Quote: Ian Wolf @ July 4 2009, 7:31 AM BSTIn the radio version of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams insisted on playing the role of Agrajag, the reincarnating being whom Arthur Dent keeps accidently killing. The really interesting thing about this part is that Douglas was dead by the time the series went out.
Yes, he was repeatedly reincarnated between the series being broadcast in 1978, and his final death in 2001.
I often think about this, I think I do have the potential to act, but I would crack up too much, I can never keep a straight face. I would like to write myself a part one day in one of my sitcoms. However, I think producers would be very wary of that now as you'd get everyone writing themselves a part.
I like to act and write, but I never deliberately write parts for myself. Sometimes there might be a character that I think I could do well - probably better than anyone else - but they're not often a lead role.
I have no desire to act. I barely manage real social interaction let alone a made-up one.
I have no desire to act. I barely manage real social interaction let alone a made-up one.
Same here. I don't get out much.
Quote: Mikey Jackson @ July 4 2009, 3:48 PM BSTSame here. I don't get out much.
Now why doesn't that surprise me, eh? With your huge portfolio only Sooty can dream of matching. You must be writing all day.
Quote: Mikey Jackson @ July 4 2009, 3:48 PM BSTSame here. I don't get out much.
Don't blame you. As (looking at your avatar) you're prone to being struck by lightening when you do.
Ha! I hadn't really noticed that.
Now why doesn't that surprise me, eh? With your huge portfolio only Sooty can dream of matching. You must be writing all day.
lol. I don't think I'll ever match Sooty's sketch count.
Quote: Griff @ July 4 2009, 5:29 PM BSTHaving worked with both properly trained actors, and "people who like to give this acting lark a go because how hard can it be" on several occasions, I would never ever let a non-actor near any script of mine.
It's the definition of non-actor that's difficult though. It's not like you can earn a license. I also dislike some 'trained' actors doing comedy.
It really depends on the style/ tone of a piece. A ludricous situation played straight is more likely to suit trained 'actors', for example. I like the Tim and Eric school of thought. If they require a car salesman for a sketch, they'll hire/ persuade a car salesman.
Quote: Griff @ July 4 2009, 5:50 PM BSTBut given the opportunity, I'll take trained actors with a professional theatre background over enthusiastic amateurs anytime, having worked with both.
Having worked with just one of the two groups, I'd also make the same choice. 
Quote: Griff @ July 4 2009, 5:50 PM BSTTrue, not all actors have a gift for comedy. But given the opportunity, I'll take trained actors with a professional theatre background over enthusiastic amateurs anytime, having worked with both. You may choose differently, of course.
For theatre certainly, but for a naturalistic film piece there are well known directors who have chosen to go the other way.
For comedy the key is timing, so an experienced stand-up can often make the transition without any formal training, and indeed make a decent fist of straight parts. Whereas curiously, with the exception of Sinatra, every singer who has ever tried to act has being rubbish.
In answer to the original question, lots of actor-writers have written plum parts for themselves, and then had them taken away and given to someone else. Peter Tilbury and Shelley is a classic example, though subsequently they did let him do It Takes a Worried Man.
I agree that in most instances an 'amateur' would be worse. Yet how is an amateur defined? I would be classed as one and yet I feel I could act certain comedy roles better than some 'trained' actors. Training usually consists of doing a degree of attending a stage school. Whereas many untrained people - usually stand-ups - have done some great comedy acting and have been employed as such. I suppose the Cambridge Footlights lot are untrained as such.
I suppose it often comes down to ability and experience.
And I defintely agree that 'actors' are often really bad at naturalistic filmed parts.
What I mean is how do you give someone 'qualified' actor status? Do you go one their CV or education? If you look at the cast of Newsjack, etc, for example, at least half the cast are maybe not what you'd call trained or qualified but come from a stand-up background.
Personally I mainly don't wish to act parts written by other people. But I was offered a scholarship to a serious drama school as a child, but also passed the 11+ and was sent off to the grammar school.
I've seen some so-called actors f**k things up and some non-pros do a great job. I certainly don't think anyone can do it, but just because someone's had some training doesn't mean they can act either. My comedy acting, for example, has made a finalist in BBC and Channel4 comedy new talent competitions and yet I have no more than a GCSE in Drama and Theatre!