A better test: Watch Much Ado first, then watch The Matrix. If you consider the quality of acting in both to be approximately equal, you are “Acting Deaf”.
Wait, serious question, don’t laugh. Which one is the bad one? I have never seen Much Ado. Somehow I think it is the good one.
Much Ado contains a fantasitc range of acting abilities, thus demonstrating that some can act and others cannot.
This has already been responded to, but I can’t resist adding my 2 cents.
Small groups, like chamber orchestras can, and often do, perform without a conductor. Especially groups specializing in playing early music. However, even these groups take cues from an individual, like the concert master or the harpsichord player, for tempos, entrances and so on. With enough experience the individuals in a chamber group can learn to sense what the other players are doing and communicate more subtle musical ideas through body language.
This becomes more difficult when…
(1) the size of the orchestra increases. For one thing, it is difficult to see all the other members of the group and so, in order to have some kind of agreement, it becomes necessary to have a leader who stands outside of the group and can be viewed by all the players. Under some circumstances the leader of the orchestra can play an instrument as well (such as a soloist leading the group in a concerto), but most often the conductor devotes his energy and concentration to his role as a leader. This is especially important when…
(2) the complexity of certain aspects of the music increases. I’m referring particularly to music in the Romantic period and later that features such things as tempo rubato (slight slowing and speeding in tempo), subtle changes in dynamics and complex orchestration with many sections of instruments to coordinate. A gradual crescendo is a tough thing to do when playing alone – it’s even harder when there are 50 instruments to balance. When sitting in your section, it is very hard to get a good sense of the loudness of another section or the rate at which their dynamic is increasing. The conductor, being outside the group, can get a better perspective on things and fine tune the dynamics. That’s just one example. When concentrating on your own part, you don’t have a chance to grasp what that countermelody in the violas is doing. No matter how well you master your instrument, it’s impossible to reliably hear what everyone else is doing. Some music is so complex and long that even if you are counting like mad, sometimes it really helps to have someone bring you in.
(3) Orchestras in general do not have enough rehearsal time to develop an deep understanding of a piece as a whole. Much of the time you’re sight reading – or nearly. The conductor, not having to worry about the mechanics of reading an individual part, can pay attention to the effect of the whole. The conductor can bring this understanding of the work to the orchestra and, if they trust him and he can communicate his ideas well, then it isn’t necessary for each individual player to know everything about the piece in order for the ensemble work together to provide a unified interpretation. Also, there is often enough turn-over among players to make it difficult to get a feel for the group as a whole, which would be necessary to understand each other’s style and create subtle effects without the aid of a conductor.
As a singer and instrumentalist, I’ve experienced good and bad conducting. Bad conducting makes it difficult to even perform your own instrument. But it’s truly amazing how a good conductor can transform a bunch of players in the pit and gaggle of singers on stage into a kind of magical, unified being with one mind and soul. I can’t describe it, but you’d know it if it happened to you.
To sort of bring this back to the OP, as people have been saying about the acting: you have to try it to really know how hard it is. I dare you to join an orchestra and play, say, a Strauss opera or a Mahler symphony without a conductor. Good luck.
rivulus
When I was at college, we had to spend the summer of our second year on work placement. I was having trouble fixing up something interesting, and my tutor suggested I might like to work at the Royal Shakespeare Company, as the General Manager was a friend of his. My entire class had spent a week in Stratford the previous year. It was my first experience of classical theatre, and I just thought it would be great fun to spend an entire summer playing about behind the scenes.
I did my fair share of “doss”-jobs: I fetched and carried, ran errands, delivered leaflets - but then I was the dogsbody. However, they also let me sit in on rehearsals for “The Plantagenets” - a trilogy of Henry V,Henry VI and Richard III. And that’s where I got lucky, as the production turned out to be one of the company’s classics. And the one thing seeing the rehearsals -more even than seeing the production - taught me, was the difference between even a basic acting ability and real talent. What **Rivulus ** said about a good conductor’s ability to transform players is also true about a good director. It was absolutely amazine to watch how he could make the slightest suggestion or comment, the actor would change only a sentence, just slightly, and BANG - it would all click into place.
The lead actor in this production was Ralph Fiennes, in just about his first season with a major theatre company. And he was absolutely incredible. I have never seen that kind of talent in any field since. Nothing that has just made me stop and stare. He had the most beautiful voice, and I would just sit in the corner and listen. It says something that so did a lot of the other actors as well. The first time I heard him run through a speech, I was shocked, and I remember thinking “My God, that’s what real talent is”.
I saw the production dozens of times, and sat through the full nine hour trilogy several times. It created a complete world on stage and made me believe in it. Even now - 12 years later - I can hear the speeches in my head.
So in response to the OP - that’s real talent. But I suppose you just had to be there.
OK, thanks. I had a whoosh moment.
Hmmm… OK, as I’m not in an arguing mood right now, I’ll not disagree with this (but I do, I really DO!).
For simplicity’s sake, let’s just say that art is in the eye of the beholder… and as for acting, well, some people can do it and others cannot…
In the SNL “Misery” parody sketch:
Dana Carvey: I thought you were dead!
JL: <beat> Acting!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
**
Think about this: Lets say an actor/actress wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, or for some reason is sad. He/she has to go to work and portray the most esctatic, deleriously happy character ever. If the actor expresses his/herself by portraying the character the way the actor is really feeling, melancholy (this is whats known as “self-expression”) he/she would be a bad actor for letting his/her emotions influence how he/she played the part.
Thus, expressing yourself in acting is a bad idea. You should be expressing the CHARACTER, which someone else created.
Actually, the actor is performing their interpretation of the character, thus still expressing themselves.
Take Mutiny on the Bounty for example. Rent the 1935 version with Clark Gable and the 1962 version with Marlon Brando. Both actors play the character of Fletcher Christian, but compare their acting styles and the choices they make playing him. The actors here are expressing themselves artistically.
There’s also a specific line from 3 different versions of Hamlet that leap to mind to illistrate how an actor’s choices and self-expression in portraying a character, or in this case, delivering the exact same line, can change the meaning of the line:
The scene is Hamlet reading a book. Polonius asks him what he is reading and Hamlet replies, “Words. Words. Words.”
In Laurence Olivier’s 1948 version, Olivier plays Hamlet. Olivier delivers the line very sadly, invecting a melancholy into them as if the words he is reading are meaningless, the book is meaningless because the words are meaningless. Hamlet’s life feels meaningless.
In Franco Zeffirelli’s 1990 version, Mel Gibson plays Hamlet. He answers, almost to himself as he flips through the book to see what’s there. He finds, “words… words…” then, turning his head to answer Polonius he answers, “Words.” In this version, Hamlet is almost playful, teasing Polonius with an vague but obvious answer to the question.
in Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 version, Branagh plays Hamlet. He answers, “Words.” and continues walking, then a little louder, as if Polonius hadn’t heard, “Words!” When Polonius still says nothing, Hamlet shouts, “WORDSTHHH!” As if Polonius was annoying him with his silence in face of his question being answered.
Same character, same dialogue. Three actors, three different interpretations and personal expression.
So a writer who is in a bad mood only writes about sad things? A painter who is angry can only paint violent scenes? I would suggest that you think again about what self-expression really is. A painter expresses him or herself at least as much in the application of paint as in the choice of a subject. The writer’s expression certainly comes more from the words he or she chooses than from the events he or she describes. Emotions are not limited to anger, sadness, and happiness; they are infinitely complex. It is the job of the actor to take all that he or she knows or can deduce about the character, and invent an emotion that is appropriate.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Qwertyasdfg *
**
I would like to state that this is the most egregious instance of deliberately taking something out of context that I’ve ever, ever witnessed.
I did some acting when I was younger, and it is as exhausting as hard physical labor (which it is not).
Well:
- My husband and I act for a living here in Chicago and I assure you that I’d rather feel the exhaustion of a night of shakespearean acting than hauling I beams around
and
- I already explained this on page one.
jarbaby
- There was no “context” for me to take it out of. I quoted SPOOFE’s entire post.
- I was “interpreting” his words. See? I’m an artist now because I interpret things!
ignatzmouse: Reread my posts. Then get back to me.
A good actor will faithfully and skillfully perform a writer’s script. A bad actor will work his own 2 cents into his performance of someone else’s work.
You’ve got that backwards. An actor has to make choices involving all sorts of little things about a character that isn’t written into the script. For example, the characters posture, sometimes the accent, the hand gestures, the facial expressions, etc. Rarely are these written into the script unless it is a major part of the character (like Verbal Kint’s limp, or Brad Pitt’s muddled accent in Snatch). But often the actor has to make these choices.
Let’s look at Brad Pitt for another example in 12 Monkeys. Those crazy hand gestures when he was in the asylum? That hair? Those were Pitt’s decisions and not mentioned in the script. In an interview, Pitt even said he cut his own hair for the asylum scenes.
Yet to take your statment to the extreme, he would have been better if he hadn’t made any of those decisions as an actor and just stuck to the script, which didn’t have any movements written nor any physical description given and just delivered the lines as written? Your statement implies his performance was hampered by his choices as an actor to give greater inflection to some words than others, to choose his character’s mannerisms or physical look.
In many scripts, the dialogue and action pertaining to plot is written, but most other things involving the characters, often including the way they talk, the inflection given words, the timing of the delivery of the line, the way they move, their mannerisms and idiosyncracies are all left to the interpretation of the character by the actor. It’s almost impossible for an actor not to express himself by putting his own spin on the way a character is portrayed.
Upon re-reading the thread, using your definitions, I would like you to give us an example of a “good” actor - an actor who performs only what is scripted - and an example of a “bad” actor - one who expresses himself in his work.
BTW, have you ever acted?
I think a good analogy to acting from a script would be a painter painting a landscape. The painter isn’t actually creating anything new - he’s merely copying a view. Yet there are thousands of different ways for him to paint his painting, each one a unique expression of the painter’s talent and training.
It seems as though you would only be happy if the artist created a perfectly photorealistic, impersonal work - draftmanship rather than art. Sounds rather… dull.
Ummm…Have you ever read a script? A script does not say, “Be angry here…be happy here,” much less describe the shades of emotion a performance needs. It’s really clear that, like so many posters, you have got your ego so wrapped up in this taht you are willfully failing to comprehend what anyone is saying to you.
All right. An actor/actress wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, or for some reason is sad. He/she has to go to work and portray the most esctatic, deleriously happy character ever.
Bullshit, Twinkletoes. I said nothing about showing his/her current emotional state. I said “the emotions you show are yours.” Do you do the exact same things when you are happy that I do? Do you have the same inflections in your voice whilst in the midst of a torrential depression that I do?
A person’s mannerisms/demeanor while under emotional duress is unique that that person.
Acting requires a person to show feelings and emotions that they would not normally be showing under those circumstances. It is insanely difficult to cry on cue, for instance. I know only a handful of people who can do it successfully. And they are always different when they do it.
And on what authority do yu declare this? Why are you qualified to make such conclusions about acting?
I will tell you right now that it is the flawed actor who simply follows the script.