So what IS good acting? Who's a good actor?

Cafe Society
1

I tend to go along with the Academy, mostly. Or the Golden Globes, or any of those awards thingies. If they say someone’s a good actor, and nominate them, then I try to find something worthy in their work. And I usually do.

But sometimes I disagree. Katharine Hepburn, who seemed to be quite brilliant when she was pretty much playing herself. Meryl Streep in most movies, although what happens with her is that I am very aware of her acting. As in, Oh, wow, she’s really…acting. Virtuoso level acting. Whereas, other actors just inhabit the character so I don’t even think of them. Sidney Poitier just never seemed that good. If they were so set on giving a black guy an Oscar (as well they should have been) they should have put more black actors in major roles, because almost every other black actor I’ve ever seen was better than he was. Tom Hanks, pretty much same complaint as Ms. Streep. And yet, these people are acclaimed as great.

Now people in old movies like Spencer Tracy and Humphrey Bogart seemed to be a little more, shall we say, theatrical, than actors who are getting the awards today. On the other hand I still look at their movies and think they were pretty good.

It seems the Oscars in particularly are really good at handing out awards for someone who was playing a character very opposite from them. Like playing the part of a man if they were a woman (Linda Hunt) or playing the part of a grubby lowlife (Charlize Theron) or someone with AIDS or someone retarded (but not full retard, obviously) or someone who lost a bunch of weight for the role.

Now in theatre I once saw a rather heavy woman act skinny. That is, her character was a skinny person, she wasn’t, and yet, while onstage, she was. That’s much more impressive to me than somebody going without makeup.

What does it for you?

2

A good actor serves the story.

Acting is storytelling, in collaboration with with the writer, director, editor, etc. etc. It’s certainly impressive when an actor can seemingly transform himself, but if it isn’t a good fit for the story, it’s not really “good” acting. If your story calls for “a Michael Cera type”, then Michael Cera is better suited to the role than Gary Oldman.

3

I find there are two basic types of actors I look forward to watching: The first is type is those who can completely submerge themselves in a role, to the point of being unrecognizable. They are few and far between; Daniel Day Lewis is the first one I can think of right off the top of my head. Alan Arkin is another. (If you didn’t know it was him, would you ever guess that Roat in Wait until Dark and Rozanov in The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming! were played by the same actor?)

The second type is far more common, and it’s the category into which most actors fall, including the great ones: They can play just about any role splendidly, but you’re always conscious of who you’re really watching: Bogart, Gable, Flynn, Stewart, Crawford, Fontaine, Monroe, Curtis, Lemmon, et al, et al, all fall into this category. And it’s especially true of Meryl Streep. I don’t care if she’s Sophie or Miranda or Sarah or Karen or Joanna—I cannot watch one of her movies without thinking “Huh! Meryl Streep again!”

Henry Fonda in Once upon a Time in the West and Dean Martin in **Rio Bravo ** almost fall into the first category. Almost, but not quite. The first time you see Frank in West, you say “Holy crap! That’s Henry Fonda!” :eek:

This is not to say the films of the above actors aren’t great and highly enjoyable; they are. But it always seems to me that I’m watching just a different version of each actor, and not the person (character) unique to that particular story.

4

This

5

While I agree with most of these assessments, i have to say that Meryl Streep is perfectly capable of giving a performance that doesn’t scream “Meryl Streep” - see *The Deer Hunter - a low-key, moving performance. *When she is the featured star, and the camera is focused on her to carry the movie, she does tend to stand out, but I don’t know that that is the fault of her acting, or the direction/cinematography. In Silkwood, she did a great low-key performance that really carried the movie. I just think her excesses are the fault of her directors - she gives them what they ask for. If Alan Arkin’s directors expected the same from him as Streep’s do from her, we’d be complaining about him the same way.

6

Audrey Hepburn used to say about her acting that she could play “Audrey Hepburn” just fine, but didn’t consider herself to be a great actress.

Cary Grant was the same way - he was always Cary Grant, in every role.

Gary Oldman could probably do Michael Cera better than Michael Cera.

7

Yeah, I liked her in Silkwood. That is to say, I noticed the character in Silkwood, not the actress. Of course Cher might have distracted me. (I like her as an actress, usually, too.)

8

I tend to analyse actors as being able to project the intended emotions (Any soap opera actor can do “sad” but it requires a certain of skill to project “feigning happy while being sad inside”), if the actor acts “naturally” or if it shows that they are… well. acting (once you think about it, you will start noticing a lot of big name actors who are clearly just going through the motions instead of “being” the character) and their range (It’s not only tricks of the trade like pulling off accents… can an actor mimic being introverted one movie and extroverted the other? Gay and straight? Good and evil?)

It’s hard to find actors who are the complete package.

9

God damn! I wasn’t sure if it was a joke or not when I saw what the link was to, but you’re absolutely right. And it brings home the point that there is more to good acting than disappearing into a role. I was completely aware of who I was watching in that scene, and every other time I’ve seen him. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him become a different person the way Gary Oldman does. He’s pretty much always the same person, regardless of character. But he’s still a great actor (though underutilized dramatically) because he can convey all the emotions in a scene like that with complete believability.

10

The best acting work I’ve ever seen has been done by Daniel Day-Lewis, and I say that because most of the time when I watch a movie with him in it, without having read about the cast beforehand, I don’t realize that it’s him.

I’m fact, I’m not completely certain I could recognize Daniel Day-Lewis out of character. He just becomes whoever he’s supposed to play.

Gary Oldman is good, but not quite that good. I always realize it’s Gary Oldman.

11

I’ve heard variations of the following joke:

“They should cast Daniel Day-Lewis as a researcher who cures cancer. He gets so deep into his roles he would actually cure cancer.”

12

I read a quote on this topic years ago that has stayed with me (although I’ve completely forgotten who was involved).

A young would-be actor was speaking with a veteran of the business (Sam Goldwyn?) and expressed his desire to become great at acting.

The response: “Don’t let anyone ever catch you doing it, kid.”

Maybe someone can help with the reference?
mmm

13

Yep.

What he captures so well in that scene is the knack for portraying multiple emotions simultaneously, which is what real people do when they’re not acting. The surface level of cool, the mid level of anger and the not-quite-hidden depths of pain and fear. All at once. He is actually quite a phenomenal actor, trapped in a comedy action star’s body. For more, see Six Degrees of Separation.

For me, the best actors do that simultaneous read thing, but they also make unexpected but logical choices (as he also does). They read a line most of us would shout in a whisper, and it works. They hug when most of us would step back. They laugh when most of us would cry. These are what a good actor brings to the story - the choices that aren’t predetermined in the script. A mediocre actor won’t surprise me. A poor actor will surprise me by making choices that don’t work. A great actor will surprise me with choices that do work.

14

There’s the possibly-apochryphal-but-maybe-not story of Laurence Olivier, on the set of Marathon Man, saying to a massively sleep deprived method-acting Dustin Hoffman “Why don’t you try acting, dear boy?”.

15

Just watched this. Yep, that is some damn fine acting. I didn’t know he had it in him.

16

There are two parts to being a good actor in my view.

First, there’s the basic ability to portray a character. This is stuff like delivering your dialogue in a convincing and non-stilted fashion, not looking uncomfortable, being able to adequately portray emotions, etc…

Porn stars usually fail at this first part, to use an exaggerated example. So do actors in local TV commercials.

The second part is that the actor does a good enough job of portraying their character that while you realize that it’s Daniel Day-Lewis on the screen, their actual personality isn’t coming to the forefront enough to distract you from their portrayal of the character, and nor is their portrayal generic enough (or personal enough) to make you draw comparison with previous roles they’ve had.

Gary Oldman is a good example of this - you may realize that it’s Gary Oldman on screen, but when you’re watching the Harry Potter movies, you’re not thinking that he’s Zorg from The Fifth Element, and when you’re watching the Batman movies, you’re not thinking it’s Sirius Black as Commissioner Gordon. Each role is sort of self-contained, and not particularly reminiscent of prior roles.

Of course, the more prominent the roles, the harder this becomes. It’s a lot easier I suspect, to be a supporting actor and blend into your roles than it is to be George Clooney and do the same thing. (nothing against George Clooney, just picking a very prominent A-list leading man).

Personally, I’ve always thought James Marsden is titanically underrated. The guy manages to pull off a wide range of roles- from the absurd (Enchanted, Sex Drive), to the serious (X-Men, The Notebook), and in none of them are you thinking “Oh, it’s James Marsden again”, or “Hmm… Cyclops playing Prince Charming.”.

17

Milton Berle said that he heard Spencer Tracy give that advice to a young hopeful, but it was probably a legend even then.

18

For me it’s an actor who can play multiple roles and you never think of a past role while watching the current one.

Example : Matthew Perry will always be Chandler Bing. Lisa Kudrow will always be Phoebe Buffay, etc etc.

Michael Keaton, however, has played dozens of very different characters and was never thought of as just one.

My personal favorite actors : Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep, Bryan Cranston, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, Robert DeNiro, Tom Hanks, Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman, Jessica Lange.

19

I’ve been thinking about this a little more, and the first part is more within a given role. Is the actor convincing enough within that particular role? Are they emoting decently, are they delivering their lines naturally enough, and whatever else that they’re not distracting the audience?

The second part is more over time- do their performances all sort of shout “THIS actor!” or are they more chameleon-like?

To use a somewhat classic example, Charlton Heston did a fine job at the first part, but the second part is where he sort of fell flat. He was always Charlton Heston in his movies, whether he was Judah Ben Hur, Moses, Michelangelo, George Taylor, Chyrsagon or Richelieu.

20

There’s no definitive answer to this. What makes a great painter? In art each artist’s work has to be judged individually, by each individual viewer.

That said, here are my personal thoughts:

I can’t really get into the performances of actors who work too hard: Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Daniel Day Lewis–you can see the wheels turning. Their performances are like math homework where you have to show your work. There’s a clinical remove.

As narrow as were the ranges of actors like Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Humphrey Bogart, at least they seemed to inhabit a character more naturally. The proof is in the exceptions: Hepburn playing Chinese, Tracy as Portuguese, Bogart doing British. John Wayne was the same: the narrowest possible range, but when he was suited to a role he fit it like a glove. See him as Genghis Khan for the exception.

The greatest actors of all time, for me, are the ones who can naturally inhabit a role without being limited to a single “type”: Better Davis, Henry Fonda, Barbara Stanwyck, Ingrid Bergman, Marisa Tomei (yes I went there), Robert DeNiro, Edie Falco, Emily Watson.

Then there are the one offs. Some of the greatest performances I’ve ever seen were by one-time actors, or first timers who never achieved the same level again: Maria Falconetti in The Passiosn of Joan of Arc–the single greatest acting performance ever recorded and the only movie she made. Crissy Rock in Ladybird Ladybird. She’s worked steadily since then but mostly in TV, and never achieved as much notice. Bjork in Dancer in the Dark: she put so much of herself into a punishing role she swore she’d never act again. (And you never heard it from me, but it looks like all three of these have been uploaded to u2b.)