Yet, it does stand to sense that more privately educated pupils will go on to careers in acting simply because of demographics. It’s a risky business, acting, indeed any life as a performer - it doesn’t guarantee a steady income, and you might not make it. So how are you going to afford to live? Eddie Redmayne himself (featured) would tell you he was able to pursue a career as an actor because of his privilege to have parents living in London supporting him, providing a roof over his head, while he jobbed his way around castings and auditions in the city. That sort of fact is a big difference; young adults from affluent backgrounds have a background that allows them the freedom to pursue their dreams. It’s not necessarily their schooling. It just happens that the parents with the income to support those budding thespians often have the income to budget for school fees. Obviously, I generalise, but you take the point.
I’ve already written about the city schools’ combined concert; I’ve already marvelled in blog form about the energy and passion from our state-educated siblings. It would, yes, be wonderful to see talented boys and girls from financially challenged backgrounds being afforded the same opportunities as the Eddies, the Kates (Winslet, Redroofs), the Daniels (Day-Lewis, Bedales), the Chiwetels (Ejiofor, Dulwich) and the Andrews (Garfield, Freemen’s). But the world isn’t, sadly, carved up equally.
So once again, we call for more opportunity for children who don’t automatically get to study in independent schools - and yes, the longer school days, the extra-curricular provisions, the ethos in general, mean that there’s perhaps more scope to put on a play in independent schools - more assistance for them to attend schools like ours. Essentially, I’m talking about bringing back the assisted place again. Such a move wouldn’t necessarily give aspiring actors the backing to go off and do what Eddie and co did, but it’s a step in the right direction.