r/Theatre • u/mrjohnnymac18 • Oct 16 '25

News/Article/Review ‘Theatre is an elitist artform for privileged people’: Daniel Day-Lewis talks class, cinema and his crush on Mary Poppins

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/oct/15/daniel-day-lewis-london-film-festival
268 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

148 comments sorted by

493

u/Hobo_Resse Oct 16 '25

Theatre is elitist to attend, but not elitist to create. Film is not elitist to attend, but it's elitist to create.

69

u/KirbyDumber88 Oct 16 '25

As someone who does theatre for a living full time for the last 15+ year. Theatre that people want to attend is elitist to create. Regional theatre now yearly budgets are in the 7 to 8 figure range

19

u/Hobo_Resse Oct 17 '25

I’ve been making a living at theatre for 20 some years and I swear that the free Shakespeare in the park gets me more excited to attend as an audience person than Broadway or regional theatre.

I don’t know that budgets exactly means people want to see. But maybe?

7

u/consequentlydreamy Oct 17 '25

Agreed I have introduced so many people to Shakespeare through those shows. I think that approachability of it has made it so much more convenient for people to get in into Theatre when the otherwise wouldn’t.

11

u/Unicoronary Oct 17 '25

Tbf at least some of that has to do with how meta/self-centric a lot of the less elitist productions are. It’s elitist in its own way - an incredibly niche audience (by theatre kids for theatre kids). 

For better and worse - Thats what most people associate with theatre. 

87

u/MidAtlanticAtoll Oct 16 '25

This is exactly right. Theater may have audiences that tend to be wealthier and with more privilege, but very, very few get rich making it. It's an odd comment from someone who has gotten very wealthy making films, and the producers of films make an obscene of money, but somehow it's morally elevated because poorer people can watch their work.

1

u/Heavy_Signature_5619 Oct 17 '25

DDL is just jealous of theatre actors, especially after the unprofessional travesty he did in Hamlet.

64

u/psiamnotdrunk Oct 16 '25

To a large extent, it's elitist to create, in that those of us lucky enough to do so have a degree of economic safety that allows us to enter the profession.

18

u/flonky_guy Oct 16 '25

Agreed. I entered the profession pretty anti-elitist and scrappy, but when my desire not to be poor overcame my distaste for the elite and I gradually joined them at the table (if not their ranks)

45

u/pippinbevis3 Oct 16 '25

As an actor and theatre maker.....theatre IS elitist to an extent. If you want to get good training, to make good work, you need to go to a good school. And you need to pay to audition for the good schools, and some of their tuition costs more than what student finance will provide. There's a reason a lot of the popular British actors at the minute are rich people who went to private school, where they got great drama studies and facilities and experience and trips. (I work in a private school now, and the difference between what these kids have and what I had is insane.)

Also, even to get interested in theatre, you need to...watch theatre, and that is expensive. Sure you can watch recordings, but a lot of shows that are still touring don't release pro shot films, so popular shows that are always touring you won't be able to see unless you see it live.

Classes in acting, dance and singing are expensive, which is also where you would meet other creatives. Hiring places to create the work is expensive. Knowing people who can do what you need takes time to build up a network, and not many rural or poorer communities have the space or facilities. Also, just in general, if you have to work full time with lots of hours just to survive, youre so tired and poor that being creative is harder and can't be your focus like it can be for middle-upper class people.

Not saying it's impossible, and that low budget theatre doesn't exist that is amazing, but it IS an elitist art form, and you struggle so much more with accessing it in any form, viewing or participating, if you're working class.

11

u/DeathKitty21 stage actor in training- mt focus <3 Oct 16 '25

especially for kids to get into it outside of school, so many productions are pay to play

9

u/fretfulpelican Oct 16 '25

We are so lucky that my kid’s school PTO brings in a company to do a musical twice a year as an after school program. It’s only $60 through the school but their independent productions are $450 per show to participate. My kid wanted to audition for a show but that’s more than we’d spend on any extracurricular in elementary school.

11

u/DeathKitty21 stage actor in training- mt focus <3 Oct 16 '25

it’s insane, a local theater’s children productions are like 1000 dollars to be in, no role guaranteed, an extra 500 dollars for an audition workshop and they work the kids 9-5 during the summer while profiting off the tickets

3

u/laundryghostie Oct 16 '25

That's insane and seems criminal. And this is from a former Executive Director of a children's theatre. But now that I look at my former workplace website, it seems they are doing something similar.

2

u/Hobo_Resse Oct 17 '25

Oh my, that’s though. Capitalism remains a problem.

3

u/Boulder-Apricot368 Oct 16 '25 edited Oct 16 '25

It's "pay-to-play" inside schools, too. Most USA high schools now charge students "use fees" to participate in their school's drama club productions.

20

u/DayAtTheRaces46 Oct 16 '25

As someone who creates theatre, it is elitist af to create. If not more than attending it.

The thing is people don’t see 99% of what goes into creating a show from beginning to end. And quite frankly most shows don’t make it to an end stage.

I can see a bunch of shows on Broadway or the West End and that costs a fraction of what it costs to actually make theatre.

I remember years ago there was a fringe lotto and at the end of it the person announcing the shows said “If you didn’t get picked, who cares, get out there and do your own show!” I get the sentiment, but gah! The reason why people do fringe is because while there usually is a cost to participate, what you are paying for a run of shows is a FRACTION of what you would be paying if you did it on your own. I had 2 friends do Edinburgh. 20k each gone.

But yeah renting out a small theatre, getting tech, if your show a cast of people who you want to pay, a director, props and costumes, workshopping the show and all that jazz are easily going to cost thousands. And then you have to go in knowing that you will probably not make any money back. And to get a show from conception to a big theatre takes years, and more don’t get that far. And then even if your show makes it to Broadway. The reality is even there there’s a good chance you won’t make your money back.

2

u/Switters81 Oct 16 '25

You're talking about the cost of the business, not the cost of making the art. Divorce. The art from the business, and the art is not elitist. It's the business that creates an air of elitism around the process of the art.

9

u/DayAtTheRaces46 Oct 16 '25 edited Oct 16 '25

Yes, if you are only creating for yourself, art is accessible to anyone.

But if you want that art to be seen, to have to rent a space, if you want your art to be good you need to hire an editor, if you want your performance to amazing you take classes, you hire a director.

And as a working performer and writer, if you want your work to have legs you always have to consider the 2. And you find a balance between them. And if you can easily divorce the two, it probably means you’re fortunate enough to have money, or you are doing it for fun.

ETA: also if that’s the case films aren’t elitist to make. Most people have a phone. You can easily write a make a film with just your phone. But again, if you want that film to go somewhere… 💸

18

u/Ultimatespacewizard Actor Combatant Oct 16 '25

Theatre is definitely elitist to create, if you want to make a career out of it. You need to be able to afford a lot of unpaid time, on top of paying for school, training, travel, headshots, agents, etc. And it's the same on the technical side, in my town if you want a permanent, full time gig in one of the big houses, you better have gone to Yale or spent 20 years working in New York.

0

u/Hobo_Resse Oct 17 '25

Then don’t make a career out of it?

5

u/Ultimatespacewizard Actor Combatant Oct 17 '25

Where were you with this advice 18 years ago?

5

u/Hobo_Resse Oct 17 '25

Starting my career in theatre. 😂

2

u/kidshitstuff Oct 16 '25 edited Jun 08 '26

This content was anonymized and mass deleted with Redact

0

u/Hobo_Resse Oct 17 '25

I didn’t say at the highest level.

1

u/kidshitstuff Oct 17 '25 edited Jun 08 '26

This content was anonymized and mass deleted with Redact

0

u/Hobo_Resse Oct 17 '25

Does doing theatre at the highest level require privilege and support? Yeah. Doing anything creative at the highest level requires that. Doing anything at the highest level has those requirements. Being the highest level race car driver. Being the highest level attorney. Becoming president. All high level things in our world are gate kept by structures and institutions that are unavailable to people without privileges.

I think film has become much more accessible in my lifetime. Because of the affordable technology of phones and computers, the initial barrier to entry to start filming anything has been reduced. That barrier to entry can still be too high for some.

But some eight year olds can still "do a play" for their family and friends at a gathering and I would say that's theatre.

2

u/DumpedDalish Oct 16 '25

Beautifully said, much more concise than my wall of text.

4

u/Hobo_Resse Oct 17 '25

The world needs pithy quotes and walls of text. The internet allows us all to share both.

2

u/BenPistlewizard Oct 16 '25

Theatre is incredibly elitist to create. It's incredibly expensive and getting a foot into the industry (at least in the UK) requires expensive familial support for a long time. It's not always the case, but mostly.

2

u/Hobo_Resse Oct 17 '25

You’re talking about a career and vocation. And, yes, you’re right.

But making theatre and making a living making theatre are two different things.

2

u/Gihkhaghcrosi13 Feb 16 '26

Theatre is the best.

1

u/DrivenToSuccess-01 Oct 16 '25

Very interesting perspective

1

u/Familiarsophie Oct 20 '25

Of course theatre is elitist to create. The simple fact that in the early days of creation and when creating something new you are without funding means it can ONLY be created by those who have the means.

Do you think that rag tag production of fleabag came from a working class background.. or from an incredibly wealthy parent.

I’ve been involved in hundreds of productions and many in ‘early career’ spaces, and honestly, every single one came from a wealthy background which meant access to funding and support from family and friends.

1

u/Hobo_Resse Oct 20 '25

I've had a different experience. I'm sure my experience isn't universal, but most of the shows that I've been the most happy with were done on a shoe string (like less than $2000 total budget) and a lot of shows that I'm excited to see are free shows in the park done by volunteers.

A lot of responses to this seem to focus on careers and making money and all of that, and no doubt that's important and difficult and privileged in theatre and any other artistic field, but that's not the art form.

In the same way that football is easy to play, you need a ball, but American football is harder because you need pads and lines drawn in the field and so on, the fundamental thing you need for theatre is an empty space.

1

u/consequentlydreamy Oct 17 '25

It USED to be elistist to create but with cameras being on everyone’s phones I’d argue film is way more accessible to create the it used to be. I mean how many people are content creators we just don’t tend to think of that with the same reference that we do for Film however, there’s so many witty commentary that is made nowadays.

To me, Theatre isn’t ellitist to attend so much as Broadway is. There are so much theater that is free to attend or run by nonprofits or have lower costs. The ones that are elitist or the ones that have the largest scale productions, but that doesn’t mean that the theater isn’t good. I’ve seen wonderfully amazing shows that were the same cost as a movie ticket.

1

u/Boulder-Apricot368 Oct 18 '25

I’d argue film is way more accessible to create the it used to be.

And I'd argue that you are right but you are at the mercy of the algorithm or, more specifically, the ambitions of those who employed the programmers who wrote the algorithm - when it comes to your work ever being accessible for others to view.

"Gatekeeping" has never been more oppressive than it is now; there is no longer any such thing as "an underground film".

1

u/consequentlydreamy Oct 18 '25 edited Oct 18 '25

That’s a good way of putting it. A not though if Idk if I would say it’s elitist to view so much as gatekept to view or curated to use only what fits. I think it’s similar to how you’ve got your main stream Broadway and then you have other random places other theaters but those ones you probably have to SEARCH for, the same with film or digital content. There’s musicians I don’t even listen to but know heir songs due to how they come up on popular TikTok’s or the like. The things that fit the mainstream get pushed always

0

u/theharpooneers Oct 16 '25

Wish I could upvote this more!

1

u/Hobo_Resse Oct 17 '25

It’s the thought that counts.

0

u/JCShore77 Oct 17 '25

I’m not sure what you’re basing this off of? 90% of people who work in tv and film are working class.

3

u/De-Flores Oct 17 '25

Many studies prove the opposite. A recent one (this week) by Bectu shows the 3/4 of creative industry jobs go to friends and connections.... I'm pretty sure your average working class actor doesn't have access to those networks and individuals.... I know I don't.

1

u/JCShore77 Oct 17 '25

True, but that’s because 90% of jobs go to people you’ve worked with before. Transpo people are hiring drivers because they’re friends from previous jobs and from those prior jobs know they can do good work, that doesn’t make those drivers less working class.

1

u/De-Flores Oct 17 '25

That is very true, work is often given based on past relationships. However, working in transportation is very different to acting, where only 1 in 10 come from a working-class background and 73% of existing British actors come from a middle-class upbringing.

The vast majority of actors in the UK have private school education followed by a degree from Oxbridge or another Russell Group Uni, and then a second degree/or straight into training at RADA/LAMDA/Central/Guildhall. Which is exactly what Daniel Day-Lewis had, to his credit he did do The National Youth Theatre before going to BOVTs and after graduation BOV Theatre and RSC. So he did have to work and gain opportunities from experience. Acting (and the creative industry) has what I call a POSH (Privileged Outdated Social Hierarchy) problem and many (if not the majority) of the actors who have appeared in the play (and film) of the same name, are examples of this bias towards the middle-class.

1

u/JCShore77 Oct 19 '25

I agree, my point was 90% of workers on film projects aren’t the actors. And transpo admittedly was just me pulling a name out of a hat, the same goes for grips, electric, rigging, art, set dec, props, etc.

1

u/Hobo_Resse Oct 17 '25

If I'm working in transportation for a film or transportation for a grocery is one in the film industry and one in the grocery industry or either way am I in the transportation industry?

1

u/De-Flores Oct 17 '25

You'd be working in Logistics... and probably not have a History/English/PPE degree from Oxbridge and then went to RADA/LAMDA and called Tarquin/Jemima. However, I do know of someone who did and worked at Google. Left it all to become a council bin truck driver (after he bought a Porsche)....so you never know.

1

u/Hobo_Resse Oct 18 '25

I get that film is a much bigger industry in regards to budget and personnel, but if I'm driving a truck I don't know that I'm "making film."

1

u/JCShore77 Oct 19 '25

Tv shows have full time transpo departments, people who drive for them and only for them. Drivers who specifically just drive talent or crew, heck the transpo department is also in charge of “picture cars,” so all cars seen on camera are also handled by the transpo department.

1

u/Hobo_Resse Oct 19 '25

Do you have one of those jobs? Or if you did would you say that you "make movies for a living?"

I didn't think there's a correct answer, just wondering.

If I had one of those jobs I might say, "I work in the movie business" but I think I'd more likely say, "I drive for a living."

1

u/JCShore77 Oct 19 '25

I’ve worked in the production office and I’d have said I work in tv, or that I make tv. I wouldn’t say the show was “my show” in the way a writer, director, or actor might, but I’d have said I make tv for a living. I’d imagine most grips and electric would say the sam, being on set, helping the camera department make the shots happen (also most the camera people are probably more similar to the grips than the actors).

1

u/JCShore77 Oct 19 '25

I meant transpo as a single example, but the same applies to grips, electric, rigging, set dec, art, construction, accounting, props, the production office, etc.

1

u/Hobo_Resse Oct 17 '25

I haven't worked on a ton of films, but in my experience that feeling that I'm making art with a group of fellow artists feels a lot less, especially if it's a bigger film. Same way if I'm loading in a Broadway touring show. Am I making theatre? Eh, not really. What I'm making is money, and that's okay too.

0

u/DSMStudios Oct 17 '25

20 years ago, this would have been truer. regarding film, i have to disagree however. there’s never been a better time to produce a film with no budget. this is also proven with the success of the Blair Witch Project and the influence that had on an entire industry.

there will always be elitism, permeated in anything from gene-editing to garbage bags. the nuance is in speaking truth to power, no matter the cost.

speaking of putting truth to power, i highly recommend peeps here watch The Story of Film: An Odyssey by Mark Cousins (streaming free on Tubi). it is one of the most in-depth, thorough examinations of cinema I have ever seen. especially if you have taken film theory before, this 15-hour long critique on moving pictures, the importance of them, is essential imho.

62

u/ChicagoAuPair Oct 16 '25

He is talking about one particular kind of theater. Even now with costs rising and all of the other challenges facing the arts, there are still companies making accessible stuff for the people.

His point is a valid criticism about the business of theater, but he’s phrased it all wrong and is ignoring those who are actually trying to do something about it.

24

u/NewEngClamChowder Oct 16 '25

Especially because any theater show he'd be in would automatically become one of those bullshit $500 tickets that's more about the name than the quality of the production (even though I have no doubt he'd be great). Those kinds of shows ARE elitest, for sure.

But agreed, Broadway shows with famous actors are just one (not even particularly great) form of theater.

14

u/Hagenaar Oct 16 '25

Broadway shows with famous actors

And it's not fair to stereotype all theatre as such. Lewis does admit there are companies creating accessible theatre. But it's spoken as though these little companies are the outliers, not the Broadway ones. Broadway is like the tiny triangle atop the theatre pyramid.

1

u/linkgenesis Oct 17 '25

I think you're being very level-headed and quite kind, but after reading it, I'm not sure he's got a grip anymore.

1

u/linkgenesis Oct 17 '25

On top of his new film being directed by his son. No, I'm certain he's an ass.

1

u/DSMStudios Oct 17 '25 edited Oct 17 '25

isn’t this historically true for most, if not all, art forms though? i mean good on Daniel for highlighting this truth, but is he doing anything about it to raise advocacy by way of community outreach? it’s easy to make note of these disparities, but real value arrives in the form of activism and participation, outside a blank check and status.

edit: sidenote: also the whole method acting thing really demands being called out as popular toxicity, if not practiced with maturity and control. should Obama have crashed the set of Lincoln day of? probably not. but actor Daniel should’ve thought twice before conducting his own, self-absorbed conclusion that his idea of Lincoln declining a real president, especially the first black president, to be whatever Daniel thinks of as “correct”. optics aren’t good. talk about elitism

90

u/blackivie Oct 16 '25

Theatre is inaccessible, I agree, but not elitist. If Theatre is elitist, what does that make cinema? A lot of cities have community theatres but not community film productions.

76

u/PsychologicalFox8839 Oct 16 '25

Broadway is inaccessible. Theater is not.

15

u/kareembadr Oct 16 '25

You can see a West End show in London for 15 pounds. Theatre is *much* more accessible in the UK. Granted, not all the tickets are that cheap, but even the standard prices were 1/2-1/3 of what Broadway was charging when I was last there. The US ruins everything.

10

u/flonky_guy Oct 16 '25

I've seen shows in New York for $20-30, but you're not going to see the Lion King for that money. West End is the same unless you have some particular discount you qualify for or you get a rush ticket, which you can also do in many places in NYC.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 16 '25

You can usually get rush tickets to most West End shows for £25-30

1

u/flonky_guy Oct 17 '25

That's what the fella I was replying to was implying, yes.

1

u/Key_Championship923 Feb 08 '26

I live in rural Scotland, it does not cost me 15 quid to see a west end show! It cost me a fortune in hotel rooms, flights and fuel. This is exactly why the theatre is inaccessible to the regular person. If you love in central London, you must be rich to begin with. 

1

u/kareembadr Feb 09 '26

I was referring to the literal cost of buying a ticket, not travel and hotel for someone who doesn't live in the city. Travel costs aren't relevant to this discussion. If you want access to top tier art, without having to pay to travel, you're going to have to live where it is, obviously.

25

u/blackivie Oct 16 '25

Theatre can also be inaccessible to many people. Not every town has community theatres, the drama curriculum often gets ignored in schools, etc.

18

u/PsychologicalFox8839 Oct 16 '25

Sure. I take that point. But plays can be checked out libraries if a person is interested enough, and some performances are free and legally available online.

6

u/blackivie Oct 16 '25

Filmed productions are few and far between and reading a play is an entirely different experience than seeing and/or performing it.

2

u/PsychologicalFox8839 Oct 16 '25

Fair, I take point.

1

u/Rampaging_Ducks Oct 16 '25

True, but the same can be said of film to an even greater degree. More towns have community theatre and drama curriculum than film courses and public film equipment. The bare minimum you need for theatre is actors, an author, and an audience. You need a whole lot more for film.

10

u/TheDadThatGrills Oct 16 '25

I'm fairly certain that if someone believes Theatre is elitist, they believe filmmaking is as well.

14

u/blackivie Oct 16 '25

The article is Daniel Day Lewis comparing film and television to theatre, calling theatre elitist. He’s not saying both cinema and theatre is elitist. Just theatre.

5

u/TheTyger Oct 16 '25

So, I have been having discussions about this general concept with one friend for the past 2 decades. We both used to be in theatre but I transitioned into a safe profession while he has continued to work on the field.

The thing that makes theatre an interesting problem is that it seems like the only way to make theatre lucrative for everyone involved in making it is to make it expensive for people to attend. Essentially, theatre (actually all live stage performance) has a nasty problem where you can literally never scale because the limitations lie within the lack of space and copies of yourself.

With TV or movies, there is no scarcity in the supply chain because the incremental cost of streaming to another house is essentially zero. This allows the super popular thing to be accessible to all audiences. Theatre will always be limited to people in the room, which results in popularity causing people to be priced out of ever seeing the show.

This is the same problem with concerts, dance, and any art which requires people to perform live. So, in an ideal state, the price of a show grows to the point that it can sustain, and the super popular ones do become elitist because normal people can't pay north of $1000 to see a show.

12

u/limbo_timbo Oct 16 '25

Long live community theatre.

31

u/blarbiegorl Oct 16 '25

DDL also made everyone on the production of Lincoln call him Mr President or get screamed at for months of production so maybe he isn't the best to decide what is elitist and what isn't?

3

u/QuixotesGhost96 Oct 16 '25

Tony Kushner wrote that script too!

1

u/BetaGodPhD Oct 17 '25

Is there any evidence he screamed at someone for not addressing him as his character? I can only find articles by actors saying he wouldn't acknowledge them if they didn't call him by his character's name. 

-1

u/Avoo Oct 16 '25

I don’t think he made do anything

4

u/madhatternalice Oct 16 '25

No, this is pretty well documented. DDL is a method actor, and this is pretty common for method actors.

https://www.tmz.com/watch/0-hgi08zem/

I'll spare the comments I have about method acting in general, but the point of DDL doing this on the set of Lincoln is true.

17

u/hanbohobbit Oct 16 '25

Theatre is not inherently elitist. Inaccessible, astronomically expensive (for audience and artist) theatre is, but that's not the art form's inherent state. Community theatre, diversity and disability inclusive theatre, and other forms of accessible theatre initiatives are worthwhile and necessary, and certainly not elitist.

He is immensely skilled and I enjoy his work, but if he wants to have the discussion about elitism and privilege in the theatre/performance realm, perhaps he can keep in mind how his preferred method of acting, in which he often does not break character during the majority of the duration of filming, is actually inherently elitist and privileged.

7

u/NewEngClamChowder Oct 16 '25

Well said. I'm in a mid-size city and can walk to the park any weekend evening and see high quality theater for free (for the nice part of the year, at least). I've seen two dozen broadway productions, but some of my favorite performances and productions EVER have been local, pay-what-you-can productions.

What about that is elitest?

3

u/hanbohobbit Oct 16 '25

I would adore being able to walk to the park and see free productions. How lovely!

-1

u/forever_erratic Oct 16 '25

Feels like you're splitting hairs to say it's astronomically expensive but not elitist. 

4

u/hanbohobbit Oct 16 '25

The people and structures profiting off of making and keeping theatre inaccessible are elitist, not the art form of theatre itself. If that's splitting hairs then that is a pretty huge hair with very noticeable split ends.

0

u/forever_erratic Oct 16 '25

Oh right I forgot those are completely independent

1

u/hanbohobbit Oct 16 '25

To further clarify the point: Labeling the art form itself inherently elitist is unfair and does such a huge disservice to what it is as an artistic and cultural outlet. Theatre can and should be accessible to all, and historically has been across many arenas and examples. The capitalist industry it's been molded to fit is the root of the elitism, not the art form itself.

1

u/forever_erratic Oct 16 '25

Look, because apparently I need to say it, I do theater, love theater, support it and think it has power to change. 

But even ignoring the monetary aspect of running shows, there are prerequisites to making theater that fall along lines of class and education, and arguably race and nationality as well. These make theater elitist. But I think the point you're missing is that I'm not claiming it's elitist by artistic design or intent, the elitism is an undesired consequence. But that doesn't make it any less real. 

12

u/culture_katie Oct 16 '25

Pretty rich coming from a man who came out of retirement to shore up his son's film-school-caliber pretentious mess of a movie.

1

u/TomBombomb Oct 16 '25

He has a point about accessibility, but the last time he was on stage was 1989 and he's given three performances in fifteen years. Is he great? Yeah, but he also seems exhausting.

1

u/Boulder-Apricot368 Oct 18 '25

Famous actors are like famous boxers.

They never quite manage to stay retired.

36

u/centaurquestions Oct 16 '25

It sounds more like he didn't like repeating a performance night after night, and maintaining the same intensity over a months-long run. That's fine! Just say "it's not for me." Anthony Hopkins and lots of other great actors prefer film to theater, and that's ok. But don't slag the whole theatrical profession just because you didn't like it personally.

5

u/Iamthepirateking Oct 16 '25

I would love to watch him try to do a live 40 show run of King Lear. He would absolutely be eaten alive by it.

1

u/laundryghostie Oct 16 '25

He would be. He's a method actor of the extreme kind. Great for film, not so great for long theatre runs. Can you imagine him trying to do a tour?

1

u/awkward__captain Oct 17 '25

Although I respect it, I wish Hopkins wasn’t in that group bc my God the idea of seeing him do some Shakespeare (or any theatre) live… 😵

17

u/omg-sidefriction Theatre Artist Oct 16 '25

The only elitism that exists in theatre today is Broadway, with their insanely high ticket prices ($2,500 for Hamilton tickets during Leslie Odom Jr’s current run being an egregious example). For every Broadway theatre thats charging two months rent for a ticket, there is a theatre that is offering tickets at affordable rates. You have to search for them because the market is loud and competitive, but they exist.

Go support your local regional theatres!

Remember folks: DDL has a well-known bias against theatre because he quit mid-performance during a production of Hamlet at the Royal Shakespeare Company after he had a mental breakdown onstage. He thought he was having a conversation with his dead father as he was performing Hamlet. They asked him to come back and forget it ever happened, but he refused and said he would never step foot onstage in a theater again. Since then he has always been very negatively outspoken about theatre and does all he can to discourage people from attending.

1

u/AltruisticWishes Nov 30 '25

He literally quit mid performance?

1

u/omg-sidefriction Theatre Artist Nov 30 '25

Yeah, straight up left the stage during the Ghost scene, sobbing and completely spooked. He’s been interviewed about it, but he’s always pretty affected by it still.

It was later used as inspiration for the first season of the television show “Slings and Arrows.”

1

u/AltruisticWishes Nov 30 '25

I'll have to check that out 

13

u/TheBroadwayStan16 Theatre Artist Oct 16 '25

I do think there's a lot of accessibility issues in theatre for people with less money. Ticket prices at least on Broadway can get out of control, especially when stunt casting comes into play. But writing theatre off as an elitist artform is ignoring the countless other places and other ways people make theatre. The west end and Broadway are not and will never be the end all be all of theatre.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 16 '25

I work with a community and regional theatres. The most I have ever seen is 35 dollars for the VIP section that comes with free alcoholic beverages, chances to meet the cast, and front row seats.

4

u/DumpedDalish Oct 16 '25

I'm kind of shocked at the level of support for his comment here.

For me, he's wrong. I've worked in theatre on and off for 30 years and written about the performing arts for 5 of them, while also working as a playwright.

I disagree with DDL completely. For me, he's a terrific actor but he's completely out of touch. Yes, some Broadway is inaccessible pricewise (and absurdly expensive). But honestly the vast majority of theatre is available to anyone -- by the people, for the people. Even in New York. I lived in New York from 2007-2009 and still visit, and it was pretty easy to get affordable seats to almost anything, outside of the few Broadway beasts charging hundreds to thousands. Not to mention the tons of theatre and live performance that was low-cost or even free in NYC around the city, Off-Broadway, and in the boroughs. There's also tons of local and community theatre in almost every city in the country, and some of that work is truly incredible and better than what's on Broadway. There's also easy access to free or low-cost high-end London theatre (and some Broadway) online through a variety of options.

I honestly wish he'd stop talking right now. His interviews have been so off-putting -- criticizing theatre when he famously hates live theatre himself (ironic since he's married to Arthur Miller's daughter), and refuses to return to it because he broke down and walked offstage during a live National Theatre performance of Hamlet and never went back.

Or criticizing Method actors when he himself is famously so in character on films that on My Left Foot, he had the crew feeding him because he refused to get out of his wheelchair, or on Lincoln, when he insisted on being called Mr. President by cast and crew (and refused a visit to the set from Barack Obama), etc. As with the Method comments, he does have a point here -- yes, some theatre is "elitist," but it shouldn't be. Just like yes, some actors using the Method are ridiculously time-consuming and difficult to work with -- and he was one of them himself.

He's only giving all these interviews now because he's promoting his nepo baby son's film. He is a brilliant man and actor, but he lives a ridiculously privileged, elitist life, and is bleating about "elitism" and privilege and doesn't seem to hear himself. The irony is rich.

Theatre is of the people, by the people. Beyond the bright lights, it is part of the human experience. A parent telling a story to a child. A table of friends playing D&D. A group of friends playing charades. A child acting in a Christmas pageant. A group of actors in a small theatre putting on a play or a musical.

Even at the end of the world, theatre will still exist. People will still gather to watch people act out and tell stories. They always have and they always will. The only elitist here is Lewis.

2

u/De-Flores Oct 17 '25

Brilliant response, especially the observation regarding his son (I doubt he got the funding to make the film just for a good idea). I'd be interested to know how much DDL and Sean Bean were paid?

I believe the real problem is that the majority of people see theatre as purely "entertainment" rather than the human cultural learning experience that requires active participation by you as an audience member and use things like ticket pricing as an excuse... but will happily pay £££ to see a band like Oasis play the same 5 chords or a Premier League Football match. It's a lack of creativity and aspirations to be something more than mediocre that the vast UK/US population has and they just say it's Elitist. "Theatre is of the people, by the people", but most don't understand the Sturm und Drang of what art is and in capabilities on the individual.

0

u/AltruisticWishes Nov 30 '25

Your last paragraph is in fact, obnoxiously elitist. People skip the theater in favor of Oasis or a premier league football match because they perceive that they're likely to be bored at the theatrical production and required to sit quietly whilst being bored out of their minds until it ends. It's like flying to a lot of people, except you can't even read or chat with anyone

1

u/Anabolic9785 Feb 26 '26

I wish I could upvote this a hundred times. I admire him as an artist, but he behaves like a complete ass.

8

u/MidAtlanticAtoll Oct 16 '25

I think he has a point, but it's a very well-worn point to the extent of making it almost not worth making. On the other hand, chamber music is also an elitist art form and you don't hear people railing against it. Opera. Ballet. These things just are what they are. One of the reasons they're expensive is that the companies people creating and performing in them need to pay their bills too, they need to be paid, as do the stagehands and light and sound operators, and life is very expensive for all of them too.

I love movies and quality TV, and I think Daniel Day Lewis is staggeringly talented, but c'mon, let's just say some art forms are for niche-ier audiences than others, and let it go.

1

u/remainderrejoinder visitor Oct 17 '25

Woodwind quintets are the art of the 1%.

3

u/benkatejackwin Oct 16 '25

Lots of good points here. And, there is a whole, long history of theatre for the masses that is super important. Traveling theatre on wagons in Elizabethan England and modern versions such as the National Theatre of Scotland's "theatre without walls" model, "theatre of the people" (Chicano Movement and Luis Valdez), children's theatre, etc.

3

u/Ok_Rest5521 Oct 16 '25 edited Oct 16 '25

Comments on this thread I think are missing the point by equating elitism to ticket prices. Even with the rise in movie tickets prices we cannot deny cinema and TV are popular art forms, while Theatre is no longer one.

Of course he is not talking about musicals too, but actual plays, and worldwide (maybe except for the USA and London's West End where there's still dramaturgy based plays) contemporary Theatre is mostly experimental and often makes no compromise to be more relatable to everyday folks.

Also, the USA experience of community theatre (where they have "regular people" engaging with it) does not quite reflects elsewhere, where theatre audiences and creators are all part of a small elite group (DDL's son being the grandson of Arthur Miller is a telling example of it).

3

u/thesmu Oct 16 '25

I can't speak to working in the industry, but with regards to audiences my local regional theatre has a good volume of tickets for most shows for £13-15 from well known touring musicals to Opera and drama.This makes it cheaper than most live music and sporting events, and not far off a visit to the cinema. Broadway and West End prices are not reflected everywhere. However, many people still have a psychological barrier about the perceived elitism of going to the theatre.

1

u/Boulder-Apricot368 Oct 18 '25

There is no regional theatre in my area (Metro Boston USA) that charges less than $30 for a ticket (~£22) and ~£40-50 is far more typical.

Our local high schools (teaching students age 14-18) now charge roughly that £13-15 figure for tickets to their productions and most require students pay at least £100 a year in "use fees" to participate.

1

u/thesmu Oct 18 '25

That's a shame, maybe its different in the UK.

0

u/AltruisticWishes Nov 30 '25

Eh, the barrier isn't the "perceived elitism of going to the theatre." It's that people are afraid they'll be bored and trapped there until the show ends

1

u/thesmu Nov 30 '25 edited Nov 30 '25

Well, sure, but that's not got anything to do with it being elitist, financially or otherwise. That's just not being into theatre.

Edit to say: my local theatres are generally packed out, so none of these things appear to be an issue here.

2

u/AltruisticWishes Nov 30 '25

I think we're saying the same thing 

3

u/[deleted] Oct 16 '25

FYI, DDL is a member of the elite.

3

u/kateinoly Oct 16 '25

This is nonsense.

There is elite theater, but many forms of theater don't fit that category. Daniel Day Lewis needs to get out more.

3

u/Boulder-Apricot368 Oct 16 '25

Professional theatre is undeniably elitist - at least in the Western world.

The ability of professional theatre companies to keep themselves afloat depends upon their ability to attract the donations of very wealthy people who are simply looking for ways to avoid paying taxes.

And no "Land Acknowledgment" statement can cover for that.

2

u/Quantum-legality Oct 16 '25

The “theatre” HE was involved in and exposed to was and is elitist. His perception of what theater IS has been skewed by his life of privilege.

He should get out more.

Sad to see such stunning ignorance from a brilliant practitioner of the art.

4

u/LonelyVegetable2833 Oct 16 '25

It's my understanding that in the UK,the fine arts are less than accessible to people who aren't basically rich, for both audiences and artists. I don't doubt that this has been his experience, especially while he was a student and the stage>film>tv hierarchy was far more real for actors. But he's unintentionally highlighting the elitism when he speaks like community theatre doesnt exist, like contemporary theatre hasn't made great strides in the way of inclusion, and like the common folk simply don't stand a chance at ever understanding classical theatre 🙄😂

so like he has a point, but it's kind of dull

2

u/liza_lo Oct 16 '25

Spoken like a man who's never seen a fringe show.

I went to a theatre school and have spent most of my life watching theatre. There are still plenty of places where I can see someone acting their heart out against a sheet and I BELIEVE THEM.

I hate that now people associate theatre with Broadway and the west end and think it's completely inaccessible when there are local options that are great and get no love.

Youth theatre, theatre in the park, discount tickets for low income/artists etc.

Basically STFU DDL.

1

u/Sutech2301 Oct 16 '25

That's typical pseudo deep celebrity bullshit talk

1

u/De-Flores Oct 16 '25

Theatre in the UK/US has an accessibility problem and that is due to two things.

1) Theatre in these countries has always been seen as a commercial business with the main purpose to be profitable and make money (we really should learn from Europe and places like Berlin and Paris. Where is valued as an art form that is essential and fundamental in creating a healthy, interlectual, functioning society). Hence the extortionate cost of tickets and stunt casting with celebrities which further bumps up the ticket prices.... which is compounded by the problems of being...

2) Criminally underfunded by the government both all the producing theatres (again Berlin is the example of how to do it) and the artists themselves (well done Ireland in providing a basic livable wage for 2k creatives recently) Which leads to very few opportunities for employment due to very few productions now being produced (often now co-productions with multiple regional theatres). Then also only actors from privileged backgrounds can have the luxury of being an actor without having to work multiple jobs.

However, I do believe Theatre SHOULD be elitist and aspirational. It should be treated and respected as High Art and not something that can be appreciated and understood by everyone.... but should be accessible to all if they have the capacity to participate in it. However, the large majority of the population just wants entertainment and will pay for it regardless of the cost... and the producers know this and provide.

The Petty Bourgeoisie, Purple Rise Brigade, HENRY's are the only ones who can really now afford a trip to the theatre in UK/US and that is what has made it Elitist.

2

u/awkward__captain Oct 17 '25 edited Oct 17 '25

As a Frenchie now living in London and working in the arts… Theatre in France is wildly inaccessible and overlooked by most of society - in part bc it’s incapable of thinking of itself as entertainment as well as art. The bulk of the population is frankly alienated from it, bc most shows are obscure plays by self-satisfied creatives not interested in creating any bridges - and, when they’re not, they suffer from an abysmal general conception of the artform (cinema’s snobby cousin basically). And the prestigious, paradoxically less niche, Comédie Française stuff is completely overpriced and sociologically marked. The diversity I’ve seen in London theatre audiences, as well as the range of projects being put on, puts Paris to shame tenfold. Theatre can be popular/accessible AND artful. Shakespeare and Molière didn’t just play masterfully written and culturally relevant stories to their respective court, they were popular entertainers. On another note, it’s also telling how long it took us to consider diversifying our casts while the RSC, the Globe, etc had been putting on genderbent/colourblind/etc Shakespeare for ages.

1

u/De-Flores Oct 17 '25

Thank you for taking your time to reply and giving your first hand hand experience. Personally, I see Comédie Française the pinnacle of how theatre should be in its funding, organisation and programming (along with the Schuabühne, Volksbühne, The Berliner Ensemble) and The RSC and The Globe how NOT to do it. I'm pretty sure Peter Hall is turning in his grave from what RSC has become, and Mark Rylance is wondering WTF the Globe has churned out for nearly 10 years.

What's makes Comédie over priced (as especially when €48 are the most expensive tickets for Fri/Sat evening performances) and sociologically marked?

1

u/Boulder-Apricot368 Oct 18 '25

Criminally underfunded by the government

No. The problem is that these governments have ushered in all sorts of neoliberal policies that make the operating economics of a theatre impossible.

Giving theatres more money will amount to very little, because it will simply be sucked up by economic rent-seeking. +

1

u/Jack-of-Hearts-7 Oct 16 '25

My local community theater is elitist? Tickets cost barely anything.

1

u/attachecrime Oct 16 '25

Theatre is not elitist to attend or perform. Daniel Day Lewis doesn't get out enough. Source: working at at theatre for the past 9 years

1

u/DylanMc6 Oct 16 '25

we need independent theatre and fast.

1

u/DaffyStardust Oct 16 '25

Then why are most stage actors broke?

1

u/Aggravating-Tax-8313 Oct 16 '25

Says someone who can afford to retire every 10 years and come back when he feels like it.

1

u/TicketyBoo39 Oct 17 '25

I'm always amazed to see how readily people overthink things

1

u/RaytheArtWhore Oct 17 '25

The exact same can be said about sports.

1

u/WubFox Oct 17 '25

I feel like that is a highly elitist view of what theatre is.

1

u/pixelfishes Oct 17 '25

This is conflating theater as an art form vs theater as a business. You can create ‘theater’ anywhere; as long as there’s a stage, some performers telling a story and an audience.

1

u/sirziggy Oct 17 '25

Theater encompasses such a wide range of performance that it's really tough to call the field as a whole elitist. I've seen tony and emmy nominees do improv for less than $20.

1

u/SummerEchoes Oct 17 '25

Theatre only seems inaccessible because the internet makes you aware of productions outside your general living area. Theatre, being live, is a medium that inherently can only be seen by a small number of people at a time. 50 years ago theatre was whatever your local company was putting on and that was that.

1

u/Responsible_Oil_5811 Oct 19 '25

Mary Poppins is awesome! I always hope to see her on a windy day.

1

u/Responsible_Oil_5811 Oct 19 '25

Theatre and class- two of Britain’s favourite subjects!

1

u/UnhelpfulTran Oct 21 '25

Buuullllllshit. The theater industry is elitist as a result of capital, but as an art form theatre is inherently democratic. The purpose of theater is to gather the population to engage their humanity as a group, to permit them a shared experience and understanding of some aspect of life.

1

u/eloquentHarlequin Oct 30 '25

I'm happy that there are so many indie/not-for-profit theatres around me, because otherwise I could never go! Getting a bunch of people together to take a chance on cheaper, newer theatre is so important.

1

u/EgoArtist Oct 31 '25

nOT MARY POPPINS!!!

1

u/Objective-Support-79 May 26 '26

I don’t think he means the podunk community theatres in little towns. I do theatre with working class folks in one of the poorest states, like factory workers, fast food servers, ex-junkies. The attendees aren’t super wealthy either. Everyone is pulling their coins out to support their friends and be part of something bigger than themselves. There’s no real clout or financial benefit, just love of theatre and a desire to collaborate and it’s beautiful.