SURVEY: Would you rather be an untalented STAR, or a brilliant but UNKNOWN actor?
September 2, 2010 By 3 Comments
Kipley Wentz is the owner and editor of ActorsLife.com and Ballet2Broadway.com. An award-winning actor and filmmaker, Kipley's showbiz experience spans more than 25 years of theater, film, television, improv, and children's entertainment. He holds a BFA in Theater from the University of Southern California and earned a certificate in Multimedia Production from New York University.
I don’t care about being a star, but if I am going to be a brilliant actor but unknown actor, I want to qualify that with being a ‘working’ actor who is brilliant and unknown. Known by the theatre community as someone they want to hire.
but unknown to the world at large as a ‘star’. I am ok with THAT. 
No fence straddling, Kristin – None of this “working but not a star” business. If you’re getting hired because you’re brilliant, then you’re not unknown. In fact, that would describe most of my friends – talented actors who work consistently but are not stars.
No, this is an “all or nothing” scenario. You cannot have what anyone would consider a career as an actor. You’d have to be, like… doing a solo show for five people in a church basement in Saskatchewan. Or performing Shakespeare in your living room for a couple of friends.
You’d be a brilliant actor, but it would never lead to a successful career. Or you can be a rich and famous star, working all the time, but utterly devoid of talent.
The quandary I have with the question is where the line is drawn. At a certain point, you can be only so obscure or unknown because an actor must perform for an audience. If you can’t build up an audience, can you be considered brilliant?
Since most actors are between jobs, success is just out of reach. Elizabeth Marvel was recently profiled in the Sunday New York Times about how most people don’t know her but that she’s amazing. Is she famous and successful? I’d say yes but not compared to Jennifer Anniston, who at one point in recent history was the most recognizable celebrity in the world. And one can argue Ms. Anniston’s level of success at this point.
If then one is only brilliant in one’s own mind, does that count? I’ve met lots of teens in my time as a teaching artist who are convinced they will be famous on film or in music without ever actually trying their hand at it. They will just be found. I’ve known lots of good actors who were big in their hometown because they was little competition who would shrivel up in a bigger market.
There are several other in between places besides the two provided in this survey question. The problem is the territory now is such that one must be famous enough to work regularly. While I clicked the brilliant but obscure option on the survey, the truth is I’d rather be brilliant but successful. And while I’m at it, I’d rather become that way through doing a solo show or plays I care about with other folks who are brilliant but almost successful in a plucky downtown venue. The reality is that’s probably only slightly less delusional than just being brilliant in my own mind.