What makes an actor good or bad?

Cafe Society
1

I don’t think that I ever saw an actor who I thought did a “bad job”, literally the only bad acting I saw was that in parody movies, like Extreme movie and so on, but I loved even movies like that, since that’s the whole point of the movie, and yet, they have very low ratings…

If you took a random CSI or X files actor who appears in only one episode and not even as a main antagonist or something and if you took the main actors from the biggest AAA movies, I would see absolutely no difference in “believability” of their acts, in fact I’m probably going to prefer a no-name actor, than to see Adam Sandler, Will Smith, Sean Scott (Stifler), etc, since I am always going to associate their faces with their previous roles and genres.

I never disliked a movie because of the level of believability, I can dislike the storyline, the setting and environment, the pace (for example a boring movie that seems to never end), a genre,etc, I may even dislike an actor because I just dislike how he looks, he has an annoying role and so on, but none of those are related to believability, so I can’t understand people that give low ratings to movies due to that.

2

If you can see the acting, it’s not good.
mmm

3

Sometimes I’m left wondering: Is that bad acting or bad writing? But on one level, a good actor is someone who, when you’re watching them, you see the person they are playing, not the actor. For a bad actor, you see the actor, not the person they are playing. But there’s a lot more to it than that-- an ability to convey different emotions, and different levels of emotions; an ability to use body language to communicate as well as words; and ability to relate realistically and convincingly with other actors.

4

My wife directs a lot of community theater, so I’ve seen my fair share of bad acting. It has nothing to so with the writing since these are broadway plays, it’s how the actor performs on stage. Do they know their lines or forget them? Do they deliver their lines at the right time? Do they speak clearly or do they mumble? Do they turn their back to the audience when they shouldn’t, or mess up the blocking and are therefore in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are lots of ways an actor can do a bad job of acting. For a professionally trained actor they usually fail by being unbelievable in the character they are portraying. If I watch a film and the actor doesn’t convince me they are the character they are playing I consider that bad acting.

5

Basically this. I want it to look as if the person is actually just living the moment and not playing a roll.

6

I think this thread is slightly better suited for Cafe Society. Relocated from IMHO.

7

That Söze character in The Usual Suspects was good example of someone playing a roll.
mmm

8

I’ve come to the conclusion that everything in life boils down to a salesmanshiplike attitude. If you’re a salesperson, the more you believe in your product, the better and more productive you’ll be.

This goes for any walk of life: job interviews–you’re selling yourself to a potential employer. Persuading someone to see a movie you want to see, or go to a particular restaurant.

I said all that to say this: acting is no different. The actor has to sell the performance. The more the actor believes in what he or she is doing, the more they, in their own minds, are the character, the better the chance the audience will accept it. There’s more to it, of course, as mentioned (community theater). Talent goes a long way. But the point stands. If an actor is just in the production because of bills to pay, then the performance will suffer.

That doesn’t mean every performance has be from an AC-tor!, but there was a reason Method Acting seemed to work.

9

An example of good directing! :slight_smile:

10

If all you’ve seen are professional actors, you haven’t seen bad acting of the sort that dolphinboy describes. There are some basic rules that, unfortunately, not all amateur actors follow, like: the audience has to be able to hear you and understand what you’re saying.

As for good acting, you might say there’s two kinds: the “I really like seeing that guy act” kind, and the “I didn’t even notice that guy was acting” kind.

A valid but not particularly useful definition of a good actor is someone who makes the movie/show/play they’re in better than it would have been if someone else had had that role.

11

Yes, if you are cast in a mainstream TV show or movie, chances are you are going to be a pretty good actor. To see bad acting, you have to watch zero-budget indie films, Youtube-based shows, and commercials for small local businesses that utilize employees or relatives. The first thing that comes to mind for me is this local commercial (which luckily somebody Youtubed.)

12

I consider broad, over-exaggerated, burlesque-skit type acting to be bad, unless it’s supposed to be a burlesque-like skit.

The most recent that comes to mind is the mother on the show Mom (I don’t watch it, but my husband does, so I’ve caught bits and pieces.) Nothing about her is believable to me - her lines, her postures, her expressions all scream “Bad SitCom Acting!!!” There’s no subtlety of finesse - it’s all in-your-face-here’s-the-punch-line acting.

If I may take a cheap shot at amateurs - we saw A Lion In Winter by a local theater group. The guy playing Richard was apparently directed to be endlessly enraged, which he conveyed by clenching his fists and scowling… CONSTANTLY! So much so that I didn’t notice anything else. That’s a mark of bad acting.

Mugging for the audience is bad acting - in fact, unless breaking the fourth wall is part of the script, even acknowledging the existence of the audience is bad acting. Always playing yourself is bad acting (I’m looking at you, Diane Keaton.)

Mostly, tho, I agree with **mmm **- if you see that they’re acting, it’s not good acting.

13

LOL!

Something I’ve noticed many actors known specifically for acting skill that is superior and not because they always play a “type” well (thinking Meryl Streep, Christian Bale) is facial control. They seem to have control of every single muscle in their face, so that they can convey emotions by twitching one cheek, raising a single eyebrow, cocking their head, or doing all three at once. You certainly don’t see bad actors who can do this, nor many people in general who can telegraph emotion so well without speaking.

14

Clint Eastwood is the master of this. One twitch can mean, “What the Hell are you talking about”, or “You’re dead!”

Dennis

15

Maybe they know what microexpressions look like and they let them show on their face for longer than just a few milliseconds?

16

Here is a good illustration of the difference between good and bad acting.

*Star Trek Continues *is a fan project to make new episodes of the original series. The stars are mostly amateurswith little zcting experience, working for free out of love for the show. Occasionally, though, they get a professional actor who appeared in the original show to recreate his role. In the episode *Pilgrim of Eternity *actor Michael Forest appears as Apollo. If you watch the episode the difference between fan and professional is instantly apparent.

The episode on Youtube

17

Ohh, wow. :slight_smile: Similarly, here’s an infamously poorly-acted ad for a Chicago auto insurance company, which ran for many years (possibly, in part, because it was so bad).

(And, don’t even ask about male eagles laying eggs…)

18

Oh, I don’t agree with that. I’ve seen really dreadful performances in professional television and moves, “screw this movie, I want to see the video of the producer that actor must have” dreadful.

There was a movie I completely misunderstood because one actor was so bad I assume the character was supposed to be lying the whole time. I wish I could remember it - mid to late '70s, American - no, I just can’t remember.

19

To build on this: if you’re cast in a mainstream TV show or movie, chances are that you’re an extremely good actor. (An exception would be actors – primarily women – who get cast more for looks than acting ability. And, even then, a gorgeous woman who has really limited acting ability at all won’t last long in mainstream TV or films.)

Case in point: a friend of mine was a theater major in college. He was active in local / community theater, and in most of those productions, he was likely the best actor on the stage. He eventually got into his head that he was good enough that he could make the jump to the next level, and he moved from the small city where he lived, to Chicago, in hopes of doing just that.

Mutual friends of ours, who have also been active in community theater for a long time, and who have seen a handful of gifted actors from that level who have successfully made the move to the next level, have told me that, in their assessment, our friend is a talented amateur, but simply doesn’t have the acting talent to stand a chance as a professional actor.

Our friend has been trying to get acting gigs for about five years now. He gets cast in community theater roles (where, yes, he’s still among the most talented people on the stage), but his paying gigs have consisted of a Youtube comedy series, and a couple of non-speaking background roles on TV shows. He still goes out on auditions, he still has an agent, but I suspect it’s finally dawning on him that he may not make it.

A relevant analogy would, I think, be watching professional athletes. Even the guy who’s the worst player on a team (and likely won’t last very long on that team) was almost undoubtedly one of the best players ever at his high school, and probably one of the best players on his college team. When you get to the professional level, everyone is an incredibly talented player, and the “bad players” are only bad relative to the amazing players at that level.

20

Geoffrey Palmer and Dame Judy Dench in "As Time Goes By.’ Their faces tell so much of the story, and it’s delightful to watch.