´óÏó´«Ã½

Mr. Sher's comments are understood, but the negative perspective on the matter isn't helping make a difference. It is a fact that movies and media are a prevalent and affordable story-telling medium, as well as occurring as glamorous. The fame and fortune aspect is alluring, but movies and media are simply part of our modern lives. To bemoan it is a waste of energy. There are people who do a good job of accepting what's so and then get on with making a solution. When you see brilliant story-tellers like Dame Judi Dench being interviewed about her James Bond work, she notes how she makes it a mission to hopefully use it to interest young people into the theatres. THAT feels like just the right tactic. She's using the tools she has at her disposal and then putting her all into it to help reignite interest in the theatre. Her positive attitude and approach is EXACTLY the thing that inspires (but she's amazing like that)!! Mr. Sher's concerns just seem to add negativity to the the problem, but aren't actually doing anything to work on it, change it, or even look at the places and moments where it IS working...as this article notes, thankfully!

I love Sir Antony Sher's work. That I have seen at least.

I note "The History Man" is being repeated on a ´óÏó´«Ã½ channel (shown partly is it? - One Hour and a half?)

I still remember it - so will not need to tune in but it is recommended viewing just for the fact the TV screen is often too small a canvas for Sir Antony's work. Scene chewing of a first class kind.

1968 was my only Stratford Upon Avon theatre going experience. I could afford just one play.

Antony Sher makes a point... but there are lots of factors to consider in this argument.

As a graduating drama school student, primarily trained in theatre I would like nothing more than to embark on a succesful theatre career. but the recurring fact that in this day and age, and with such low equity rates for performers particularly in the west end, one has to consider the fact that it is very expensive to live in London, and unless you are a 'name' in a show you are going to be on basic rates, making it very hard to earn a decent living and infact make a living at all.

Take television however. you can potentially earn in one episode what most performers in theatre earn in a year, depending on the role.

In commercials, depending how big the company/commercial, you can expect a rather large payout for such a short time's work. i have just completed a commercial for a company where i earned above 5k for 2 days work including buyouts etc

So weigh up the circumstances. What would you rather do?

I know you aren't supposed to do it for the money, you're supposed to do it for the love of performing, and there's no better buzz than a live audience to perform to, but in this day and age, and considering the current economical climate, if you're offered tv and commercial work over theatre, any sensible performer with a business head is going to take that!

I remember when it was announced that David Tennant was doing Hamlet; one comment I frequently heard was along the lines of here was another t.v. actor trying to get into theatre. Wrong, here was a theatre actor who had success in t.v., and was going back to what he loved best -the theatre. The fact that he was able to parlay his t.v. success and inspire a generation of kids to see Shakespeare is a tremendous credit to him and Patrick Stewart, and all those who remain true to their roots and use their fame to further the love of theatre in us all.

I caught the end of the History Man and loved the memory of what an odious man Kirk was confirmed. Professor?

If he was a role model and could attract the women characters in the cast - maybe I should behave a little more unkindly?

But I do not exactly recall what happens to Antony's character at the end of this series. Something bad I pray. lol

No offence Sir Antony. South African - eh? Respect.

Isla Blair. Wow!