Rather than derail another discussion, I’m starting a new thread about Certain Actors Of A Certain Standing that feel like they can just “be themselves” (as opposed to, I don’t know, maybe “being THE CHARACTER”?).
We were discussing Patrick Stewart’s roles and I noticed that we now have a Frenchman with a British accent (Star Trek), a Connecticut Schoolmaster with a British accent (X-Men); and we even had a Russian Spy with a British accent (Smiley’s People)…
Where does this end? Do I need to live in fear that we might see “Jean-Luc” (Geez! Would it have been so hard to just have a Brit as a starship captain?) playing Colonel Klink with a British accent?
And then I realized what must have happened – when he was offered the Picard role, Stewart had a secret acting seminar with Sean Connery: "Ah’ve played an Irishmun, an Amurican, hell, in Highlander, ah played a Spaniard with this Scots accent! An ah steel go’ PAID, laddie!
“So, ween they tell yuh to doo the french accent, yuh seh wha ah deed: ‘Yoor looky ah’m IN this piece o’ SHITE et all! Now hond me thet script, an ah’ll shoo yuh bletherskites hoe it shood be read!’”
I’m not sure if this is what you had in mind, but there’s at least a couple of actors I know of who get roles because of who they are, not for any real acting ability.
For instance, Samuel L. Jackson. The man is vibrant, full of energy, and always fun to watch on screen. I suppose you could say he’s acting because he does strive to put feeling into his lines and actions. But he’s always just Sam Jackson and doesn’t really try to be anyone else. He lucks out in that people understand this about him and so pick him up for roles that are similar to Sam Jackson or even write roles just for him.
Contrast that with, say, John Goodman, who is also an incredibly distinct and strong personality, yet he’s played a wide range of roles convincingly.
Like Scarlett Johansson. Unless she’s been horribly typecast as the bored girl in every role she’s had in adulthood…or from Ghostworld on, if she wasn’t 18 yet then.
Patrick Stewart uttered not one single line of dialogue in Tinker, Sailor, Soldier Spy or Smiley’s People, just like Karla, his character, never did in the books.
I actually disagree with including Jackson in his. There’s a stock Jackson performance same as there is a stock Pacino performance-BUT not all of his performances are that stock one.
Jackson from Jurassic Park is not Jackson from Shaft or Jackson from Die Hard with a Vengeance or Jackson from Long Kiss Goodnight or Jackson from A Time to Kill or Jackson from Freedomland.
But Jackson from Shaft is the same as Snakes on a Plane is the same as The Man is the same Iron Man 2 is the same as etc. etc.
I’ve heard that quote too, but it’s him being modest. Sure, in a lot of his films he didn’t act, or more accurately played the character he developed as his public persona, but there was much more to him than that. Just to name a few, the descent into madness in Red River, convincingly playing a much older man in She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, and The Quiet Man as a whole.
With the right script, he was a fantastic, naturalistic actor. With the wrong one, of course, he was clunky as hell…
As the OP, I’d like to publicly state that this subject is officially wide open: bad accents fit here, actors with a stock character who are nonetheless brilliant (SLJ) count, too.
Along with, of course, any Righteous Indignation against actors who don’t work hard enough to earn our entertainment dollars.
And, as the OP, I’ll admit that I can thoroughly enjoy an an actor’s performance even when they’re playing their one-note schtick. Does the credit in that case go to a good director, or script writer?
As much as I squirm when Keanu tries to emote, his bewildered “Whoaaa” persona was perfect for “Mr. Anderson”. I even liked Costner in a movie or two, and I love Patrick Stewart (even if it’d make more sense for him to be Captain John Luke instead).
Many “stars” who have one schtick are often amazingly awesome when they’re new and young, and then calcify as you go through their IMDB listing in reverse order. For example, I happen to enjoy George Clooney playing George Clooney. But he was amazing in Out of Sight. (But then, so was J. Lo - great director, I guess? Beautiful synergy?)
Imho, it’s actually rare for movie actors to act, which is why being on Broadway is such a big deal. While any Broadway actor does well on screen, very few screen actors can make the opposite transition where they are required to fit into characters other people have made.
Becoming the character is actually only taught at one type of acting school. Much more common is to adapt the character to the actor’s strengths. For example, no matter what role Jim Carey or WilL Ferrel take, everybody wants them to be themselves on the screen, and they are often encouraged to ad lib and add their own personality to the role.
The last of the great method actors are Robert Deniro and Meryl Streep (although Bobby has dialed in all his roles for the past 20 years.) While Streep is undeniably one of the greatest actors of her generation, she has yet to have a truly breakout, iconic role. Deniro, as well, has had little box office success since the Godfather Part 2 (although tons of critical success.)
Therefore, the lesson learned is that your movies make more money if the actor’s personality is unique, not on how well the actor can transform into the character. While Harrison Ford has the same mannerisms in every film he’s in, you can’t argue with ~$2 billion in box office receipts.
The bottom line is quite simple: Actors that are loved do better with audiences than actors that can act.
