When did actors lose their bad social status?

[CRSP]

When did it cease to be a scandal for a man or woman of good social stature to be in the company of actors? If my understanding is correct, the Victorians saw actors as an underclass, so presumably sometime after the nineteenth century, but when, exactly? Also, was it all actors who were viewed that way? Did the Victorians view Shakespearean actors in the same manner as those playing in music halls?

[tunaman]

Well, as I understand it, actresses were woefully underpaid until "modern" times, so they often turned tricks to pay the bills. Plus, many of the women that came to be actresses had often left home due to pregnancy out of wedlock, etc. so there was a social stigma there too.

Male actors were subject to the same stigma, but much less so, because men could easily get "day jobs", and a single man living by himself in London didn't have the same "what did you do to end up alone here?" stigma that women faced.

There are several old British jokes involving actresses and bishops\professors\other people of high standing - note that there aren't the same jokes about actors (that I've ever heard).

[Batman]

I think it was with the advent of cinema.

The wider exposure lead to many artists reaching celebrity status. Add to that the fact that movies tend to favor looks more often than theater and you quickly see the stigma of acting lose its edge. Some people are just too pretty to hate.

[Elyanna]

It did not happen with a single event; it sounds like it was a slow change over centuries.

The church frowned upon actors from at least medieval times onward; this book from the 1860s says that in France of the 17th/18th century, "their burial was as the burial of a dog" if they did not "repent" of their profession (348). It claims that Voltaire (in the 18th century) had done much for the civil rights of actors, through poetry and "reasoning," though so far I cannot find any specific writings.

Here we go, here's something referring to the mid-19th century:

"Prominent persons in society, politics, and literature went out of their way to entertain leading members of the acting profession, while lesser actors seemed to have no trouble fitting into middle-class America. The memoirs of theatrical people like Wood, Ludlow, Smith, or William Warren gave no suggestion of social ostracism. On the contrary, once established in their profession, they became solid and respected citizens. Of course, to some extend their background, to a greater degree their modest salaries, limited actors' social success. But if actors succeeded, lived decently, and, perhaps most important, made money, they were socially accepted."

[Zuul]

One thing that occurs to me is that actors still don't have a terribly desirable public image. Tabloids can make nearly any crazy claim about actors and people will believe them. Drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, violent rages, etc. The reason that all of that doesn't count that strongly against them, though, and makes them objects of desire instead of disgust is because of wealth. The money of the top echelon of actors has sort of granted all thespians with a veneer of acceptability. As film made movie stars, it also made movie stars wealthy. And wealthy people can't have an entirely bad social status.

[ivan astikov]

Actors sell us lies, no wonder they had a bad image. Now their lies are accepted as entertainment.

[sublight]

When you go see a play in Boston, then go see the same play in London, most likely you'll be seeing a completely different set of actors in the same roles. What draws people is more likely to be the play itself. While a skilled stage actor may become locally noteworthy, nobody elsewhere will see them unless they travel to another city to perform, limiting the limiting the degree of popularity they can achieve, and consequently limiting their earning potential and social status (because outside a dwindling aristocracy, your wealth is your social status, although I agree with Caerie's point).

Movies changed this by putting the same actors on display in every theater simultaneously, making it easier for an actor to gain widespread fame. They also concentrated the revenue flow to a much smaller group making a few actors much wealthier.

[jimmmy]

Movies changed this by putting the same actors on display in every theater simultaneously, making it easier for an actor to gain widespread fame. They also concentrated the revenue flow to a much smaller group making a few actors much wealthier.

I agree with this and would flesh out that they can now play everywhere all the time - everyone in Omaha, Bumf&ck IA, smalltown MT, that had a theater saw these actors. It is also a different media & it strikes/especially in its early years people as hip and today and exciting & it made "stars" and celebrities of folks that used to be reprobates.