I don't know. I think the British education system is a rising tide that lifts 
all boats. I mean British heavyweight boxer Frank Bruno was more articulate in 
his Letterman appearances than two American presidents of the last 20 years. I 
think Letterman loved to mentally spar with Helena Bonham Carter because she 
was so smart, something he couldn't get from say Jennifer Aniston or Gwinneth 
Paltrow. Look at some of the art school education some of the Beatles got.

⁣Not sent from an iPhone​

On Mar 6, 2018, 9:06 AM, at 9:06 AM, Adam Bowie <a...@adambowie.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:56 AM, 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV <
>tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> I am so friggin' tired of this "Brits have training and Americans
>> canard that I could spit. The MFA programs over here are every bit
>> equal of what's being done at RADA or LAMDA. The accent mesmerizes
>> Americans into thinking they're somehow smarter and better. Sure,
>there are
>> crap American actors (Lawrence being one of them, to bring this
>around to
>> someone who's been discussed), but there are just as many crap
>> actors. I see actors in San Francisco on a  weekly basis who are
>doing work
>> just as good -- or better -- as what I see from London. (This is also
>> something that drives me crazy about the NY Times. There's
>> theatrical work being done all over the country -- particularly in
>> and Los Angeles -- but if it doesn't happen in New York or London, it
>> doesn't exist, as far as the national media are concerned.)
>> As for the sagging ratings for the Oscarcast, I think it's less about
>> actors or the films than it is that (if my students are any
>indicator) "the
>> kids today" just don't care about it. I ask my class every Monday if
>> did anything exciting, saw any movies or television shows they liked,
>> they almost never have gone to the movies or watched anything (and
>> certainly nothing on the networks). They didn't watch the Olympics,
>> didn't watch the Oscars, and most of them haven't even seen "Black
>> I don't know what the model for media consumption is going to be for
>> generation, but it's obvious that the old one is (or should be) on
>> support.
>I tend to agree that it's either snobbery or being blinded by an
>There are some excellent state-supported initiatives in Britain like
>National Theatre (where I recently saw a superb Bryan Cranston in a
>production of Network - the 1976 movie. It's very timely!) or the Royal
>Shakespeare Company. But it's not like US cities don't have their own
>strong local theatre companies.
>There are good drama schools and there are bad drama schools in both
>the US
>and the UK. Depending on your age, you may go straight into TV/film
>without doing theatre, or it's your only option until some casting
>somewhere puts you in a TV show.
>When there was something of a burst of TV roles being snapped up by
>actors, I remember one suggestion was that Brits were just cheaper. And
>there simply aren't opportunities outside of soap operas, to get year
>employment on a show. Of course the TV landscape is changing, and you
>be cast in The Crown and shoot in London for a US company. Meanwhile 24
>episode series seem from a bygone era, and anything worth watching is
>probably a much more limited series.
>I suspect that there are a whole bunch of reasons why audiences are not
>watching the Oscars as much as they did:
>TV is just in decline as everyone else has said.
>The movie industry itself is to blame. Very broadly, it makes massive
>blockbuster superhero or action films that are never likely to win
>outside of the technical categories, and never would have won in the
>either (films like ET notwithstanding). And then it makes much smaller
>films that can be critically garlanded but are seen by relatively few.
>mid ground, where most Oscars used to come from has just gone away - in
>most part to premium TV. You *can* make big-budget films that are up
>Oscars - Dunkirk is a good example of that. But I've yet to see a
>film that is truly worthy of a "Best Picture" nomination.
>I don't buy the idea that there are no more stars. Jennifer Lawrence
>(who I
>think is actually pretty decent), Dwayne Johnson, Tom Cruise (still),
>Hanks, Chris Pratt, Emma Watson, Robert Downey Jr, Scarlett
>There are loads. I'm not saying that casting a star guarantees box
>because we have the internet, and people discover pretty quickly how
>or bad a film is - I'm sure it's word of mouth on social rather than
>Rotten Tomatoes website that *really* makes the difference
>And yes, you can cast an unknown as a superhero or a Star Wars
>and still have success - but that's partly the nature of those films,
>in any case, you tend to make them stars.
>And people do still care about stars. Supermarket tabloids may be in
>decline, but the UK's most embarrassing export is the Mail Online
>which is basically built around star gossip and pictures. It's just
>online. Stars have Instagram accounts.
>As someone who *does* watch films quite a bit, and had seen 8 of the 10
>the Best Picture category, I don't feel the need to watch the Oscars or
>BAFTAs. I'll read online who won, maybe watch some clips on a newscast
>move on.
>I don't know what the future is - but I do know it's dis-aggregated.
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to