Yes, there really is a difference between exactly how they are good and how a Dustin Hoffman or Robert Redford is good.
I know just what you mean... even when those guys are at their excellent best, you still have this lingering sense that it's DH or RR playing this or that character. When the people I mentioned, or others of their ilk are on-screen, you mostly have no clue who the actor is; the
character—typically intricate and many-sided—is what you see.
I'm not putting anyone down, I hope that's clear. There are terrific American actors. But I think the imprint of the American studio system is inevitable. I think the British, because of their deep training on the stage, have more of an 'ensemble' attitude to their productions, no matter how eminent they are. The celebrity spotlight that we take for granted from the long domination of Hollywood over the US movie world doesn't exist in the UK. It's a major cultural difference that keeps popping up whenever you compare acting in the two places.
It took me a while to stop treating him as "just a comic actor" and I do agree he's both good and flexible.
Yes, exactly—he stands out because he's just so... well,
big... but he's just as protean and versatile as the others.
I would add
Bill Nighy and
Alan Rickman to your list. I like
Charles Dance but in fairness he's not quite in the same league.
I don't know Nighy, but yes, Rickman is another one who seems to morph into a different being with every role. Dance I've only seen in one thing (that I can identify)—in
Jewel in the Crown, that infinitely heartbreaking series that may have been the best
Masterpiece Theatre production ever. I agree, he never quite attained the level of some of these others... but still, an excellent craftsman.
I think the difference comes in part from the fact that for the Brits, live theatre is the default 'dojo' for training acting ability. And the first rule of the theatre is,
you can't do another take if you screw up. Everyone gets to see you do it!