I have some serious problems with this statement and the attitude toward storytelling, cinematic and otherwise, that behind it.
Is good acting necessarily “realistic”? For that matter, what do you mean by the phrase good acting in the first place? For that matter, what do you mean by a realistic performance? Is a lack of realism–in acting or other areas – necessarily a bad thing in cinema, television, or drama?
I have my own thoughts, of course, but I’ll see if the thread gets any traction first so I can rant appropriately.
If the performers understand that the production is a melodrama and are properly taking direction towards that end, then it’s not really “bad acting,” it’s exactly what’s called for.
Contrariwise, Gwenyth Paltrow stunk up Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow by not getting on board with what the production was about. “Bring me the ham!” “Nuh-uh, that’s not who I am!”
On the other hand, Gwyneth did beautiful, although not naturalistic, acting in Shakespeare In Love.
Naturalism is trendy. It has been, more or less, for the last century, since Brando and The Method brought it to the mainstream. But it’s certainly not the only valid or “good” acting. Most comedies, for example, don’t limit themselves to naturalistic styles.
If you are sitting there thinking about their acting (and you aren’t a professional of some sort) it is bad acting.
Good acting fools you into thinking there is some depth beneath the superficiality of the line readings.
Competent acting involves both realism (which is not that easy to achieve) and a high enough energy level in front of the camera or on the stage to not put the audience to sleep. That is harder to do than you’d think.
My theory is that good acting is judged on two criteria: realism, and effect.
On the first scale, good acting means that you look and sound and behave the way a real person actually would in that situation.
On the second scale, good acting means that your performance produces the desired effect: you’re making the audience understand or think or feel or experience what they’re supposed to.
Neither of these is unimportant, but the relative importance of the two depends on what kind of show/movie/play/etc. you’re acting in (e.g. realistic comedy vs. slapstick or farce; realistic drama vs. melodrama).
Thinking about it more, I’d remove realism and substitute “true to the character as written.” In some documentary about MASH they had an interview with Larry Linville, who repeatedly labeled Frank Burns a comedic artifact or something like that. I got the impression that Linville was quite fed up with people identifying him with Burns. Burns was not a realistic character, but Linville was quite good at playing him just the way he was written, so you could suspend disbelief a bit and accept him in his given role.
I’ve seen lots of actors quoted as saying “the most important thing about acting is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you got it made.” But the interesting thing I got from being on the set of a TV series is how much energy the camera drains out. One has to “turn on” to make it work. This ability seemed to be the one thing that distinguished kids who got picked by managers from those who didn’t. It doesn’t make for a great actor, or even a good one - it is just the difference between a kid who makes it and one who doesn’t. I assume this goes for adults also, but I don’t have the field experience with them.
Those who think that good acting is only mimicking “how real people sound and move” are missing out on some truly amazing work that simply comes from other styles.
Is Sir Laurence a bad actor? Nobody talks like that, even allowing for the vocabulary differences. Now, I find a more naturalistic approach like Branagh’s more *understandable *without much effort; it’s more comfortable because it’s a style I’ve grown up with. But I definitely appreciate the splendor and majesty of Olivier’s delivery - the rhythm and melody of the poetry is much more present.
Are Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor bad actors because they follow the forms of noir? Or are they simply using a style not much seen today?
Do these guys not give you chills simply because they’re not realistic as a Greek Chorus, or because Oedipus stabs the eyes of a mask, not his own face? (God, I want to have Julie Taymor’s babies. The woman is an amazing director.)
Acting is almost always about storytelling. Realistic is frequently what is required, but suppose it’s, for example, comedy? What then? Realistic would suck for something like Duck Soup or Austin Powers.
I’ve directed voice for videogames. All of the pros tend to be likable and charismatic, but there was this one time I where worked with someone who also did Broadway. (Susan Egan, for the curious.) My God, I’ve never seen anyone with that level of natural charm! The energy level in the room instantly jumped five notches the moment she walked through the door. It was almost supernatural.
Oh god, I could actually literally write a thesis length paper on this subject.
In a nutshell.
1)*Good *acting is acting which achieves the objectives set out by the actor.
2)Further, good objectives are those which serve to advance the story appropriately
Exceptional acting does the above in interesting and surprising ways.
Reality has *nothing *to do with it and striving for realism can frequently hinder a performance.
This definition of acting fails for the majority of dramatic styles produced in written history.
Shakespeare, Brecht, Shaw, Becket, almost all Asian drama, almost all Greek drama, and countless others can not be performed in a way that makes any sense if you follow this path.
Realism has its place, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not always the best choice.
All I know is, I’ve cited particular performances as really good acting, and others around me have disagreed. Similarly I’ve pointed out really bad acting, and others don’t agree.
It seems to me recognising and appreciating it shouldn’t be subjective, yet apparently it is.
I find realistic acting in an appropriate role to be compelling and breathtaking, but it isn’t always the right choice. Sometimes it plain gets in the way*. Stylised or character acting has pride of place in certain genres or scenes.
*e.g I think Piper Perabo is going for realistic acting in her TV spy show Covert Affairs, which is inappropriate for a caper plot, and is getting in the way of fun it could be, making her character a bit boring.
Paula Poundstone said (roughly), “What’s the big deal about 3D? I see that every day of my life!”
The same could be said of realism. On the other hand, one thing I like about Harrison Ford’s action roles is that he looks scared while doing dangerous stuff.
Agree completely. If you want to see reality watch people converse who were recorded on a hidden camera. Choppy sentences, talking over eachother, extra long pauses, not a lot of eye contact, etc.
If actors tried to be as “real” as possible scenes would look extrodinarily crappy.
Well, that’s not completely true. Richard Kimball always did; Indiana Jones sometimes does. Han Solo doesn’t. But then, Han only has three feelings.
Anyway, Ford’s acting in each role was appropriate for the character.
When I began this role lI was thinking about How I Met Your Mother. The two best actors in that show are, in my view, Hannigan and Harris, who both provide extremely unnatural and unrealistic performances most of the time. (Especially Harris.) But they’re both gifted actors perfectly capable of being realistic. It’s just that realism is rarely the right choice for the roles.
Right! I didn’t even go into my whole schpeal on how realism isn’t actually realistic, it’s just what we have been conditioned to view as realistic.
Go watch a John Casavetties movie if you want to see good realistic acting. It works for what he is doing, but I would hate it if all movies were like this.
I was going to say that “bad acting” is whatever breaks my suspension of disbelief. And that, if anything, it is the heavyweight Thespians that are more guilty of this with the overly rich, regal way they intone even trivial dialogue.
But you’re right that there’s another dimension to acting. To take an extreme example, being a great pantomime actor certainly doesn’t mean being completely realistic / believable.