Oldman v. Bogart [Comparing Acting Styles from Different Eras]

Cafe Society
1

In this thread, following a bunch of comments about the stylized, unrealistic acting style on display in Citizen Kane and other films of its era NAF1138 says:

I am very interested in hearing this argument, at least in part because I disagree very strongly. As NAF began the discussion I’ll wait for his presentation before I discuss why I disagree with it :slight_smile: , but I’d also like to throw the question out for general discussion: do you prefer the more stylized, measured, larger-than-life acting style of the black-and-white era or the more stripped down, “realistic” style popular today?

2

Each has it’s place. One of my favorite movies of all time is “Miller’s Crossing” because it has the same stylized acting of old film noir movies.

In general I base an actors talent on realism. But if you can pull both off like Albert Finney and Gabriel Byrne then bonus.

3

Smartass answer, yes.

Okay, more detail then. Both have their place, and I appreciate a good job done in either school. I also enjoy stage acting, and in as much as the style of older movies is closer to the stage than the more naturalistic style most commonly seen in movies today, maybe that’s why I don’t have any aversion to the older movies.

I’ve also never agreed with the criticism of some movies (e.g., most anything written or directed by Mamet) that they are too stagey. Not every story, even if it is being told on screen, must be cinematic; sometimes acting (even larger than life acting), dialog and character is perfectly satisfying.

4

Realism can be a great thing to strive for in a movie, but it’s not the end-all be-all. Personally, I tend to prefer what I call “movies that know they’re movies.” Instead of portraying real life, they deliberately portray something more vivid, more stylized, more focused and exaggerated. Real life, only moreso. I’m thinking Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson, the Coen brothers. For me, that’s where the real “movie magic” is found.

5

I’d like to amend this statement. I should say that I base an actors talent on believability. This way no matter the style of acting you got a yardstick to measure by.

6

Thanks for setting up the thread story. This is going to get a little long, so I will say that the crux of my argument come down to the idea that “realisc” acting only allows us to tell a limited number of story types.

First off, full disclosure of bias. I was a theater major* and am a working theater professional. Acting for film is a very different thing than acting on stage, for a variety of reasons, but since most of the world currently views all acting in relation to film acting (and since currently theater is more often than not trying to be film :mad: ) for the purpose of my argument it is all just acting.

This is a subject that I felt a lot more passionately about when I was still in school. Since leaving school and working with many actors from many various acting backgrounds in many different situations I have come to realize that there is in fact a place for “realistic” acting and that it is in fact just as valid a choice. There is noting wrong with realistic acting, per se. The problem is when realistic acting becomes the only acceptable choice. (which IMHO it has)

Two things:

  1. “realistic” modern acting is not realistic, and is in fact no more realistic than “stagy” or “stylized” older acting. If we can recognize this as the truth we can start talking about why the obsession with the acting being “realistic” is a bizarre idea. And follow that into my next point.
  2. “realistic” acting only suites a couple of types of storytelling.

This is where I feel that “realistic” acting is contributing to the downfall of modern drama, both in film and theater. Television, for some reason, seems to be embracing alternative acting techniques, and I think this is one of the (many) reasons that television is currently putting out some of the strongest most compelling storytelling that we have seen in a long time.

But if you confine yourself to realism (and by choosing this acting style this is what you are doing) you cut yourself off from all sorts of other wonderful stories. You can’t have a true Romantic (notice the big R) story, you can’t have a great epic, most comedies doesn’t make sense, anything other than slice of life drama situations just don’t make sense. I am using slice of life in a broader sense than is usually given to it. In short, you HAVE to have a protagonist that the audience can identify with.

Now slice of life drama can get you a lot. You can have movies like Marathon Man (suspense/spy movie about an average Joe who gets caught up in a world of espionage), or period pieces like Brave Heart (a period/war movie about an average guy who leads a rebellion and frees his people), or huge movies like the Godfather (story about an average guy inheriting his fathers crime syndicate).

But they all have to start with an average guy. Even in something like Braveheart, they do their level best to make William Wallace a normal guy. This man could have been played as larger than life, the legends about him make him huge, but you can’t make movies these days that aren’t about normal people.

And I think most of that is that audiences have been trained to believe that any style of acting that is non realistic is bad acting. Or at least that it won’t work on film.

It is infecting the theater too. Go to many play rehearsals and you will hear people talking about things being “too theatrical” with derision. Only when you are starting off doing something weird is the acting allowed to stop being “realistic.” These things are viewed as un-filmable.

We have backed ourselves into a corner of realism and stopped appreciating anything that isn’t familiar. I see this as nothing but bad.
Next up: Why I hate “the method”

*[bragging] I went to UCLA school of Theater Film and Television. Depending on who you talk to it is either the #1 or #2 theater school in the country [/bragging]

7

Yup, agree (could add script too, but of course that’ll be off topic). But of course, movies are illusion, so they have to fool you (w. realism or at least trustworthyness [grammar?]).

8

What kind of actor is Marlon Brando on thie scale? In my opinion, the finest bit of acting ever inthe history of film was Brando in On the Waterfront and to me it seems almost to have the best of both realisittic and stylized acting.

9

For me, this is where things get tricky, because there is no such thing a realisitc acting. Not really. Brando would be clasified as a method actor. Much more from the Kazan/Adler school than the Strausberg school but still a method actor. So…realistic. But it’s acting, it is stylized by its very nature. It’s just we are used to this style of acting as representing reality. Brando was great. And like I said, this type of acting serves its purpose but we should not be judging acting on how real or believable it is. That isn’t what acting is about. It’s about being evocative. Evoking response from the audience is the job of the actor. Telling storys with your body and voice is the job of the actor. And you don’t need reality or believability to do that.
Continued full disclosure, I am not an actor though I have taken acting classes. I Direct. So my opinion on what an actor should/shouldn’t be doing is colored by that.

10

I should explain what I meant by “believability.” By believability I mean that I bought what they were trying to sell. Did they succeed in getting the desired reaction out of me? Chris Sarandon in The Princess Bride? I’m sold! Stylized? You betcha. Emma Watson in ALL HP movies? I don’t buy it for a second. Realistic? Sure.

11

I would say I agree with you on that. Asking if the actor fulfilled the needs of the character is a fine way to judge a particular performance. I like the Chris Sarandon example too.

12

I saw an interview with the great director Jean Renoir once (I think it was one of the extras on the Criterion edition of The River) in which he described a hypothetical perfection of art: imagine an artist, he suggested, capable of reproducing a forest, perfect in every detail. The artist’s skill is such that as you walk through the forest, you’re unable to distinguish it in any way from a real forest. Where is the art? The experience of the “viewer” is exactly the same as would be their experience of a real forest. The job of an artist, Renoir suggested, was to *alter *reality; to make art out of it, not simply to reproduce it in every detail. Without artificiality, there is no art.

Now, I’m not sure he expressed it in such inflexible terms. At any rate, I understand that the above does not represent any kind of universal, absolute truth that I would agree with. Nonetheless, it makes the point that I would make in this discussion: that unfiltered reality, as an end in itself, is not necessarily something to be desired in a work of art. It’s an interesting discussion whether it’s even possible (I believe it is: Ladybird, Ladybird and *Klute *are two examples that come to mind)–but in any case, if the artist is a real artist, like Marlon Brando or Bette Davis or Johnny Depp or Maria Falconetti, the “fingerprints” they leave on their art add to it.

To posit a general hierarchy–less-artificial acting is always better than more-artificial acting–is not a useful approach at all.

13

Well, that’s a false relationship though. There is no such thing as more or less artificial acting. It is all equally artificial. The question is really, is there anything inherently better about the style that we have decided represents reality.

I say there is not. And I add that as a society we have conditioned ourselves to believe that anything not in this style is “bad acting” and are therefore depriving ourselves and the world of the multitude of other possibilites.

14

And that’s a false dichotomy. Of course there are shades of style. Watch a Ken Loach movie, and then a David Mamet movie. It’s abundantly clear that Loach’s actors strive for a more realistic style than the operatically stylized performances Mamet demands of *his *actors. I agree with you that, ultimately, all acting is by definition not reality. But there are definitely gradations of realism in *styles *of acting.

15

Well, current realism is stylistic and no more natural than the “tea-tray” style of acting of centuries ago.*

You want real natural acting, watch Big Brother – but not just the show. All the dull parts that are left on the cutting room floor.

Probably the closest thing to real natural acting is in John Cassavetes’s films, and even those are stylized to some extent.

Acting is a skill. What you think is “natural” or “realistic” is just the style you’re used to.

*Where actors walked around with one hand held upright, elbow at their side, as though they were holding a tray.

16

Yes, good example. Loach’s actors are even less stylized, but of course as pointed out above there’s always some degree of artifice.