There have been a recent influx of bipic movies about folks that have a fairly decent public video and audio record. Will Smith in Ali (not quite so recent), Jamie Foxx in Ray, Joaquin Phoenix in Walk the Line, and Hoffman in Capote to name a few. And quite often these are all acclaimed performances. In fact, they all recent Oscar nominations with two of them winning. And I also tend to believe these performance are outstanding. But then I was thinking to myself, are performances based on existing, well documented characters in some sense not as impressive? Are we somewhat fooled into saying “wow!” because we know how this acting job should look? And is it somehow easier for the actor because they have a template from which to work? (note: I am talking about actual people with whom there is a significant audio/visual record. Not folks like Alexander the Great or Abraham Lincoln)
I rememebr reading (can’t remember by whom) that Will Smith shouldn’t have been nominated because it wasn’t acting it was mimicking. I don’t know if I am “sophisticated” enough to tell the difference.
But what do you guys think, is biopic acting “easier” because there is a template? Or is harder because there is a certain expectation and/or it is harder to distinguish your “acting” from your mimickry skills?
If you eliminated all the actors & actresses in hollywood who couldn’t come up with an original reading, well, you’d still have a lot of actors & actresses, but there’d be a whole bunch of people out of work. Most people develop a character by basing their performance off of somebody. That they’re imitating somebody who’s easy to imitate due to the amount of material to study doesn’t change that much.
Biopic actors have a clearer example of how their character is supposed to act, especially if their character is a modern celebrity. Doesn’t make the acting “easier.” Mimmicry good enough to make you forget, even momentarily, you’re watching an actor portraying another celebrity should be rewarded the Oscar.
Hell, I’d give Billy Crystal an Oscar for his Muhammad Ali imitation if I decided the awards.
After the 2005 Oscar nominations came out, a friend of mine said “impersonation is not acting.” And as biopics have gotten bigger and bigger, I’ve become increasingly convinced that that’s true. I do think they’re more likely to be popular and get awards because they’re already about people ‘we’ like.
Impersonation is not method acting, or character acting or character creation with an exploring a character’s backstory and motivations, true. It is most certainly acting within a predefined range of speaking, moving, reacting, etc.
Mimicry is harder than acting: you have a narrower known range of likely reactions and (possibly) greater depth.
It’s more than just mimicry: any impressionist can do that. The hard part is doing more than just the voice, but to make you believe the actor was the character.
For instance, I happen to think David Strathaim was astounding as Edward R. Murrow. He had all of Murrow’s mannerisms down perfectly, and when he was doing Murrow “on air,” it matched Murrow’s actual broadcast perfectly (I’ve seen clips of them side by side). That is very difficult to act: the instinct is to do you your way, and it’s a sign of a great actor to be able to duplicate that role exactly.
Remember, when filming, Strathaim was matching it without using the broadcast as a guide. He managed to get all the pauses and inflections and timing exactly right. That’s damn hard to do.
The actor has two choices: get it dead on perfect or “capture the essence”. Strathairn and Hoffman did the former and were justifiably honored. Phoenix did the later (if that) and was far less impressive. (Ergo, Witherspoon wasn’t my first choice for Best Actress.)