 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 24, 2015 - 1:17 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Regie
(Member)
|
I had a quick discussion with some folks on another messageboard (classical music) about film and the issue of film acting came up. The argument became heated when I suggested that Burl Ives reprised the same role for "The Big Country" that he'd developed for "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof". He won an Oscar for "The Big Country" as a supporting actor, but I believe that this actor, who's performances were quite good, mostly involved the same character type; angry, controlling, impotent and vengeful. The films he used these with were more or less interchangeable, IMO.
We all take different things from different films; the are films which are light-hearted and enjoyable entertainments, while others are serious and dramatic and strike us at our cores and leave a permanent impression. For me, both types have to be part of the overall film experience. What makes a great film actor?
There are great actors who can produce a variety of different roles without falling into the same 'type'. I'd like to put some very few of those names forward with some few examples of their films, and I welcome discussion and additions:
Philip Seymour-Hoffman: "Capote", "The Big Lebowski", "The Master" - all three show different aspects of PS-H;
Daniel Day-Lewis: "My Left Foot", "The Age of Innocence", "In the Name of the Father" - all so different!
Josquin Phoenix: "Walk the Line", "The Master"
Ethan Hawke "Boyhood", "Before Sunrise", "Dead Poet's Society"
Greg Kinnear "As Good as it Gets", "You've Got Mail" - he was astonishing in the first one!!
Jack Nicholson "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest", "About Schmidt", "Chinatown" - all unforgettable
Then there are the 'classic' film actors. The important characteristic is that they don't reprise the same type of character all the time, but bring something NEW to each role of nuance and subtlety. That's hard to do!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not only just diappearing into a character, but being able to bring out that ability in other actors and actresses he or she may work with. It takes some special talent for two people to come together and just mesh like magic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The difference between a good movie actor and great one is invariably to do with the camera and how it picks up the nuances and intentions of the actor's performance. It's a mysterious relationship and quite unpredictable - and it's got nothing to do with "beauty". I think it was Orson Welles who said "the camera either loves you or it doesn't". I see that again and again.
There are a lot of much lauded and awarded theatre actors who never quite make the same impact in movies (or even TV). Those people seem to work better in the real-time, fixed perspective experience of theatre, but less so in the fractured time and picture structure of film. Perhaps it's to do with editing too. Maybe great movie actors have a subtle rhythmic quality that just cuts better.
That's the crux of it.
If you're good at voices and impersonation and study gestures, you can be many, many people BUT the sheer reality of your somatic make-up limits what you'd be right for. No-one, not even a director who wants to shock, would cast, say, Brad Pitt as Hitler, or Anthony Hopkins as President Obama. Your height, build, and general features are limiting factors. Many actors who play chameleon roles are in fact quite neutral, so allowing a good make-up blank slate, and an easy vessel for the audience's projections. On the street, they'd not garner a second glance.
Film is really about lighting. The Humphrey Bogart type has a chiselled face with many contours. The secret for the camera is really a face or physique that casts shadows and therefore creates a 3D sculptured effect. Some people who appear more or less 'good-looking' in real life, are bland on camera because they haven't those contours or shadow-casts that make for a good 3D dramatic effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good performances are based upon how well they are directed by a director. I'm usually not a fan of actors, but of good acting. I've seen directors get the most and the least out of the same performer.
That's very true. There are 100 ways to read a line, to move through a part (limited of course by 'marks' for the angles that the actors must move to and from), and it's the director's role to make sure the actors actuate the actual thing wanted, and in keeping with the overall continuity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 24, 2015 - 2:15 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Regie
(Member)
|
Let's not forget "The Duke". A small range, but in that range, a world beater, you never caught him "acting" like you do with Daniel Day-Lewis. And someone who thinks he has a great range, but I just find him annoying, Johnny Depp.
Well, I'd have to disagree with this. "The Duke" was great in "The Searchers" but I'd seen him 'act' just like that in most of his other films.
OTOH, I couldn't for a minute believe Daniel Day-Lewis as Christie the painter in "My Left Foot" was the result of direction. He took the 'part' away, researched and made it his own. Day-Lewis can take any role and make it believable, and more. He 'loses himself' in that role and I think reducing this to accents and make-up is too glib to describe his incredible ability to BE SOMEBODY ELSE. And then to be more like 'himself' - in "The Age of Innocence".
I also agree with the person who said Depp had acting range. Will I ever forget him as the undercover agent in "Donny Brasco". He was never better.
A director can only finesse an actor's performance but he cannot create something from nothing. Without that raw talent to begin with - a step here, an inflection there or a head-turn somewhere else - doesn't create great acting per se. Some film actors have natural charisma (like Tracey and Hepburn) and, from my readings of Cukor, he 'encouraged' them but also let them get on with the business because he understood their particular skills set.
Great acting comes from deep inside an actor, IMO, and you may not always see this in every performance. Greg Kinnear is an example, IMO. Helen Hunt annoys the hell out of me as she's always playing the same (winsome) part!
The lighting aspect of film, as discussed, and the relationship to camera (think Garbo) are all important, but acting talent - like Nicholas in "Cuckoo's Nest" (I watched a doco about it yesterday and his nuanced reading in what became improvisational acting was simply superb) could never be explained away by either lighting or direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Film acting is very different from acting on the stage.
On the stage, you have to communicate to people sitting very far away.
On film, imagine you're communicating to a mirror only a few inches away from your face.
The old adage I always heard from acting teachers regarding film acting was, "Less is more."
Frequently, even, do nothing. (See accounts of what director Rouben Mamoulian told Garbo to do for the very last, stunning, shot of QUEEN CHRISTINA...)
Great film actors are capable of becoming different people from one role to the next, as directed by the script.
On the other hand, there are "stars," who project essentially the same persona into everything they do. Most of the major Hollywood stars do this, as well several contemporary performers. Tom Cruise is a good example of someone who seems to portray the same person in his roles, with only the circumstances of the part delineating any difference.
Some stage actors do not translate well to film. Carol Channing, for instance, is really too "big" for movie roles, ending up seeming to overact everything.
On the other hand, film actors who attempt stage work, can also sometimes falter. I saw Elizabeth Taylor make a brave attempt at playing the lead in Lillian Hellman's THE LITTLE FOXES onstage, and she was clearly adrift onstage, with but little idea how to manage a role without constant breaks in between.
Her sometime husband, Richard Burton, however, was equally at home both in film and onstage. I saw him do the lead in Peter Shaffer's EQUUS onstage, and he was brilliant, bringing dimensions to that role that its originator, Anthony Hopkins, whom I also saw, didn't even plumb.
Film can be a very dicey medium to attempt, especially if one's experience has been mostly onstage.
(And then, there's always the observation about whether the camera "loves" you, or not. There are some actors, Garbo particularly, who become luminescent on film, with elements others aren't even aware of. Maureen O'Sullivan was interviewed about working with her on their scenes in ANNA KARENINA, stating she found Garbo perfectly ordinary, and couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. Until she watched the dailies, and was astounded.)
Go figure...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 24, 2015 - 7:45 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Heath
(Member)
|
(And then, there's always the observation about whether the camera "loves" you, or not. There are some actors, Garbo particularly, who become luminescent on film, with elements others aren't even aware of. Maureen O'Sullivan was interviewed about working with her on their scenes in ANNA KARENINA, stating she found Garbo perfectly ordinary, and couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. Until she watched the dailies, and was astounded.)
Go figure...
I recall Mike Hodges comment about Get Carter, his first feature film after working in TV for years with TV actors. He was naturally pleased to have Caine on board for the box office appeal, but figured he would handle him like all the other actors. But the very first time Hodges looked at Caine through the camera viewfinder he realised that he was in a completely different ball game. Suddenly the frame just lit up... and Caine was doing precisely nothing. As Hodges said, that's what a star brings to your movie and why they're paid so well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
