My response to Alvin Tan's piece on acting

Hi all, my pal Alvin Tan has recently posted a piece on Facebook about acting and I thought I'd share it with you guys here. I promised him a response on my blog, so I am going to have to reproduce the article point by point and respond to each point. Whilst Alvin did raise some very valid points, he is also too optimistic about the experience of real actors. Alvin's words will be red front, my responses will be in black. So, let's talk about acting as a profession!

A photo from my rehearsals this week.

"I've decided that acting is the best career. Why? Because:

1) Acting has the best wages: working hours ratio.

Best-case scenario: make 1 - 2 movies a year, get paid hundreds of thousands to millions per role which really only requires a few weeks for shooting (and months of other preparations, which can be fun). Take the rest of the year off doing whatever the hell you want without the social stigma of being an unemployed loser. You'd be an actor on sabbatical, not some jobless bum."

Verdict: Overly optimistic, I'm afraid. Okay he did qualify it and described it is a best-case scenario and that may well be the case for George Clooney, Hugh Grant, Brad Pitt, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman and other super famous big stars. And of course, if you are such a huge megastar, then sure that is the case. But the vast majority of actors never achieve that kind of fame: for every one huge star like Jackie Chan, there are thousands, even millions of struggling actors who spend so much time and money trying to make it in the industry and then failing. They spend most of the year struggling, not spending their (non-existent) fortune. Think about a big movie like a James Bond film: there are so many minor roles which are played by actors who will never be hugely famous and are not paid millions - but still, they are doing what they enjoy for a living and really, it is hard to put a figure on that kind of joy and job satisfaction.

There are actors like me who get by, I'm not a failure, I am not a megastar - I do get to act fairly frequently in a variety of roles throughout the year and I do get paid for the work I do. I don't get paid millions for the work I do - but I do get my hands on several lucrative contracts a year. When I do work, I get paid decently, reflecting the fact that I do indeed do a very skilled job. When I don't act, I do other kinds of work (in my case, in finance). But does the fact that I am not a super famous megastar bother me? No, because I think I'm already very lucky to be paid to do something I really enjoy - which is such a blessing. And I am a very realistic person as well - I've done jobs I've hated for the money and it took me years of going through that in an office to realize the importance of pursuing one's dreams.

2) Theoretically, actors can remain relevant forever.

Corporate workers are forced to retire and given a gold watch at 60, singers become obsolete over time (e.g. imagine Paul McCartney releasing an album now, nobody would care, and does anyone even know that the Backstreet Boys released a new album last year?), athletes become irrelevant once they retire in their 30s (i.e. Pele who? Michael Jordan who? Carl Lewis who?), and any other profession requiring physical dexterity (e.g. pilot, engineer, farmer) also has a limited lifespan. Then we have acting. Look at Sean Connery -- he old as fuck, still acting. Anthony Hopkins? Still playing make believe. Robert De Niro? Still fucking around on set. I could go on all day: Dustin Hoffman, Michael Caine, Christopher Plummer, Julie Andrews, Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin, Morgan Freeman, Clint Eastwood, and don't forget Arnold and Sly who are still doing action movies in their LATE 60s.

British superstar Daniel Craig

Verdict: Mostly true - but then again, I would qualify it: the ability of these older actors to continue getting work is dependent on them having the skills to have made it in the first place. Whether you are old or young, you need to be a talented skilled actor in the first place to be able to get acting work. But fair enough, this is mostly true and I have met some older actors before who have been around since the 1960s and it's amazing hearing their stories.

3) Theoretically, it's non-discriminatory; there's a role for everyone.

Fat? Yup, there's a role for that. Short? Oh yeah. Gigantic? No doubt. Asian? That too. One-armed? Yup, they need that. Old as dirt? God damn, yes. Dead? Probably yes, too. Contrast acting to, say, politics, which is one of the most discriminatory professions out there, if you can even call it a profession.

Someone has got to play the loser geek too...

Verdict: Totally True - I actually have met a really scary looking actress before. She is fat, has bad teeth, unkempt hair, looks like a she is fresh out of jail and she is always acting all the parts like crack whore, the thief who gets dragged off by the police, the drunk who gets in a bar fight, the shoplifter, you get the idea - someone has got to play those parts and you can't get this slim, beautiful 24 year old blond supermodel with perfect teeth to look convincing as a single mother on spending her dole money on drugs instead of feeding her baby. 

As a Chinese actor in London, I benefit from positive discrimination. There if there is cast of 10, there will always be an older character, a gay/lesbian character, a black character, a disabled character, a fat character, a Muslim (or any other non-Christian religion) character and an Asian character. Sometimes, you can tick most of these boxes with one character: meet Sunita: she is a Hindu, Indian, a lesbian, fat and deaf. There are only so many Chinese actors in London so the work to actor ratio actually works in my favour - I would have a much tougher time in Shanghai or HK.

Would I be considered for kungfu fighting roles in China? No way!

4) The cool/wow/recognition/fame factor is very high with acting.

Being on big screens and red carpets make people famous: they're admired, respected, and loved by millions for not really doing that much, really. There are a ton of other professions out there that also require tremendous toil and talent, but they never receive the same credit for it: authors, doctors, lawyers, bankers, CEOs, startup founders who CHANGE THE WORLD, and, hell, even movie directors. Most people actually look for more than just money from their careers; recognition is another often-overlooked criterion. Most talented and hardworking people already feel under-respected, under-admired, and under-publicised for the work that they produce. Why do you think tycoons like Richard Branson and Donald Trump do all sorts of dumb shit to get noticed, even though they're already billionaires? Because they don't want to be obscure like Mukesh Ambani, Carlos Slim Helu, Larry Ellison, Tim Cook, etc. They want credit where it's due. Part of the reason that I don't want to dabble in startups anymore is that nobody really gives a shit what you achieve (if any to begin with, LOL), which really suppresses your ability to gain job fulfilment. Don't believe me? Pop quiz: who's Jack Dorsey? Steve Chen? Elon fucking Musk? QED.

Verdict: Mostly true but it is fleeting. I have experienced this first hand - I have had my 15 minutes of fame when I do a big part and then I get stopped in the supermarket when people recognize me off the TV. But it is fleeting. Sure there are the super big megastars who will be famous until they die and be remembered for a long time after that (Bruce Lee, Fred Astaire, John Wayne, Audrey Hepburn, James Dean etc) - but many actors who have done big parts don't actually enjoy more than their 15 minutes of fame. I do remember a former JC classmate of mine getting a big part in an American film (this was back in the late 1990s) and the Singaporean press got so excited about the local girl who may go on to great things in Hollywood. Guess what? She was a one-hit wonder, she followed it up with a few small parts here and there but never ever played lead again. She has long given up on acting and has no more than a few press clippings and a DVD to remind her of her 15 minutes of fame. Go on, if you were in Singapore in the late 1990s, can you even remember her name? And even if I did give you her name, you'd be like, "What?  Sorry, who is that?"

Steph Micayle: controversy = PR, it works.

What's the big deal with mass recognition? It opens up a lot of doors in life. Women want you to have their babies. Friends consider it a privilege to hang out with you. Sponsors want to pay you money for saying stupid slogans and appearing on their billboard ads. People listen to you in general, even though you might be spouting rubbish. That's power right there.

Verdict: True but it only works like that if you're a super star George Clooney or Brad Pitt. Most actors don't enjoy that kind of privilege even if they have done loads of acting work.I have appeared in plenty of ads (36 to be precise) and they have been lucrative work sure, but it was never because I was a famous celebrity, but it was simply because as an actor, I could play the character they needed to promote the product. Yup, that's called 'acting' - it is what I do.

5) Acting is fun and creative as fuck.

This is not a bullshit pseudo-fun profession, e.g. accountants who claim that their job is "challenging" and "rewarding". This is legitimate enjoyment where so many people already do it for free. I don't think any other job offers more variety than acting, not even sports and singing. You get to play different roles, do different stunts, travel all around the world, learn new skills, work with new people all the time, and you're never sedentary. Best of all, you're using your left brain. It's a well-known fact that any "good" job has to be a creative job, otherwise mind numbness sets in, and you feel like hanging yourself.

Verdict: Half true half false: firstly, yes acting is fun compared to most jobs, but it is anything but creative! If anything, most actors do not get to express their creativity at all when acting. Firstly, yes it is a fun profession in that you get to do different roles, travel to exotic locations, work with interesting people, immerse yourself in a character that is completely different from yourself - but as an actor, I have had the misfortune of having worked with difficult, demanding directors who make your life difficult. I was once in a play where I was so pissed off I nearly quit before the production was over - I did not get along with the director, I hated some of the cast, I even hated some of the crew. So whilst it often is fun, there is no guarantee that you will like everyone you work with - you just hope for the best each time. 

It is mostly fun, but sometimes you have to work with difficult people.

But it is not creative at all most of the time - there is a script and you get no say whatsoever in the script, you cannot say, "oh I have come up with new lines for today's scene." Hell no. You do whatever you're told to do, if the director asks you to do it a certain way, you jolly well follow the instructions and do what is requested of you. If you want to be creative, then you need to be a director then you can call the shots and tell the actors what you want them to do or say. Or you can be a writer and you get to decide what the lines are. Few actors actually get to be creative - you have to be a pretty big star to do what Rowan Atkinson did with Mr Bean: he created that character and had full creative control over the series as it was his brainchild. Now that's an example of creativity - few actors actually get to do that in reality. 

The only downside I can think of is that paid work is usually very hard to get; getting your foot in the door for acting is practically impossible. But once you're there, you'd do okay so long as you don't screw up. Look at Seth Rogen: mediocre dude, gets on screen over and over again.

Anyone can think of any profession better than acting?

Just another day in the office for me in Belgium

Verdict: Totally true - it is very hard to get into it. But I think it's one thing to get into the industry, but there's no such thing as the 'big break' - it doesn't work like that. Remember my former JC classmate who got herself that big part in an American film? She didn't "screw up" - it's not like she got involved in some scandal or anything like that, no - she merely faded into obscurity and got forgotten because she failed to do anything after that to capture the public's attention. It was her inability to market herself and keep herself in the headlines that screwed her up - by doing too little, she was too bland and was quickly forgotten. Do not underestimate the challenge of actors trying to constantly stay employed - I know of plenty of actors who have done big roles in the past but have faded into obscurity.You need to be a super big star like Hugh Grant or Daniel Craig if you want to be guaranteed a steady stream of well paid work for the rest of your life - it's easy for Alvin Tan to focus on the celebrities, but they only represent a small minority of all working actors out there. I feel it is necessary to look at the bigger picture and not just focus on the celebrities. 

There are plenty of downsides to acting that makes it a poor choice for most people - you have to have that burning passion to perform and act, that's why people enter acting. It is not for fame, money or fun - it is simply when you have this burning desire to perform. If that is the thing you want to do the most, if acting is what will make you most happy, then that's the only reason why you should pursue it. As for other professions, as long as it makes you happy, then it is a good choice for you. Acting may be a great career for some people, but it may not be right for others. 

So there you go, that's my response to my friend Alvin. If you have any other thoughts on actors or this career path, or perhaps you have more questions on acting, please feel free to leave a comment below. Many thanks for reading!