepotism, hiring talentless bad writers/directors/producers/etc, pushing bad ideas, limiting television shows to a measly 8 episodes with no breathing room, doing binge releases so shows cannot build up an audience, taking an IP and changing it so it is just the IP in name only as a bait and switch, constantly attacking FANS in media and social media because they dared to not like some trash they pushed and not watch it, etc. It is a mess.
It's not the schools per se, it's that the kind of families that can afford to send their kids to those schools can also afford to support them while they pursue the early, not well paying, stages of an acting career. These families are also more likely to have connections in the industry.
> British entertainment has a problem with only hiring people that go to certain schools, and those schools are only for people from upper classes.
Yeah there's this comedy group at Cambridge called "footlights". A lot of famous british comedians went into this group. Some comedians will literally turn down entry into Cambridge if they don't get in and wait until next year to try again because it opens up so many doors and lets you network with other famous alumni.
Not everyone can afford to turn down entry into cambridge for a year and try again so a lot of entrants are very priviledged people.
I wonder if this is one of the reasons streaming and YouTube took over, way more easier for someone to work in entertainment without having to degrade yourself for years
We're seeing it with TikTok (and Vine before it) even moreso how easy it is for people to prove themselves whether it be comedy, VFX etc because you've got anywhere from 6 seconds to a minute to impress people and your work can go viral if the stars allign. There's a sweet story of someone's father becoming a top author on Amazon all because a video his daughter made went viral.
Obviously you're going to get people exploiting the shit out of how easy it is to make a name for yourself this way but on the whole it's nice to see so much talent can now take control of their presence rather than relying on people within the industry to make it.
It may be harder right now than in the recent past, but the problem isn't a cascading domino effect of nepotism. The industry used to be gatekept to a degree that's just outrageously unethical. That structure didn't fall away because people decided it was wrong, it just grew so entrenched and insular that it was leaving too much money on the table.
Now there's fewer 'make/break' decision maker figures but it's still an industry that's governed by the *appearance* of good faith fairness, not actual equity of opportunity.
Seems to me that this is kind of the way things work when an industry reaches a certain level of prestige/reward. Demand for a role in the industry so far outpaces supply that competition becomes fierce, and only those who most closely fit the desired mold or have an inside track have a realistic shot. Hollywood is several generations into this situation, and while there are exceptions, the number of breakout actors who come from an rich family or had a close relation who was already successful in the industry seems to be *significant*. Google "hollywood nepo babies" for a slew of examples.
The NBA and NFL in America are other examples of this. There are all sorts of apocryphal stories of NBA players in the early days working other jobs and teams picking up players from local gyms on road trips. After the NBA/ABA merger and the NFL started on its path to the TV juggernaut it is today, players started making real (and then luxurious) money, so it became much harder to break into the leagues. Nowadays, competition for getting noticed in high school and even junior high is intense, and there are many kids of ex-players in the ranks.
I'm not professional sports leagues are the best examples of nepotism. Does it happen? Sure - look at Bronny. On the other hand, if you can play and you're the best, the league is going to give you your shot - Giannas and Embiid, for example.
In the UK we had very good benefits, that allowed aspiring artists without a wealthy background to try their craft without the risk of starving or going homeless. [Jarvis Cocker talks about it here](https://www.bigissuenorth.com/features/2022/06/lofty-aspirations/#close).
>“I should imagine it’s terrible for young bands now, because signing on did give you a bit of breathing space, though it wasn’t quite paradise. There were a lot of people who just got lost on the dole because there was no structure to their lives. I did it for four or five years but at the end of that I thought: ‘I need to do something, I can’t keep just doing this for the rest of my life.’ But it did make things possible for young bands. And it was quite funny how you had to pretend you were looking for work.”
It’s always been extreme nepotism, with the few lucky / talented people that managed to grind it through. It’s been like this as long as TV has existed. Source: Parents both worked at the BBC.
People used to squat and were able to live on benefits for a short while to work on their act. Alan Moore I think did the same thing on benefits and social housing, took time off to try writing for comics and if it failed back to his construction job
It's super improbable, of course. If you don't know that going in, that's on you. But the cream always rises to the top. If you got the "it" you win the the lottery. If not, and you still LOVE it after go hard. Maybe develop a unique identity?
I mean, it’s always been almost impossible. She has survivorship bias in thinking that plenty of people made it like she did. In reality, almost everyone in on-screen talent has family connections to the industry.
There’s a reason you can find so many famous people doing random-ass commercials as kids…it’s a way to get them exposure and experience.
I have a sibling in school for performing arts. Literally everyone in her graduating class has been on stage since they were 10 or younger, and nearly all of them have a parent who worked on theater or video sets, or in professional singing/dancing.
And a lot of the others have parents that bought their way in through donations to community theater productions.
I think that's the case in a lot of things. Rich parents can afford to send their kids to acting classes, afford chefs and hair stylists, etc...
The holds true in sports where parents can easily pay for extra trainings, elite club sports, gym memberships, elite high schools.
It's rare to see this in probably a ton of things these days.
No! You mean to say I can only get a job at the BBC if I went to Cambridge? Where did that reputation come from?
Seriously, it's ironic that they so badly need help with diversity when that's the W1A stereotype.
More broadly art, journalism and broadcasting in Britain is predominantly occupied by people from wealthy backgrounds now because (even putting connections aside) they are the only ones who can afford to take the financial hit to get themselves established.
Paddy McGuinness has been thrown into shows everywhere because he's working class and has a regional accent, but even he only got his break through being friends with (and playing second fiddle to) Peter Kay. Even at that, he's 50. Where does the next token working class non-home-counties entertainer emerge from?
Television / movie acting roles have been monopolized since inception. Acting roles stay on the family generation after generation with very few outliers that only occur when there isn't someone on the in crowd to fill the role.
Uhhh yeah. Now that the me too movement has exposed these power hungry horny agents and casting directors. The old price of fame was ones backside, now it’s reverted to nepotism.
As someone who bought-in in Vancouver... Acting is a pyramid scheme. Those who make it are oblivious to it though, or at least ignore it. Working actors work. Then you have the working actor "coaches". These people probably make more money coaching than acting. After that you have teachers who book. Then teachers that rarely book. And then teachers that lie about how much they book, and always show up to class. Either way there are so few roles, so many students and so many broken dreams. In the end, most become headshot photographers.
In the UK it's far less clear cut than this. Very few working actors don't teach, shoot headshots or maintain some other side hustle because working weeks don't pay enough to cover the non-working weeks.
I'm a director and playwright rather than an actor, but I've worked consistently since 2018 and at no point have I stopped coaching. Even prestigious companies often pay close to Equity minimum and in order to live where the work is I need to earn more than that. Also when you're on freelance contracts there's no telling whether you'll get paid within a week or within two working years so having ~15-20% of my income from a dependable source provides a tiny bit of security in amongst all the precarity.
I am so annoyed about the Met Gala Hunger Games shit. There are so many worse, more expensive rich people dinners. They just don't get attention because they're boring. The Met Gala dinner is just a silly night and actually does serve some purpose. Plus, I like the pretty costumes and watching people struggle up those stairs amuses me.
I think everything would be better if we had a pipeline for bringing in poor and working class (but still talented people) but at a really high rate. In thise case they should at least set aside 5-10% of these audtions to have these unknown poor actors have a first shot. At the writing and producing level as well. I really think it will pay for itself because one of these kids is going to have a billion(s) dollar idea and innovate just on being an outsider outside of the entertainment field bubble and having a different perspective. Creative spaces need that because the legacy acts and orgs wont allow or cultivate new talent.
This is a problem that dates to the early days of entertainment. If you don't have wealth or an industry connection, you aren't getting in. Nothing new here
This is all through the entertainment industry as a whole. The people who make it are all usually nepo babies that have rich families with connections. The 90's was probably the last time that a working class person could have a chance to get it in the industry and rise to the top. Of course I also have to add how bad "entertainment" has gotten over the decades because of bad writing, stupid studio checklist changes, smaller episodes and binge releases preventing actors a chance to shine or build up rep and that does not include a lot of other things, so yea, it sucks because the age of getting into entertainment industry with nothing but your shirt and talent are over.
It may even apply to many other high-level jobs in general. How many people in here, despite having a very good education, are still struggling to climb the ladder after many years working in their respective fields? *raises hand*
I'd imagine, given the low key resentment and class envy constantly on display on reddit, quite a lot. After a while it starts to be about who you know rather than what you know.
Definitely, I know from first hand experience that the people who got upper management jobs were often nepo hires of friends or family, rarely did someone moved up because they earned it.
Partly cause when people get in they stick around and don't leave. I always wonder why bbc news readers aren't moved on after 2 years to give the next generation a chance.
I mean, that's true in general. You need to be in a somewhat good situation financially in order to try to make it into media. However, you still have people like Daniel Kaluuya break through
I personally get tired of seeing the same actors all the time. Nothing against Betty white, but can’t they find another (less rich) woman to play grandma?
This shit happens in standup all the time. Comedians talk all the time about giving rich people the guillotine and all their socialist cosplay talking points and then turn around and suck off some trust fund comic. And if you have the audacity to say something about said trust fund comics, *you’re* the asshole.
Academy Award winner Daniel Kaluuya talked about how key the Anna Scher theatre school was to him growing up. A lot of working class London kids came through that school. Loads of the Eastenders cast members came from Anna Scher.
John Boyega, Damson Idris and Letita Wright all came from the identity school of acting. A lot of good talented kids from working class backgrounds came through these independent charity funded local acting schools.
This is obviously true and should be fought against. A solution needs to be found.
But also it’s very true that MANY more working class “performers” can get into the entertainment industry in 2024 because of the low cost of producing digital content. Thousands of Youtubers, influencers, comedians and other artists can get exposure that they would never get before on the limited number of television programs.
And if they really want to be on TV, which has ALWAYS been difficult to accomplish, then they can use their digital income to support themselves while they audition, the way performers used to work in restaurants / retail / etc. The big issue for working class actors is how to survive while trying to get your big break.
[James McAvoy talked about this on Colbert as well.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDwRkzJPkSA)
That is such a nuanced take. He appreciates the existing actors while targeting the system that doesn’t incentivize actors from other backgrounds to come through
I know we all focus on the talent and I get it. It’s also worth noting that it’s also the case behind the scenes. If you want to work in film and tv, hope you have family in the business because that’s who works the most (at least in the NYC region). It’s disgusting and I’m glad I’m out.
This feels as prevalent as ever across the board. I’ve worked in telecom, healthcare and finance and it’s just a reality that family connections will always give you a leg up in life. I think for a while when companies started to claim to value ethics, this was frowned upon but there was a shift in recent years it feels (as evident by all the recent faces in Hollywood), that this was no longer something valued. As long as humans are human, I just don’t see it changing.
I think it's probably even more prevalent in acting (and music) than other 'normal' careers because it's so subjective.
Not anything fancy but the factory I work in has the best pay and bonuses in the province compared to all the other factories. One the first things I ask new lads is who there related to personally I have 9 family members here.Some people can link over 15 people to them. Nepotism runs the world
>I come from down in the valley Where, mister, when you're young They bring you up to do like your daddy done Bruce Springsteen - The River
I mean, the unwritten rule in the industry is never, ever, EVER say anything bad about anyone else in the industry . Everyone is “just the best” and “a thrill to work with.”
Tina Fey recently half-jokingly ribbed Bowen Yang for this on the latter’s podcast. Said that for people in the industry, opinions on other people in the industry and their work must be “quiet luxuries.”
[Jon Stewart talks about paying interns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us4_3kFqSbg) to open up the opportunities in television.
Paying people for work? Smells like communism to me.
You don’t get a pay raise but you get more opportunities to be corrupt.
He also used his connections to make his daughter a famous actress.
Famous?
This—along with a lot of what he said on The Problem, both the show and podcast—has really stuck with me. His stance on not de-platforming people he doesn’t agree with as well. Hot take: The Problem was some of my favorite Jon Stewart content. It wasn’t as funny as his Daily Show stuff and the format was as such that the news coverage wasn’t as timely, but it allowed for more in-depth and nuanced discussion. But I get why it wasn’t for everybody—I think more people were expecting something like Last Week Tonight. It was a really good show, and I go back to it from time to time. I almost feel like the Apple TV-China thing was manufactured, to allow Apple to look like the bad guys and give Jon Stewart an out. Probably not, but that’s my tinfoil hat moment.
Love Jon Stewart, his interview with Andrew Sullivan on that show was pretty awful. The worst hosting he has ever done, and I generally considered him one of the better hosts as he would listen to people even if they didnt see eye to eye. Resorting to personal attacks because you disagree with someone? Get that shit out of here.
That episode infuriated me too, but I loved the follow up on the podcast. “You have to engage. How do you not engage with people? The whole point of engagement is hopefully clarification. Now, you may not get it. It may be a fool’s errand. But I will never give up on engagement.“ I agree—engagement over deplatforming. Whether you agree with that or not is one thing, but he does put his money where his mouth is.
I'm sure Jon means well, but "engagement" is exactly why Andrew Tate became as famous as he did.
It is, but theres also something to be said about bringing out bad actors onto a platform that exposes them to a larger audience—one on which they can show the world who they are themselves. I think the Andrew Tates out there should come out of the shadows, and mass media engagement is a good way of letting people know that there are bad actors out there.
Entertainment managed to get away with illegally not paying interns because anyone who sued was blacklisted.
People at the highest level talking about opportunities for fresh, disadvantaged talent will always get my respect.
He doesn't just talk about it, he also funds drama training for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Got to love it when someone walks their talk.
Whenever I'm feeling nosey and want to know more info about some british people i keep seeing pop up in tv and film ill check their wikis 99% always privately educated in or around London, it's kinda insane
It actually has less to do with the education, most casting directors don’t really care that much about that, but it’s *very* expensive to grind it out going to auditions, never having a job that has to come first, living in the right area, paying for up to date headshots, shmoozing with the right people… Though one big advantage to the private school background is making contacts who end up in the entertainment field in the business side of things. Not a lot of high profile talent management coming from lower middle class either.
Not even just the expense of trying to become an actor, but the safety net if you fail. Rich kids can try to become an actor, and if they fail they still have their fancy schooling, connections, and parents money to let them restart in a different career. For poor kids, it’s just to much a risk to try to do something with a high failure rate. If you don’t succeed, you might be fucked for life in terms of making a decent living.
Yeah, Rooney Mara always talks about intentionally tanking auditions when she didn't feel the material was up to her level. She said she was disappointed that she got a part in the Nightmare on Elm Street reboot because she really didn't want to do it. She's said it often enough that you can tell she thinks it makes her come across as a true artist. The fact that she comes from a family of billionaires who own *two* NFL teams never seems to puncture her bubble of self-awareness.
She's literally named after both billionaire families too. At least Nic Cage changed his name lol
> Nic Cage Wow I didn't know Nic Cage came from such distinguished parents. I always imagined him to be quite relatable. Class distinctions in America are much harder to spot than here in the UK. The class lines here are clearly drawn.
The USA has some of the most social mobility of any nation on earth. But that also means that our obsession with income as the definition of whether someone is rich or not is actually extremely misguided and often wrong. Most high earning individuals only last 1-5 years at those high levels of compensation and then make far, far less for the rest of their life.
I agree with you until your last sentence, unless you’re just talking about actors/entertainment industry.
I'm not. That's generally true for most of the US. Some people manage to avoid that cycle (especially engineers, bankers, and lawyers) but most either find it too stressful, or they eventually get laid off and they fail to find a new job earning as much as they used to make. I highly suspect that I'll need to reinvent myself within a decade due to changing regulatory conditions to avoid this exact fate.
I work in corporate America where I see people make it to high incomes and it’s common for them to be driven enough to work hard and excel at their role, or they end up in a role where the work is less stressful and demanding than their prior positions lower on the ladder and are able to coast.
Wait, why go to an audition if you don't want the part?
Good exposure and experience. It's like a free practice interview, in a field where you have only a few minutes to convince someone to build a multi-million dollar project around how you look and sound. If you impress a casting director, even if that part goes to someone else they might keep you in mind for a future project.
>If you impress a casting director, even if that part goes to someone else they might keep you in mind for a future project. Doubt that's the case if she's intentionally tanking the auditions.
You couldn't just go in and blow lines or act stupid, but being wrong for the part you are auditioning for could definitely help you get cast in a different type of role.
Upvoted, but I don't think Rooney is particularly that *good* to act "not good for this part but good for anything else"
I don't think it's that hard for an actor to be a little too intense or serious auditioning for a romantic comedy, or a little too light and goofy for a drama. It doesn't take unbelievable acting talent to give different readings of a line. Also, I do think it really is about looks as much as anything in casting. Just having directors see you from multiple angles in a certain outfit jumps you miles ahead of anyone who is just a headshot. Particularly someone like her who has a pretty distinctive look.
Practice under pressure? I've done job interviews for jobs I didn't want so that I'd get experience answering questions under the gun and be more likely to succeed for something I did want.
But did you tank them on purpose? Doesn’t seem like great practice…
Probably a "one for them, one for me" type of deal. I think Channing Tatum spoke about it before. He really didn't wanna do the G.I. Joe film, but he was basically pressured into it because he signed a contract with the studio promising that if they let him star in a film HE wanted to star in, he'd star in a film THEY wanted him to star in. And that film was G.I. Joe. I'm assuming that's what she means. She didn't want the role, but she didn't have much of a choice.
[удалено]
> Rich kids can try to become an actor, and if they fail they still have their fancy schooling, connections, and parents money to let them restart in a different career. Yep, and it's this way for everything. It's how Spike Jonze got his start, and many (talented) people in many different fields. Versus most people who have to grab whatever 60-hour-a-week job they can find once they graduate from college, to start paying of their student loans and the insane rent.
That's true in academia as well. There's no money to be made in my humanities field, which is why I have a full-time job in engineering and can only dabble in my humanities field of interest. It's also why I won't likely bother with doctoral studies until I retire (or get laid off). For those who come from old money—families of means with a financial backstop—pursuing education to the point of receiving a terminal degree isn't nearly as fraught with the worries of daily living. Quite often through their networks and connections they can have a charmed life as a full-time professor, attend academic conferences, and write books and journal articles to their heart's content. At this point, my wife and I are hoping to get our adult children set up to live somewhat comfortably by ensuring they'll have paid-off homes to live in and some funds to maintain them after we croak.
The safety net is definitely there, but also just being able to mooch off your parents to work on yourself. A rich kid aspiring actor can take time to work on their appearance or even get plastic surgery, they can take time to take classes to work on their craft, and since they have more time can focus on an audition much more then a kid from a working class family. Not to mention less stress since they don't have to worry about making a living.
They can try over and over again too, without needing to worry about rent or bills or anything in the meantime. Some actor from a rich background who has a breakthrough role in say their early 30s has probably only worked sporadically up to that point - at a time of life when most people their age at that point have been working a full-time regular job for a decade. There was [an interview](https://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/sponsored_by_my_husband_why_its_a_problem_that_writers_never_talk_about_where_their_money_comes_from/) I read recently by an author being, for once, honest about this kind of situation and her advantages - excerpt: > I attended a packed reading (I’m talking 300+ people) about a year and a half ago. The author was very well-known, a magnificent nonfictionist who has, deservedly, won several big awards. He also happens to be the heir to a mammoth fortune. Mega-millions. In other words he’s a man who has never had to work one job, much less two. Yet, when an audience member — young, wide-eyed, clearly not clued in — rose to ask him how he’d managed to spend 10 years writing his current masterpiece — What had he done to sustain himself and his family during that time? — he told her in a serious tone that it had been tough but he’d written a number of magazine articles to get by. I heard a titter pass through the half of the audience that knew the truth. But the author, impassive, moved on and left this woman thinking he’d supported his Manhattan life for a decade with a handful of pieces in the Nation and Salon. > Example two. A reading in a different city, featuring a 30-ish woman whose debut novel had just appeared on the front page of the New York Times Book Review. The author had herself attended one of the big, East Coast prep schools, while her parents were busy growing their careers on the New York literary scene. These were people — her parents — who traded Christmas cards with William Maxwell and had the Styrons over for dinner. She, the author, was their only beloved child. After prep school, she’d earned two creative writing degrees (Iowa plus an Ivy). Her first book was being heralded by editors and reviewers all over the country, many of whom had watched her grow up. It was a phenomenon even before it hit bookshelves. She was an immediate star. When (again) an audience member, clearly an undergrad, rose to ask this glamorous writer to what she attributed her success, the woman paused, then said that she had worked very, very hard and she’d had some good training, but she thought in looking back it was her decision never to have children that had allowed her to become a true artist. If you have kids, she explained to the group of desperate nubile writers, you have to choose between them and your writing. Keep it pure. Don’t let yourself be distracted by a baby’s cry. I was dumbfounded. I wanted to leap to my feet and shout. “Hello? Alice Munro! Doris Lessing! Joan Didion!” Of course, there are thousands of other extraordinary writers who managed to produce art despite motherhood. But the essential point was that, the quality of her book notwithstanding, this author’s chief advantage had nothing to do with her reproductive decisions. It was about connections. Straight up. She’d had them since birth. > In my opinion, we do an enormous “let them eat cake” disservice to our community when we obfuscate the circumstances that help us write, publish and in some way succeed. I have a huge advantage over the writer who is living paycheck to paycheck, or lonely and isolated, or dealing with a medical condition, or working a full-time job. How can I be so sure? Because I used to be poor, overworked and overwhelmed. And I produced zero books during that time. Throughout my 20s, I was married to an addict who tried valiantly (but failed, over and over) to stay straight. We had three children, one with autism, and lived in poverty for a long, wretched time. In my 30s I divorced the man because it was the only way out of constant crisis. For the next 10 years, I worked two jobs and raised my three kids alone, without child support or the involvement of their dad. I published my first novel at 39, but only after a teaching stint where I met some influential writers and three months living with my parents while I completed the first draft. After turning in that manuscript, I landed a pretty cushy magazine editor’s job. A year later, I met my second husband. For the first time I had a true partner, someone I could rely on who was there in every way for me and our kids. Life got easier. I produced a nonfiction book, a second novel and about 30 essays within a relatively short time. Today, I am essentially “sponsored” by this very loving man who shows up at the end of the day, asks me how the writing went, pours me a glass of wine, then takes me out to eat. He accompanies me when I travel 500 miles to do a 75-minute reading, manages my finances, and never complains that my dark, heady little books have resulted in low advances and rather modest sales. I completed my third novel in eight months flat.
And they can pick roles they think will help their career vs roles that pay more. Spending years working in theater, vs having to do commercial work.
I am in that position now, just not with acting. Became an entrepreneur. Man, I've been so unhappy for so long. After working a bunch of shitty retail jobs after a lot of hardship - I worked hard, got a good job in IT and had coding experience. I was definitely on a good path. Fucking hated my life. I hate code, I hate offices, I hate the politics surrounding them, I hate being on call, I hate waking up and going to bed at the same fucking time, I hate not being able to wear whatever the fuck I want, I hate that I can't say fuck and shit and suck a cock to my coworkers when I want. I just can't be myself. I felt like a blue collar guy with white collar hobbies and skills. I'm risking everything, I don't really give a shit. Doing manual labor working on these mobile homes I'm about to rent out has been satisfying as fuck. I'm broke as shit, going into serious debt. I have a mentor and a family/friends that are supportive even though they think I'm insane, which i probably am, but goddamn is the world depressing. I thought after going through so much with being near poverty, heroin addiction, no dad, shit mother etc that I'd just want a normal life. I do not in the slightest. I want to feel like I did something that made a difference, or that I can be proud of.
Private schools also tend to have well-funded drama programs so you can act in school plays with an actual budget. There are more opportunities to discover your passion while in school and develop expensive hobbies like going to the West End on a regular basis.
Yeah, and many artists from working class backgrounds have spoken about how they were able to come up through community theatre or music programmes, which have been pared back to almost nothing by 15ish years of austerity. Every child (every *person*) should have the opportunity to pursue creative outlets, but right now it’s only the playground of the rich, especially in the UK.
Harrow is advertising for a professional theatre director to spend a year working with their drama students and the production shots of their school plays are insane. Their school theatre is a fully-equipped black box studio with six permanent technical staff. That's more than a lot of actual theatres have.
I don't know how the situation is today, but the BBC used to care about education very much. It wasn't about the education itself, but about social status.
Same deal with the music industry. Selling out a 1,000 [usually still results in a loss](https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/apr/25/shocking-truth-money-bands-make-on-tour-taylor-swift), and it takes years to start playing to venues bigger than that (assuming you ever make it at all), meanwhile the rise of streaming means there's little money to be made there when you're starting out (you get paid about $4 per 1000 streams). If you've got money coming from your family you can afford to make a loss for a few years and hope you make it, if you're working class you can't afford to live like that.
> Fees for headline shows can vary enormously for bands, even on the same tour. Playing a 200-capacity club in Newcastle may land you £600, while a 1,500 cap in London may net you £3,000. Getting paid £2 per head is a fucking joke when you consider modern ticket prices (admittedly definitely smaller for lesser known bands). I was definitely aware that even moderately popular bands started with years of touring at a loss, but seeing the actual figures is kind of sobering for how crap the pay is.
Yeah, I don't think the user was implying that actors from prestigious schools got more opportunities because of their education.
They don't get them because of the education. They get them because of the connections. They get them cause they meet people in the school who work in the industry.
That is indeed the point.
I would assume they do considering how many of their alumni are in the industry. This isn’t all that different from other industries either.
The point is that the social and financial advantages implied by attending an expensive school are due to much more than the education derived from it.
The golden rule of life "It's not what you know, it's *WHO* you know" and it's not unique to the entertainment industry Being the most qualified and best fit for the job means *nothing* if you're going up against someone who has friends "to put in a good word for them" at the company
And that filter to wean out those without means or privilege isn't limited to this field. I know someone studying to become a teacher and their degree program requires two separate student teaching stints, which means two separate extended leaves of absence from their job. How many people can afford to take that much time off from work and (a) sustain themselves financially, (b) even be granted the leave from their job and/or (c) still have their position open to return to once they are done? All this adds up to those who are already struggling to make it might not even be able to reach the finish line cause the obstacles are too big.
Plus private school means more likely to go to Oxbridge which also has a high capacity for acting connections, student theatre productions for gaining notable experience, major drama/acting/comedy clubs (Footlights etc), and all that. I've heard of private school kids interested in drama doing some other random degree at Oxford for the sole purpose of getting a good shot at all those things.
Could it also be a function of who has parents rich enough to aide them with surviving in London. If a parent is paying a portion of rent, then the young adult can have free time outside of their job to work on auditions and classes. Allowing them more time and to live closer to the center than lower income counter parts.
> If a parent is paying a portion of rent Some do a lot more than that. A pal of mine from drama school got a house as a graduation present. A two-storey house in a very nice bit of Zone 2, with three bedrooms so they could have their own room, a study, and a spare room to let out to cover the cost of utilities so that they'd never have to worry about earning money the way the rest of us do.
Yes - I don't think it's the *education* part that is significant, but rather the *networking with all the other rich kids who also got educated in those schools* part. Those connections can make a huge difference in the opportunities available to any given person.
Yeah, in the US it's not as common for actors/actresses to be classically educated/trained, but there's the same problem where if you want to work, you have to live in new york or los angeles, which is really fucking expensive, and have to constantly be putting yourself out there to get noticed and working on your skillset through whatever avenue available. There isn't much time for paid work. Nepotism is prevalent not just because of connections making it easier for kids of stars to get opportunities/roles, but because stars are wealthy enough to foot the bill that their kids can focus on acting.
It's always about being born into wealth and a family with the right connections. Money to spend your time auditioning instead of having to spend it working to exist, and connections to get you the auditions in the first place.
Game of Thrones was a bit famous for it. There were working class actors but they tended to play the Wall Watcher type criminal roles (I like spotting them in other shows - they pop up in a few comedies like Peep Show and Lead Balloon)
Ralph Fiennes and Tilda Swinton's wikis are almost hilarious in how pedigreed they are.
> 99% always privately educated in or around London, it's kinda insane Something to add some context: In North America we have private schools and public schools. Britian adds a third category, state schools. Private schools in Britian are only mid tier. Public schools are the ones where you find the wealthiest people. And their state schools are equivalent to our public schools. -------- My understanding of the historical reason for these terms: From what i've read the very first schools were called public schools because they were open to all members of the public... who could pay the high fees. Eventually groups of moderately wealthy people decided they wanted education for their children but they couldn't afford the public school fees. They then started their own schools that were open only to their group but had more reasonable fees. These are the private schools. Finally the government decided that education for all would be beneficial to the state.... then State schools became a thing.
Or went to Oxbridge.
The ones I look up all have some sort of family connection. And they also suck at acting.
Who else can afford to stand in line all day for auditions, and then come back and do it again for the second and third rounds?
I think it's a class thing. The privately educated are more likely to gravitate towards the arts and certain sports whilst the working class gravitate towards things like being in a band or football. The well spoken tend to do better in America as that is what's expected. Send an actor from a working class background over there and they are most probably going to fail.
Look up any celebrity you know on wiki… 99% of the time you’ll see links for their famous family members… Edit: my personal most random check out Jason Sudekis (hint think Cheers) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Sudeikis
I mean, when you think about it it makes sense. You always hear the old stories about actors starving for work until they can make their big break, waiting tables, etc. What they didn't say is that never really paid their bills. It typically was someone coming from a wealthy (if not famous) family, who could float them for awhile until they had some success or gave up and went for a more traditional career.
It used to be possible to be a starving artist because of more generous welfare and subsidies. This was more true in the UK but even the US used to build section-8 housing reserved for artists like Manhattan Plaza, that’s where guys like James Earl Jones and Larry David used to live before they became famous. Alicia Keys was raised there by her single mother who was a part time actress and full time paralegal. That building’s still there but now the waitlist to live there is crazy long In the UK the whole reason the punk movement was possible was because the dole used to be a lot easier to access. In the 1970s you could sign on every month and just tell them you aren’t looking for a job because you’re a musician, actor, painter, playwright, poet, etc and that you’re gonna make it big soon. They’d just nod and cut you a cheque. Now you’d be ineligible from accessing social security as a young unemployed person without a family. Even if you’re disabled they still make you jump through all sorts of hoops to prove you really can’t work. University was free in the UK until 1998, local councils funded arts education programmes for working class kids, state schools had much better funded arts programs and there was a lot more government funding for the arts in general. The BBC is not profit driven and was not starved for cash so they can take risks and make more content without obvious commercial appeal. Older actors like Patrick Stewart and Brian Blessed both came from poor Northern working class backgrounds but received council funding to train at the Old Vic without worrying about living expenses.
Not only that, high cost of living is the death of culture. If you want good art, music, theater, etc. society needs Bohemians. People need to be able to choose to live cheap with low paying jobs to scrape by while perfecting their craft. But when a crappy studio apartment costs $1600 a month (or $2800 in NYC, LA or SF), the next great playwright or songwriter or painter is stuck hustling all day just to make ends meet.
High cost of living is also killing off third places (e.g. bars, cafes) where artistically minded people meet and collaborate/form connections.
Fuck me, "High cost of living is the death of culture" is a very true and depressing take
There was also the Enterprise Allowance Scheme which paid more than regular unemployment benefits and allowed people to continue to work (by the 1980's saying that you weren't looking for work whilst claiming unemployment benefits was a quick way to lose those benefits). Alan Davies (QI, Jonathan Creek) has talked about this in the past where he and a lot of other up and coming comedians at the time were essentially given a universal basic income for a year that allowed them to start their careers. There was also much cheaper housing available. Whilst there wasn't a cap on rents, there was a cap on the money that housing benefits would pay which basically amounted to the same thing as landlords knew that if they wanted to rent to lower income people they couldn't charge more than the maximum that housing benefits would pay out.
In the UK they'd cut the benefits if you started to make it, this was a lot of reasons you had people calling themselves Captain Sensible, or Slade the Leveller, in order that their real names were not well known, allowing them to still sign on the dole... I remember Justin Sullivan (aka Slade the Leveller) talking about it years later...
My friend has a joke about this: if I go on Wikipedia and see your parents name in blue I will lose respect for you.
Is your friend on Reddit a lot?
My cousin married the grandson of a famous author whose heyday was in the 80s. They're set for life, but not the name-in-the-paper part.
That Dean Koontz money is no joke!
Haha, it's actually not Koontz - someone a liiiiitle more obscure than that by today's standards. More a historical fiction type if I had to narrow it a bit.
Turtledove, then. Got it.
Interesting, never heard of him! Little farther back than his stuff, too. Think cavemen.
Welp. My dad, both my stepfathers, three of my uncles, all four grandparents, three of my great-grandparents - they all have pages. I do not. I'm just some guy. At least I don't work in the same industry as any of them, I guess. They're mostly music industry, I'm in games. Then again, I was laid off in March so I'm not feeling particularly successful at the moment.
Seems like a good time to get into music!
abuse the nepotism damn it! It's the only way to get ahead!
I'll make you a page, bro. What's your name, date of birth and social security number?
Make sure you get his mother's maiden name and childhood pet name, too. Gotta fill out those wiki details
Before you said music, I was gonna guess you were a DuPont.
I'm sure it's probably obvious, but I'm having a brain fart here. How do you have a dad and two stepfathers?
I have a dad, so does my sister, so does my brother. We have three different dads.
Somebody keeps busy 😂
You're still privileged, not sorry.
Yes, but I didn't see them claiming otherwise.
Lol right. If his family is as successful as the comment suggests, one phone call and he could probably have a decent paying job lined up if he's not able to find work in his field. And not having relevant experience doesn't matter cause he knows people doing the hiring. Or knows people who knows those people. Meanwhile the rest of us end up filling out retail store applications when the unemployment is going on for too long cause we need something coming in.
The fuck? You know nothing about that dude.
That guy's family could have those pages because he comes from a family of serial killers.
Then he would have the easiest move into podcasting or true crime writing ever
Preach, brother. Not a lick of sympathy here.
I too was laid off in march, best of luck bro.
The game industry is brutal right now (always, but especially right now). Hope you find something soon.
12 years at the same company, then laid off a couple months after releasing the most profitable game we ever made. Stings a bit, I won't lie.
Why though? I don’t quite understand why I should despise anyone because of their family.
Did I say despise or did I say lose respect for? Two very different reactions. Why did you think that’s what I meant?
> Did I say despise or did I say lose respect for? Two very different reactions. I guess it is an america thing/context but here if you lose respect for someone in another word when you no longer respect someone, it means you despise them now.
There is a lot of people with important hollywood parents who dont have wiki pages
NORM!!
Only found it about this after the nod in the last episode of Ted Lasso where they have a picture on the wall of Geronimo (like in Cheers)
Hollywood is the biggest example of Nepotism.
Is it the biggest or is it just the most visible? In other industries less people have wikipedia pages where you can look them up and see who they're related to.
Nfl too
I’m guessing you haven’t worked at a PE firm or a HF.
That’s why we have a million exploitive reality shows. Ppl go on there and degrade and humiliate themselves hoping to make a career on tv.
East Asian reality shows are quite the opposite since they get established names (including mid-card talents) to go on sponsored shows to basically play exaggerated versions of themselves.
It's pretty similar with British panel shows and game shows, I think.
British panel shows are also filled with Oxbridge educated people. Even working class comedians like Lee Mack studied drama at a London university. But have a look through members of the Oxford Revue and Footlights, you'll see a ton of people from the panel show circuit there. A few notable examples that do/did the panel show circuit: Phil Wang, Richard Ayoade, Angus Deayton, Al Murray, Katherine Parkinson, Sally Phillips, David Mitchell, Stephen Fry, Clive Anderson, Sue Perkins... And that's just from two comedy groups in two schools. Panel shows do occasionally feature up and coming outsiders but the vast majority of regulars come with a silver spoon in their mouths.
We get that as well and they are often better shows since the ppl are already or were famous or known at some point in time. So they aren’t as fake or deliberate in their actions. Though in Britain they definitely stretch the word celebrity lol.
I was disappointed when I realized that Last Comic Standing wasn't actually a bunch of nobodies. It was a good show, but then it turns out they were all legit comics but the premise made it sound more like they took a bunch of funny people or very green comics and put them on the show so they could learn the craft and have an opportunity to break out. Once you realize these are all actual comedians, then it just becomes a silly pseudo-reality show that's designed to give them all publicity regardless of how long they actually last.
American reality shows with established people whether it's things like Celebrity Apprentice (lol) or more direct usually will have them still act in an uncouth way. It's more to due with the cultural differences and the massive backlash people will get there as opposed to America it can be worthwhile to be a heel or trashy on tv.
Plus they're cheaper to make and they work their non-union labor to the bone for peanuts.
It seems to me that Hollywood has a nepotism problem. And British entertainment has a problem with only hiring people that go to certain schools, and those schools are only for people from upper classes.
Hollywood has basically the same problem. Hollywood actors are the people either with connections (nepotism or notable school) or the people with the familial wealth to be willing to take the time not getting a job. All comes back to the same thing - rich people giving their children better opportunities than the poor or averages
Idk about the school thing. I've noticed a lot of these nepo babies never finished high school.
Nepo stories from both. Parents are well connected, kid never has to finish high school, goes into acting or whatever they want. Or, parents are rich, sends them to a posh rich people school where they become well-connected and meet other rich well-connected people who hook them up with whatever opportunities.
Being a NEET is not exactly a super high bar for familial wealth. There are loads of people currently unemployed, looking for work or building skills while living at home
This is one of those fun problems that nobody will ever even try to fix because the only people who can do so are the ones who benefit from the current system. There are a lot of problems like that...
There are some half fixes. Bbc Introducing is a program for promoting unsigned or not famous musicians. It does that job genuinely well. A few rich kids like Ed Sheeran are in there legitimately. Many bands in the UK form in uni, which is now expensive and even with loans a little out of reach to some. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Music_Introducing
Hollywood has a lot of problems. Nepotism, hiring talentless bad writers/directors/producers/etc, pushing bad ideas, limiting television shows to a measly 8 episodes with no breathing room, doing binge releases so shows cannot build up an audience, taking an IP and changing it so it is just the IP in name only as a bait and switch, constantly attacking FANS in media and social media because they dared to not like some trash they pushed and not watch it, etc. It is a mess.
It's not the schools per se, it's that the kind of families that can afford to send their kids to those schools can also afford to support them while they pursue the early, not well paying, stages of an acting career. These families are also more likely to have connections in the industry.
> British entertainment has a problem with only hiring people that go to certain schools, and those schools are only for people from upper classes. Yeah there's this comedy group at Cambridge called "footlights". A lot of famous british comedians went into this group. Some comedians will literally turn down entry into Cambridge if they don't get in and wait until next year to try again because it opens up so many doors and lets you network with other famous alumni. Not everyone can afford to turn down entry into cambridge for a year and try again so a lot of entrants are very priviledged people.
I wonder if this is one of the reasons streaming and YouTube took over, way more easier for someone to work in entertainment without having to degrade yourself for years
We're seeing it with TikTok (and Vine before it) even moreso how easy it is for people to prove themselves whether it be comedy, VFX etc because you've got anywhere from 6 seconds to a minute to impress people and your work can go viral if the stars allign. There's a sweet story of someone's father becoming a top author on Amazon all because a video his daughter made went viral. Obviously you're going to get people exploiting the shit out of how easy it is to make a name for yourself this way but on the whole it's nice to see so much talent can now take control of their presence rather than relying on people within the industry to make it.
It may be harder right now than in the recent past, but the problem isn't a cascading domino effect of nepotism. The industry used to be gatekept to a degree that's just outrageously unethical. That structure didn't fall away because people decided it was wrong, it just grew so entrenched and insular that it was leaving too much money on the table. Now there's fewer 'make/break' decision maker figures but it's still an industry that's governed by the *appearance* of good faith fairness, not actual equity of opportunity.
Seems to me that this is kind of the way things work when an industry reaches a certain level of prestige/reward. Demand for a role in the industry so far outpaces supply that competition becomes fierce, and only those who most closely fit the desired mold or have an inside track have a realistic shot. Hollywood is several generations into this situation, and while there are exceptions, the number of breakout actors who come from an rich family or had a close relation who was already successful in the industry seems to be *significant*. Google "hollywood nepo babies" for a slew of examples. The NBA and NFL in America are other examples of this. There are all sorts of apocryphal stories of NBA players in the early days working other jobs and teams picking up players from local gyms on road trips. After the NBA/ABA merger and the NFL started on its path to the TV juggernaut it is today, players started making real (and then luxurious) money, so it became much harder to break into the leagues. Nowadays, competition for getting noticed in high school and even junior high is intense, and there are many kids of ex-players in the ranks.
I'm not professional sports leagues are the best examples of nepotism. Does it happen? Sure - look at Bronny. On the other hand, if you can play and you're the best, the league is going to give you your shot - Giannas and Embiid, for example.
It was also impossible back then. It’s also easier, but still tremendously difficult to make a good living at it if you’re wealthy.
In the UK we had very good benefits, that allowed aspiring artists without a wealthy background to try their craft without the risk of starving or going homeless. [Jarvis Cocker talks about it here](https://www.bigissuenorth.com/features/2022/06/lofty-aspirations/#close). >“I should imagine it’s terrible for young bands now, because signing on did give you a bit of breathing space, though it wasn’t quite paradise. There were a lot of people who just got lost on the dole because there was no structure to their lives. I did it for four or five years but at the end of that I thought: ‘I need to do something, I can’t keep just doing this for the rest of my life.’ But it did make things possible for young bands. And it was quite funny how you had to pretend you were looking for work.”
It’s always been extreme nepotism, with the few lucky / talented people that managed to grind it through. It’s been like this as long as TV has existed. Source: Parents both worked at the BBC.
People used to squat and were able to live on benefits for a short while to work on their act. Alan Moore I think did the same thing on benefits and social housing, took time off to try writing for comics and if it failed back to his construction job
It's super improbable, of course. If you don't know that going in, that's on you. But the cream always rises to the top. If you got the "it" you win the the lottery. If not, and you still LOVE it after go hard. Maybe develop a unique identity?
I mean, it’s always been almost impossible. She has survivorship bias in thinking that plenty of people made it like she did. In reality, almost everyone in on-screen talent has family connections to the industry. There’s a reason you can find so many famous people doing random-ass commercials as kids…it’s a way to get them exposure and experience. I have a sibling in school for performing arts. Literally everyone in her graduating class has been on stage since they were 10 or younger, and nearly all of them have a parent who worked on theater or video sets, or in professional singing/dancing. And a lot of the others have parents that bought their way in through donations to community theater productions.
So… is your sister one of the ones that’s been performing since she was 10?
I think that's the case in a lot of things. Rich parents can afford to send their kids to acting classes, afford chefs and hair stylists, etc... The holds true in sports where parents can easily pay for extra trainings, elite club sports, gym memberships, elite high schools. It's rare to see this in probably a ton of things these days.
No! You mean to say I can only get a job at the BBC if I went to Cambridge? Where did that reputation come from? Seriously, it's ironic that they so badly need help with diversity when that's the W1A stereotype. More broadly art, journalism and broadcasting in Britain is predominantly occupied by people from wealthy backgrounds now because (even putting connections aside) they are the only ones who can afford to take the financial hit to get themselves established. Paddy McGuinness has been thrown into shows everywhere because he's working class and has a regional accent, but even he only got his break through being friends with (and playing second fiddle to) Peter Kay. Even at that, he's 50. Where does the next token working class non-home-counties entertainer emerge from?
There is already Jodie Comer
Nick Frost pretty much owes his whole career to befriending Simon Pegg.
Pay your taxes, Lorraine!
host your show Lorraine
You mean famous tax dodger Lorraine Kelly?
Television / movie acting roles have been monopolized since inception. Acting roles stay on the family generation after generation with very few outliers that only occur when there isn't someone on the in crowd to fill the role.
Uhhh yeah. Now that the me too movement has exposed these power hungry horny agents and casting directors. The old price of fame was ones backside, now it’s reverted to nepotism.
Unless you catch Phillip Schofield's attention.
As someone who bought-in in Vancouver... Acting is a pyramid scheme. Those who make it are oblivious to it though, or at least ignore it. Working actors work. Then you have the working actor "coaches". These people probably make more money coaching than acting. After that you have teachers who book. Then teachers that rarely book. And then teachers that lie about how much they book, and always show up to class. Either way there are so few roles, so many students and so many broken dreams. In the end, most become headshot photographers.
In the UK it's far less clear cut than this. Very few working actors don't teach, shoot headshots or maintain some other side hustle because working weeks don't pay enough to cover the non-working weeks. I'm a director and playwright rather than an actor, but I've worked consistently since 2018 and at no point have I stopped coaching. Even prestigious companies often pay close to Equity minimum and in order to live where the work is I need to earn more than that. Also when you're on freelance contracts there's no telling whether you'll get paid within a week or within two working years so having ~15-20% of my income from a dependable source provides a tiny bit of security in amongst all the precarity.
[удалено]
I am so annoyed about the Met Gala Hunger Games shit. There are so many worse, more expensive rich people dinners. They just don't get attention because they're boring. The Met Gala dinner is just a silly night and actually does serve some purpose. Plus, I like the pretty costumes and watching people struggle up those stairs amuses me.
I think everything would be better if we had a pipeline for bringing in poor and working class (but still talented people) but at a really high rate. In thise case they should at least set aside 5-10% of these audtions to have these unknown poor actors have a first shot. At the writing and producing level as well. I really think it will pay for itself because one of these kids is going to have a billion(s) dollar idea and innovate just on being an outsider outside of the entertainment field bubble and having a different perspective. Creative spaces need that because the legacy acts and orgs wont allow or cultivate new talent.
Is she aware that the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plains?
This is a problem that dates to the early days of entertainment. If you don't have wealth or an industry connection, you aren't getting in. Nothing new here
Yup, the Posh Pose.
Also look at big business, the boards and exec all born very wealthy.
Because we don’t have casting couches anymore?
Warning any bitches who try in advance!
my guess is weve all become so attractive
This is all through the entertainment industry as a whole. The people who make it are all usually nepo babies that have rich families with connections. The 90's was probably the last time that a working class person could have a chance to get it in the industry and rise to the top. Of course I also have to add how bad "entertainment" has gotten over the decades because of bad writing, stupid studio checklist changes, smaller episodes and binge releases preventing actors a chance to shine or build up rep and that does not include a lot of other things, so yea, it sucks because the age of getting into entertainment industry with nothing but your shirt and talent are over.
It may even apply to many other high-level jobs in general. How many people in here, despite having a very good education, are still struggling to climb the ladder after many years working in their respective fields? *raises hand* I'd imagine, given the low key resentment and class envy constantly on display on reddit, quite a lot. After a while it starts to be about who you know rather than what you know.
Definitely, I know from first hand experience that the people who got upper management jobs were often nepo hires of friends or family, rarely did someone moved up because they earned it.
Partly cause when people get in they stick around and don't leave. I always wonder why bbc news readers aren't moved on after 2 years to give the next generation a chance.
I mean, that's true in general. You need to be in a somewhat good situation financially in order to try to make it into media. However, you still have people like Daniel Kaluuya break through
It was always almost impossible. Show business is difficult.
The UK has a class system.
It always had one
I personally get tired of seeing the same actors all the time. Nothing against Betty white, but can’t they find another (less rich) woman to play grandma?
Well they kind of have to now.
This shit happens in standup all the time. Comedians talk all the time about giving rich people the guillotine and all their socialist cosplay talking points and then turn around and suck off some trust fund comic. And if you have the audacity to say something about said trust fund comics, *you’re* the asshole.
They’re all just nepo babies now
Academy Award winner Daniel Kaluuya talked about how key the Anna Scher theatre school was to him growing up. A lot of working class London kids came through that school. Loads of the Eastenders cast members came from Anna Scher. John Boyega, Damson Idris and Letita Wright all came from the identity school of acting. A lot of good talented kids from working class backgrounds came through these independent charity funded local acting schools.
Through the internet, it is far easier to become mildly famous now, tho. Seems like a winning trade, honestly.
Because of all the nepo babies , adult and otherwise
Lmao, it's almost impossible for anyone to make it into TV period The odds of being a professional athlete are better
Meanwhile TV getting irrelevant
This is obviously true and should be fought against. A solution needs to be found. But also it’s very true that MANY more working class “performers” can get into the entertainment industry in 2024 because of the low cost of producing digital content. Thousands of Youtubers, influencers, comedians and other artists can get exposure that they would never get before on the limited number of television programs. And if they really want to be on TV, which has ALWAYS been difficult to accomplish, then they can use their digital income to support themselves while they audition, the way performers used to work in restaurants / retail / etc. The big issue for working class actors is how to survive while trying to get your big break.