32
Would you consider actors to be working class? (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/askchapo@hexbear.net
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Like on principle, I know that the writer’s and actor’s guild and union shit is all good. I don’t think all the success from a movie or show should go 100% to the company, but it still feels weird saying that a Hollywood actor is working class.

What do y’all think? Am I just being a dumbass?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 week ago (1 child)

This is absolutely the right take. Major (A-list or superstar) actors are getting most of their pay from studio ownership, executive producer credits, residuals, licensing, or royalties. That ain't working class.

I'm fine considering small-time actors (and even many mid-level character actors without any real "leverage") working class, though. I think the replaceability criterion you mentioned is a good heuristic: if an actor could be fired and replaced without it changing the marketing, success, and appeal of the project, that's a sign they may be working class.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    Thanks! I agree although I would make the replaceability concept even stronger, promoting it from heuristic to definition. My reason is that the proletariat is defined by the fact that the commodity they sell is not objectified labor, not a finished commodity, but labor power, the potential to labor. A movie star sells not labor power but a different commodity, their brand. The question of who is proletarian can be simply answered by which commodity they sell. Awoo made the good point that these actors might be called artisans, who sell finished commodities rather than labor power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent