Rather, it is unique TO that person.
Dear Spam, it’s been a long day.
Watch out, though. Remember the SNL skit for the Dunkin’ Donuts guy, interjecting passion into the description of the donuts?
Kind of a vague description; I can’t remember it too clearly.
Bear in mind that a lot of today’s pop culture is about hyping the star of the moment or making major stars look like the girl/guy next door, and not about analyzing what said actor does to prepare for a role, and I can understand the OP. Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts may well be great actors, but when almost all of their press is about how attractive they are physically or charming they are personally, one might think it’s all about looks, charm, and luck, not talent and hard work.
Another part of it, for me anyway, is when a new star becomes known in one field, say, stand-up comedy (surely another field that must look like “anyone can do that” to some), or even music, and then moves into another field, probably movies. Or an actor known only for his role on a silly TV show starts doing serious movie roles (as if he didn’t need to be an actor to get onto television). We ask ourselves: when the heck did Tom Hanks, Jim Carrey, Bruce Willis, Mark Wahlberg, and [pick your own favorite example] become “real” (meaning serious) actors? Of course it isn’t fair. It suggests that the showbiz machine can make an “actor” out of absolutely anyone, therefore, anyone could do it with the right help.
I have reread your posts and I realize that I should have directed my comments more specifically.
Thus my response again:
I will say more forcefully, you do not know what is meant by self-expression in art. Self-expression does not mean expressing how you feel that day, or even who you are, it means expressing your interpretation of the human condition. An actor does this by exploring and exposing the subtleties of emotion. These subtleties do not lie within the script but must be discovered by the actor.
[sub]checking to make sure this is in the Pit[/sub]
Qwertyasdfg is also the person who, in a Great Debates thread, stupidly asserted that nonrhyming verse isn’t really poetry (link). As the discussion developed, Qwerty also suggested that abstract and/or nonrepresentational painting isn’t really art, either. Basically, and unsurprisingly, his argument boiled down to a combination of “because I don’t get it” and “because I say so.”
In other words, don’t expect him, in this argument, to recognize the idiocy of his belief that acting requires no creativity or artistic ability.
I realize that we’re well beyond this in the discussion, but I came up with a nice bon mot that I must share.
Anyone who believes that acting requires no talent has obviously never watched porn.
Alright. Back to the discussion of what really makes a good actor.
Thanks for the warning before we all start banging our heads against the wall here.
I had begun to realize that I this was a person of, shall we say, limited depth.
I can say from experience that acting is hard work. I’ve been in professional productions of Macbeth, Much Ado about Nothing (our Don John could produce facial expressions :D), and a few community theatre shows.
Yes, there are lots of very famous actors who are not as talented as some people I know, who work locally and in relative obscurity purely for the love of the stage. Keanu Reeves is an excellent example. We could replace him with a muppet, and his movies would be better.
The point is, it is definitely an art form, it’s not something “anyone can do.”
For the record, I think the core of acting is living in the moment on stage. That is, truly immersing yourself in the story, hearing each line as though it’s new and fresh, and living as the character for that hour or two or three.
This is by no means the only skill involved, but it’s a biggie. It’s also very hard. I’m sure other, more experienced Dopers who also frequent the stage will understand what I mean.
Wow. It think thats the first time I’ve really been flamed. Thanks. How’d you find that thread? I thought it was deleted after it was dormant for a long time.
Anyway, I propose we just agree to disagree. Your not going to change my mind and I’m not going to change yours, so this bickering is pointless. Anyway, if you want to flame me, by all means, but I am not going to respond to this post anymore.
Fair enough, Mr. Asdfg. But I just have one question: Surely you can see the difference between, say, Dustin Hoffman, and Keanu Reeves?
I know, I know… “Don’t call me Shirley!”
The previous thread was in Great Debates, which requires a measure of politeness. That’s why your ignorant assertions weren’t handled more harshly. If you had been more active and visible in the thread, the way Seethruart was in his, I guarantee a Pit thread would’ve popped up for you eventually.
The search engine is a marvelous tool for unearthing our past embarrassments.
Fine. You’re still wrong, but if you want to wallow in your ignorance, that’s your choice.
Changing one’s mind requires that one’s mind is operating properly, dood.
“Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve created…” --What? Sorry, triggered a flashback.
Wah wah, I’m outclassed, boo hoo, wrap myself in the martyr cloak and run away. What the hell ever.