Insider View - Actors Vs. Non Actors

Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel in Mean Streets

Shane loves them. Ken Loach adores them. Vito Rocco is filling his entire film with the fame thirsty blighters. Is using non-actors really a good idea? Insider View takes a long hard look in the make up mirror.

Comment on this feature >

Actors
They can act. Rule number one. They understand the task is to portray a character, not become one. Good actors shape and mould their character so it fits seamlessly into the story. Non-actors will just give you themselves, so when the part requires a mental breakdown; it's you who'll be picking up the therapy tab for years to come.

All actors have star quality. Not necessarily the wattage of Tom Cruise or even Cruise's brother William Mapother, who's in LOST, but a quality that gets them into drama school, gets them an agent and gets them recognised on a daily basis for what they do. All a non-actor usually has had to do is spin some far-fetched story about their personal life and all the producers will be using phrases like authentic and force of nature.

An actor generally won't slag you off in the press for the terrible film you have made/for making a drunken pass at them at the wrap party. This is because they expect to have something to groan about and/or they want to work again. Your average non professional will of course get drunk at the press conference and become determined to save the film business from itself with their new found insight.

Actors have agents. Okay, you can moan long and loud about how your film is getting torpedoed by a failed actor who has reinvented themselves as Gordon Gekko - wait till you have to deal with the family's 'trusted solicitor'; some dipso brief with a shaky conveyencing practise, or - God forbid - the parents themselves. You'll be building the Winnebago yourself before you can say, 'A point of producer's gross? No problem'.