I want to learn how you guys judge an actor/actress' performance

[RaininTwos]

Is it subjective or are there specific things to look for? For example, I've always loved Adrien Brody in "The Pianist" and Will Smith in "The Pursuit of Happyness" and "Ali" but I've heard others on here talk about Daniel Day Lewis like he's god. I'm somewhat of a novice to this kind of stuff but let's discuss it.

The one example that boggles my mind is that I've heard here a couple times that people feel like Denzel plays a version of himself in most of his movies. I don't agree with that at all. I feel like he's shown that he shown a wide variety of different emotions throughout his roles. I especially like "Man on Fire", I get chills from his work.

How do you judge actors and actresses? We can all see really bad acting but how do you discern the difference between a good and a great performance.

Are the ones that I hold in high regard misguided, if so, please explain.

I think I know how this thread is going to go but I forge on nonetheless.

[niko]

To me it's subjective, how they fit the role, what they bring to the table, how much they make me believe it, how much i enjoy them in the role. I get why people say Denzel (and others) at some point start playing themselves but once you are that famous, and your speech, etc. that distinctive, it's kind of tough not to IMO.

At least for me, subjective.

[RidonKs]

http://tresconchas.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/actingwithoutacting.jpg

everything you ever needed to know is in this 'book'

[dunksby]

For me it's about if he can raise the feelings he is supposedly feeling in me and by that I don't mean just the dominant emotion in that particular state but all that flood of mixed emotions that his character up to that point has accumulated. In a sense what Aristotle said about a good tragedy and how it should trigger pity and fear in the audience. I think in a broader way an actor should yank my collar and put me in his own shoes so I feel what he feels.
The other part is more subjective though as I tend to like actors, whose facial expressions and general posture and how they carry themselves are more similar to my own more.

[EnoughSaid]

How easily it is for me to *********e to their performance.

[DuMa]

if you can show deep range and contribute to the story without overacting, you put in a good performance

[RidonKs]

i've had similar problems distinguishing 'good' from 'great' when it comes to acting. i think there's somewhat of a threshold at which point whatever method that's being put to use dissolves and a role becomes fully believable. that would be what the good and the great have in common, a standard of authenticity where realism peaks and it becomes impossible not to 'buy' what the performance is selling.

but after that, it's really just a matter of the character being played. some characters are simply more difficult to play than others. not just with regard to obvious mannerisms like a fake accent or heath licking his lips all the time, but really elevating the personality of a character to the next level when the story depends on it. you can't really plug yourself into a character strictly through dialogue; there has to be added techniques demonstrating whatever trait happens to be central to the character itself, whether its insecurity or domination or indifference or arrogance or just some emotional conflict pertaining to the story itself.

my checklist is basically;

- gauge how believable the performance was (good or bad)
- analyze the difficulty of pulling off that performance in its context (good or great)


edit: though that all only goes for i guess 'modern' methods of acting, let's try to prevent this thread from spiralling into another back and forth over the progress v mere change of acting methods over the last century

[Raz]

Good acting: Denzel Washington

Great acting: Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men)

[RaininTwos]

Good acting: Denzel Washington

Great acting: Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men)
This is why people call you a *******, where are your reasons? What are you even comparing Bardem's performance to? Are you saying that Bardem in NCFOM was> than anything Denzel has ever done?

[SilkkTheShocker]

Good acting: Denzel Washington

Great acting: Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men)


You're a f.aggot.

[iamgine]

Is it subjective or are there specific things to look for? For example, I've always loved Adrien Brody in "The Pianist" and Will Smith in "The Pursuit of Happyness" and "Ali" but I've heard others on here talk about Daniel Day Lewis like he's god. I'm somewhat of a novice to this kind of stuff but let's discuss it.

The one example that boggles my mind is that I've heard here a couple times that people feel like Denzel plays a version of himself in most of his movies. I don't agree with that at all. I feel like he's shown that he shown a wide variety of different emotions throughout his roles. I especially like "Man on Fire", I get chills from his work.

How do you judge actors and actresses? We can all see really bad acting but how do you discern the difference between a good and a great performance.

Are the ones that I hold in high regard misguided, if so, please explain.

I think I know how this thread is going to go but I forge on nonetheless.
I'm not sure how to explain it but I think it depends on how interesting the character is and whether the actor and director can bring out the full persona of the character in a subtle way.

My top performance of all time:

Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa
Heath Ledger as Joker
Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin

[RaininTwos]

I'm not sure how to explain it but I think it depends on how interesting the character is and whether the actor and director can bring out the full persona of the character in a subtle way.

My top performance of all time:

Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa
Heath Ledger as Joker
Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin
Forgot about that one...:facepalm

I remember being taken aback by how convincing Forest was with that role. God damn, I need to rewatch that movie asap.

[DonDadda59]

Pretty loaded question but I think if you boil it down to its simplest form- comes down to how much the actor can make you forget he/she is acting. Sounds like a bit of an oxymoron but it's the truth. Just think about some performances that made you cringe, it was most likely because you could see the person trying to act, whether it was blubbering while trying to convey sadness or a forced laugh, etc. As for people saying someone like Denzel Washington plays himself in his recent roles, I completely agree. But does that mean he's not a good actor? Hell no, guy is an acting legend and one of the best to ever do it, even people saying he plays himself (myself included) will admit that.

Just goes into different schools of thought. Denzel's a method guy and they stress the self- basically the characters you play (with the exception of maybe a specific historical figure) should showcase different aspects of yourself, YOU should embody the character not vice versa. Guys like Denzel, Robert Deniro, Al Pacino adhere to this school of thought, and they're considered legends and some of the most highly regarded film actors of all time.

[Scholar]

This is why people call you a *******, where are your reasons? What are you even comparing Bardem's performance to? Are you saying that Bardem in NCFOM was> than anything Denzel has ever done?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Honestly, I judge an actor/actress on whether or not his/her performance will resonate with me after the movie is over. For instance, Heath Ledger playing the Joker in TDK stuck with me for weeks after watching the movie for the first time.

Not too many actors can do that. I suppose it depends on their role, too, so at times they aren't entirely at fault. It might just be a non-memorable role.


The one example that boggles my mind is that I've heard here a couple times that people feel like Denzel plays a version of himself in most of his movies.

I think that's true about Will Smith, not Denzel. Anyone who claims that about Denzel Washington is on crack.

[CeltsGarlic]

Good acting: Denzel Washington

Great acting: Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men)

Actually, I agree. This goes well with Ridnonks scale.

[RidonKs]

i bet a major reason why people say that about denzel is because he's black. which makes sense, his pigeonhole is determined black man in urban environment. he rarely if ever plays weak characters without a sense of purpose. he's starred in all kinds of settings, civil rights movement, white house, streets of la or nyc, etc but in every role, he's the persistant never give up dude who overcomes the odds to get shit done.

but i think you can say something similar for a lot of the greats so it's strange that denzel tends to get singled out in this regard. i'm not sure it has everything or anything to do with race but it's probably a factor.

[DonDadda59]

i bet a major reason why people say that about denzel is because he's black. which makes sense, his pigeonhole is determined black man in urban environment. he rarely if ever plays weak characters without a sense of purpose. he's starred in all kinds of settings, civil rights movement, white house, streets of la or nyc, etc but in every role, he's the persistant never give up dude who overcomes the odds to get shit done.

Even the biggest stars still face type casting of sorts.


but i think you can say something similar for a lot of the greats so it's strange that denzel tends to get singled out in this regard. i'm not sure it has everything or anything to do with race but it's probably a factor.

Hmmm, maybe on the racial aspect. But like you said, many greats 'play themselves' repeatedly, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are not putting on great performances. The Scorsese gang does this, particularly Joe Pesci, even Deniro to an extent. The characters they play in Goodfellas aren't really a stretch from those they play in Casino. But you won't run into many people who describe them in either as 'bad acting'.

I think 'playing yourself' definitely has its merits because a lot of times it comes off as more natural and believable and whatever qualities that the actor possesses (charm, humor, intelligence, etc) shines through. That's why leading man roles are basically vehicles of personality (and looks of course).

[andgar923]

Pretty loaded question but I think if you boil it down to its simplest form- comes down to how much the actor can make you forget he/she is acting. Sounds like a bit of an oxymoron but it's the truth. Just think about some performances that made you cringe, it was most likely because you could see the person trying to act, whether it was blubbering while trying to convey sadness or a forced laugh, etc. As for people saying someone like Denzel Washington plays himself in his recent roles, I completely agree. But does that mean he's not a good actor? Hell no, guy is an acting legend and one of the best to ever do it, even people saying he plays himself (myself included) will admit that.

Just goes into different schools of thought. Denzel's a method guy and they stress the self- basically the characters you play (with the exception of maybe a specific historical figure) should showcase different aspects of yourself, YOU should embody the character not vice versa. Guys like Denzel, Robert Deniro, Al Pacino adhere to this school of thought, and they're considered legends and some of the most highly regarded film actors of all time.

I agree with this.

I'd also like to add how there's a difference between what Denzel does and Will Smith. I can somewhat see why people say Denzel plays versions of himself, but he doesn't play himself, and that's the difference between he and Will. Denzel for the vast majority of the time stays within the character he's portraying but shows hints of himself. Whereas Will plays himself most of the time and shows hints of his character.

Then there's the issue of how an actor 'delivers' his lines, screen presence, consistency and command. Some things cannot be thought. You can take all of the acting classes in the world and it won't make you a better actor, you'll just learn new tricks.

But

The biggest aspect (imo) is getting the proper role.

Some actors are born to play a specific role, they just 'get' that character that they're portraying. That's when we see great performances, things just click and the actor becomes lost in the role. How can one tell? you become completely drawn in and lost in the film, you forget that you're watching an actor portraying a character and instead you feel like you're just watching these people's lives.

There's subtleties as well. There's small details that bring the character to life, some actors are better than others when it comes to these small details. Also, great actors make shit effortless, while one can tell that some actors are trying too hard.

There's some actors that people are crazy for like Leo, Will, and a few others that I don't understand why. When I see them act, I see THEM Leo and Will 90% of the time, not the characters they're portraying (attempting).

I guess it is like with all of the arts, 'subjective' but there's also a degree of 'objectivity' that one can infuse. That mostly comes with experience or a trained eye.

[ukplayer4]

cant be bothered to get into this too deeply but for me its alot of things, not just variety of performance, one thing i often think is that so much of it seems to come down to direction. which is why you see the good actors always seeking out great directors to work with. an actors performance is really sculpted by direction anyway. lars von trier takes every actress he works with and then turns them into the winner of the highest acting award in the world with every film, regardless if they are new(emily watson- breaking the waves), considered a shoddy hack(kirsten dunst-melanacholia) or not even an actress(byork- dancer in the dark).

look at scarlet johansen, i think after her early films, including lost in translation most people thought she was a gifted actress. she clearly is pretty bad.
anne hathaway is a good example, heres someone who is routinely called a bad actress, reason being because most people have only seen her crappy films she gets highly paid for(the romcoms mostly). inbetween she usually does a highly regarded indie/quality small studio work in which she is always great. i forgive people for thinking anne hathaway isnt a great actress but the reality of it is that she is superb, she just does several poor films for large amounts of money. and actually i feel that your output is also indicative of your acting quality also, but if we went soley by this robert deniro becomes the worst actor of the last decade by far?
its actually much harder to assess female performances in mainstream film because there are so few quality lead roles for women in american studio film.
versatility is an interesting thing, there are so many great actors we might call character actors that just have total weight and screen presence but are always similar. some of my favorites- christopher plummer, michael lonsdale, brian cox etc etc, most of these types pop up in mainstream stuff to add some weight to films. come to think of it, i think a degree of versatility is an important thing but more important is the power of each performance/how convincing you are.if you are really great in alot of different(and importantly good films) that makes you a great actor in most peoples eyes i guess but its always subjective.
another element that is especially important for general/mainstream(oscar/bafta, globes arent even worth joking about they are so pathetic) consideration is the SIZE of the performance, generally roles with more acting, ie challenging roles or content, are easier to point to as examples of quality acting. but is quantity really indicative of the quality of a performance?

[ukplayer4]

I agree with this.

I'd also like to add how there's a difference between what Denzel does and Will Smith. I can somewhat see why people say Denzel plays versions of himself, but he doesn't play himself, and that's the difference between he and Will. Denzel for the vast majority of the time stays within the character he's portraying but shows hints of himself. Whereas Will plays himself most of the time and shows hints of his character.

Then there's the issue of how an actor 'delivers' his lines, screen presence, consistency and command. Some things cannot be thought. You can take all of the acting classes in the world and it won't make you a better actor, you'll just learn new tricks.

But

The biggest aspect (imo) is getting the proper role.

Some actors are born to play a specific role, they just 'get' that character that they're portraying. That's when we see great performances, things just click and the actor becomes lost in the role. How can one tell? you become completely drawn in and lost in the film, you forget that you're watching an actor portraying a character and instead you feel like you're just watching these people's lives.

There's subtleties as well. There's small details that bring the character to life, some actors are better than others when it comes to these small details. Also, great actors make shit effortless, while one can tell that some actors are trying too hard.

There's some actors that people are crazy for like Leo, Will, and a few others that I don't understand why. When I see them act, I see THEM Leo and Will 90% of the time, not the characters they're portraying (attempting).

I guess it is like with all of the arts, 'subjective' but there's also a degree of 'objectivity' that one can infuse. That mostly comes with experience or a trained eye.



:applause:

[andgar923]

cant be bothered to get into this too deeply but for me its alot of things, not just variety of performance, one thing i often think is that so much of it seems to come down to direction. which is why you see the good actors always seeking out great directors to work with. an actors performance is really sculpted by direction anyway. lars von trier takes every actress he works with and then turns them into the winner of the highest acting award in the world with every film, regardless if they are new(emily watson- breaking the waves), considered a shoddy hack(kirsten dunst-melanacholia) or not even an actress(byork- dancer in the dark).

look at scarlet johansen, i think after her early films, including lost in translation most people thought she was a gifted actress. she clearly is pretty bad.
anne hathaway is a good example, heres someone who is routinely called a bad actress, reason being because most people have only seen her crappy films she gets highly paid for(the romcoms mostly). inbetween she usually does a highly regarded indie/quality small studio work in which she is always great. i forgive people for thinking anne hathaway isnt a great actress but the reality of it is that she is superb, she just does several poor films for large amounts of money. and actually i feel that your output is also indicative of your acting quality also, but if we went soley by this robert deniro becomes the worst actor of the last decade by far?
its actually much harder to assess female performances in mainstream film because there are so few quality lead roles for women in american studio film.
versatility is an interesting thing, there are so many great actors we might call character actors that just have total weight and screen presence but are always similar. some of my favorites- christopher plummer, michael lonsdale, brian cox etc etc, most of these types pop up in mainstream stuff to add some weight to films. come to think of it, i think a degree of versatility is an important thing but more important is the power of each performance/how convincing you are.if you are really great in alot of different(and importantly good films) that makes you a great actor in most peoples eyes i guess but its always subjective.
another element that is especially important for general/mainstream(oscar/bafta, globes arent even worth joking about they are so pathetic) consideration is the SIZE of the performance, generally roles with more acting, ie challenging roles or content, are easier to point to as examples of quality acting. but is quantity really indicative of the quality of a performance?

I was actually gonna touch upon 'direction' as possibly the biggest factor, but I didn't feel it answered the OP's question.

I had a discussion with a co-worker who prides herself as a film junkie, and I told her that the Director is the sole person responsible for the entire movie, specially the acting.

They're the ones that guide the actor.

[AK47DR91]

I'm a fan of characters, so I judge by characters I'm impressed with rather than the actors/actresses.

Sean Penn for example. I loved his character in Carlito's Way, he was so convincing as a sleaze ball. I haven't seen Milk or Mystic River, two films that won him Oscars, so I can't judge him as an actor.

[andgar923]

:applause:

I forgot to add to my post regarding 'role'.

People were moaning and laughing at Ashton's casting in the new Steve Jobs biopic. But who knows... maybe that's THE role of his career and with the proper direction he could be great. Then follow that up with tons of bad performances after that.

:confusedshrug:

[DonDadda59]

There's some actors that people are crazy for like Leo, Will, and a few others that I don't understand why. When I see them act, I see THEM Leo and Will 90% of the time, not the characters they're portraying (attempting).

Like I said earlier, it's basically a cult of personality and obviously looks. Women find those guys attractive and their boyfriends/husbands think they're cool. Very simplistic interpretation I know, but that's what it basically boils down to. Plus these guys get to choose the blockbusters with notable directors, so they're ingrained into the public's collective psyche. Plus, they're not bad actors at all. Definitely not the best, but they have other qualities that make them 'stars'.

And I agree completely with everything else you said.


one thing i often think is that so much of it seems to come down to direction

I'm pretty sure we've debated this issue before. There's no question that the quality of a director will enhance a film's quality overall and effect an actor's performance. But film is possibly the most collaborative art form there is and a LOT of different forces work simultaneously to gel into what you see on a screen (acting, directing, writing, cinematography, sound, even make up). I think that writing is the most important factor that shapes an actor's performance, but in the end it comes down to talent. A lot of directors, even some of the most notable, don't take an active role in shaping an actor's performance. They deal with the more technical aspect and allow the performer free range (see PT Anderson and There Will Be Blood, amongst others).

You can't put Pauly Shore in the role of Daniel Plainview and expect the same results as having DDL, despite having a great director at the helm. Some directors are considered 'actors' directors' some not. But talent trumps direction as does writing IMO.

[andgar923]

Like I said earlier, it's basically a cult of personality and obviously looks. Women find those guys attractive and their boyfriends/husbands think they're cool. Very simplistic interpretation I know, but that's what it basically boils down to. Plus these guys get to choose the blockbusters with notable directors, so they're ingrained into the public's collective psyche. Plus, they're not bad actors at all. Definitely not the best, but they have other qualities that make them 'stars'.

And I agree completely with everything else you said.



I'm pretty sure we've debated this issue before. There's no question that the quality of a director will enhance a film's quality overall and effect an actor's performance. But film is possibly the most collaborative art form there is and a LOT of different forces work simultaneously to gel into what you see on a screen (acting, directing, writing, cinematography, sound, even make up). I think that writing is the most important factor that shapes an actor's performance, but in the end it comes down to talent. A lot of directors, even some of the most notable, don't take an active role in shaping an actor's performance. They deal with the more technical aspect and allow the performer free range (see PT Anderson and There Will Be Blood, amongst others).

You can't put Pauly Shore in the role of Daniel Plainview and expect the same results as having DDL, despite having a great director at the helm. Some directors are considered 'actors' directors' some not. But talent trumps direction as does writing IMO.

I agree to some extent.

We've seen talented casts that have been inconsistent and the movie suffered because the director did a poor job.

But I'll defer to you since you have more film experience on a first hand basis.

Although I do want to add the following...

Even tho some actors are considered 'actor friendly' and give actors some relatively freedom, it takes a good director to be able to do that and trust the actors. It's kinda like a good coach knowing how to trust his players. Because again... it ultimately comes down to decisions that he makes that affect everything. So even if the director gives them freedom, if the acting is shitty, guess who's fault it is? The director should've known how to guide and rail in the actor. He doesn't have to be a dictator, just help guide the actors.

[Jasi]

I for one have always thought that De Niro overacts.
Not at Nicole Kidman's levels, but he does.

[andgar923]

Like I said earlier, it's basically a cult of personality and obviously looks. Women find those guys attractive and their boyfriends/husbands think they're cool. Very simplistic interpretation I know, but that's what it basically boils down to. Plus these guys get to choose the blockbusters with notable directors, so they're ingrained into the public's collective psyche. Plus, they're not bad actors at all. Definitely not the best, but they have other qualities that make them 'stars'.

And I agree completely with everything else you said.



I'm pretty sure we've debated this issue before. There's no question that the quality of a director will enhance a film's quality overall and effect an actor's performance. But film is possibly the most collaborative art form there is and a LOT of different forces work simultaneously to gel into what you see on a screen (acting, directing, writing, cinematography, sound, even make up). I think that writing is the most important factor that shapes an actor's performance, but in the end it comes down to talent. A lot of directors, even some of the most notable, don't take an active role in shaping an actor's performance. They deal with the more technical aspect and allow the performer free range (see PT Anderson and There Will Be Blood, amongst others).

You can't put Pauly Shore in the role of Daniel Plainview and expect the same results as having DDL, despite having a great director at the helm. Some directors are considered 'actors' directors' some not. But talent trumps direction as does writing IMO.


In regards to the bolded....

Even tho that's a huge leap in talent, I'll play along.

A director's job like a great coach is to make the best of what he has available. So if they have a weak defender they hide him with certain rotations and match ups. If a player is a poor shooter, they run plays to facilitate his scoring, they get put in situations that don't hinder the team. Same with a director. Directors can direct the actor to a better performance, he can shoot him differently, he can try to edit him differently (if he's involved in the editing decisions of course), he can do these and other tactics to attempt to enhance Pauly's performance.

But naturally, chances are he probably won't be cast in a role that's out of his reach.

[DonDadda59]

I agree to some extent.

We've seen talented casts that have been inconsistent and the movie suffered because the director did a poor job.

But I'll defer to you since you have more film experience on a first hand basis.

Eh, there's no right or wrong answer. Like I said, it's all collaborative. A lot of factors and skills have to come together in order to shape performances and movies as a whole. Just my personal opinion that talent and quality of writing is the bigger factor than direction when it comes to acting. But a skilled director can most definitely enhance an actor's performance.

Daniel Day Lewis discusses PT Anderson's directorial style (2:58 mark) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m__YjM8gg3s&feature=related)


Paul Thomas Anderson directed "Boogie Nights," "Magnolia" and the upcoming "There Will Be Blood" with Daniel Day-Lewis. He talked with David Ansen about working with actors.

Q: Do actors like specific direction or very little?

PTA: I haven't met an actor yet who didn't like very specific direction. But on the other hand, it reminds me of the Will Rogers line "Never miss a good chance to shut up." Sometimes standing out of the way is the best direction of all.

That's one of the best performances in film history IMO and the director was completely hands off. It came down to the talent of the actor and the words on the page. And think about how many great performances there have been in Anderson's flicks.

Speaking of which, you guys see the new trailer for 'The Master'? Looks promising, has a TWBB feel to it. Jonny Greenwood is doing the score for this as well :rockon:

[DonDadda59]

I for one have always thought that De Niro overacts.
Not at Nicole Kidman's levels, but he does.

Really? That's odd, I always thought he was a great understated actor. He and Pacino (before he started yelling all his lines like a psycho c. 1988ish :oldlol: ). Godfather part II is my favorite film, both those guys were on the money in terms of giving believable fully fleshed out performances. Same thing they did in Heat.

But I guess you must've seen him in roles like Cape Fear or the Untouchables where he was playing an over the top character.


In regards to the bolded....

Even tho that's a huge leap in talent, I'll play along.

A director's job like a great coach is to make the best of what he has available. So if they have a weak defender they hide him with certain rotations and match ups. If a player is a poor shooter, they run plays to facilitate his scoring, they get put in situations that don't hinder the team. Same with a director. Directors can direct the actor to a better performance, he can shoot him differently, he can try to edit him differently (if he's involved in the editing decisions of course), he can do these and other tactics to attempt to enhance Pauly's performance.

But naturally, chances are he probably won't be cast in a role that's out of his reach.

Don't really disagree with anything said above. Just think DDL's overwhelming talent would trump Pauly Shore being given the best direction possible. Don't think many would disagree.

[D-Rose]

I'm nowhere near the film critic that others are in this thread (props to don,uk,andgar), but here's my 2 cents.

For me it's pretty simple...an actor/actresses' performance is judged by how realistic their performance is, how much they actually make me feel like I'm right there in the story, how emotionally drawn i become to what they're portraying.

There are some actors like Nicholas Cage that I find bland and repetitive in every movie, they just seem to put out the same vibe despite the role that they're in.

[Bosnian Sajo]

I'm not sure how to explain it but I think it depends on how interesting the character is and whether the actor and director can bring out the full persona of the character in a subtle way.

My top performance of all time:

Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa
Heath Ledger as Joker
Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin

Absolutely golden, a shame that he died at such a young age.

[Raz]

This is why people call you a *******, where are your reasons? What are you even comparing Bardem's performance to? Are you saying that Bardem in NCFOM was> than anything Denzel has ever done?

Ah, because gay people don't post reasons right?

Anyway, take a look at my hundreds of replies in other threads. I put effort in, Bieber butt licker. Di you lose an avatar bet or something?

Read what I wrote again, I gave an example of each category. You're a very dense mother****er. Bardem's performance was God-like, like watching Rondo's money game against the Heat.

I was not saying that Bardem's performance was better than anything Denzel has ever done - you're reading too much into my post.

Good acting is when you don't realize someone is acting, and you stop looking at a guy for being Jack Nicholson, or whatever their name may be. It's when they seamlessly blend into the story - like Hanks' portrayal of Forrest Gump. I don't watch that movie and think of Hanks. After that movie came out, I kept accidentally referring to Hanks as Gump.

Brad Pitt is an example of an overrated actor. I personally liked him in Se7en, Fight Club, and Snatch. His best role there clearly being Se7en. The rest of his career isn't fodder, but I see him in movies and think Brad Pitt, not the character he is playing.

[NuggetsFan]

I think the writing\character plays a big part in it. Bale obviously got more of a chance to showcase what he was capable of with Dicky Eklund than Ryan Renolds does in whatever rom com he does or a movie like Safe House.

I dunno think it's subjective for the most part. Everyone has their own favorite actors\actresses and performances. It's like anything.

[Raz]

Speaking of DeNiro and the occasional over-acting, Pacino deserves a mention as well. I love him for the most part, but he is prone to playing Pacino sometimes.

One of my fav Pacino quotes:

Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, His own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is He doing? He's laughin' His sick ****in' ass off! He's a tight-ass, He's a sadist, He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? Never!

Reading that, is pretty, meh, but hearing him deliver it - ****ing golden.

[RaininTwos]

Ah, because gay people don't post reasons right?

Anyway, take a look at my hundreds of replies in other threads. I put effort in, Bieber butt licker. Di you lose an avatar bet or something?

Read what I wrote again, I gave an example of each category. You're a very dense mother****er. Bardem's performance was God-like, like watching Rondo's money game against the Heat.

I was not saying that Bardem's performance was better than anything Denzel has ever done - you're reading too much into my post.


the **** thing was clearly a joke, I hope you don't stay eternally enraged. :rolleyes:

Your insults need work but your post was retarded. If one person says,"Good acting is Denzel Washington, great acting is Bardem in NCFOM", then anyone with half brain would think what I thought. You put an actor's entire career in the good acting category and another actor's best performance above it. Come on now.

It's okay to just say that Bardem was better in NCFOM than Denzel has ever been in his best role, but to basically say that, then deny and rage against someone who would like reasons to why you feel that way is stupid.

[Godzuki]

theres a lot of factors but i judge mostly from diversity of acting. I think if they can play a lot of different roles across different genres of movies they have to be very good actors. Its like Johnny Dep to me is one of the most overrated actors out there. He seems very similar between most of the eccentric characters he plays, and somehow gets awards/praise for acting very similiarly in all of his quirky roles.

theres also a passion i see sometimes in actors that i envy with how much they're into their characters. Sort of like the Tangled voice acting youtube i posted with Mandy Moore acting her character so passionately, i love that...and love her :bowdown:

i respect them a lot more if they come from a theater background as well, which indicates to me they have true talent that a camera and editing take-two's can't make up for, as well as being able to sing. I was surprised at Katherine Zeta Jones talent in Chicago for example, even the Jerry McGuire girl. I actually put Theater talent above movie talent but thats a whole different thread....

i've liked Denzel ever since Ricochet, but he does a lot of similar emotes and stuff in different roles, and he always has that big ass teeth sparkling smile. he also likes to show a lot of attitude, sometimes over the top imo, but over the top is how a lot of actors seem to get recognized as good actors. reminds me of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men with his speech...and i think everyone has their moments here and there. Like Alec Baldwin in MAlice with the famous "I am God" speech, i thought that was great :applause:

[andgar923]

theres a lot of factors but i judge mostly from diversity of acting. I think if they can play a lot of different roles across different genres of movies they have to be very good actors. Its like Johnny Dep to me is one of the most overrated actors out there. He seems very similar between most of the eccentric characters he plays, and somehow gets awards/praise for acting very similiarly in all of his quirky roles.

theres also a passion i see sometimes in actors that i envy with how much they're into their characters. Sort of like the Tangled voice acting youtube i posted with Mandy Moore acting her character so passionately, i love that...and love her :bowdown:

i respect them a lot more if they come from a theater background as well, which indicates to me they have true talent that a camera and editing take-two's can't make up for, as well as being able to sing. I was surprised at Katherine Zeta Jones talent in Chicago for example, even the Jerry McGuire girl. I actually put Theater talent above movie talent but thats a whole different thread....

i've liked Denzel ever since Ricochet, but he does a lot of similar emotes and stuff in different roles, and he always has that big ass teeth sparkling smile. he also likes to show a lot of attitude, sometimes over the top imo, but over the top is how a lot of actors seem to get recognized as good actors. reminds me of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men with his speech...and i think everyone has their moments here and there. Like Alec Baldwin in MAlice with the famous "I am God" speech, i thought that was great :applause:

Theater acting is different from camera acting. There's different aspects involved, a great theater actor may not necessarily be a great film actor and vice versa. A big part of it is 'presence'. Some have a better camera presence while others have a better stage presence and that's something that you either have or don't. So I wouldn't say that one medium is better than the other, two distinct enough disciplines that can be considered different.

[resin_baller]

i've had similar problems distinguishing 'good' from 'great' when it comes to acting. i think there's somewhat of a threshold at which point whatever method that's being put to use dissolves and a role becomes fully believable. that would be what the good and the great have in common, a standard of authenticity where realism peaks and it becomes impossible not to 'buy' what the performance is selling.

Gotta disagree with this. Great acting won't be realistic except in a few narrow categories. Take a look at 3 different movies with parts that you consider great acting. Then take a look at 3 people who AREN'T acting, on camera. Even if they're great actors, the people who aren't acting will behave totally differently than the people who are acting. Acting isn't realistic, and usually, it isn't supposed to be.

Then again, I'm one of those assholes in the back of the theater who's yelling out how the moviemakers don't understand high school physics.

[DonDadda59]

Theater acting is different from camera acting. There's different aspects involved, a great theater actor may not necessarily be a great film actor and vice versa. A big part of it is 'presence'. Some have a better camera presence while others have a better stage presence and that's something that you either have or don't. So I wouldn't say that one medium is better than the other, two distinct enough disciplines that can be considered different.

Yeah, a lot of people don't grasp that they are really 2 different mediums. Each has its own requirements from the actor and like you said, some actors are more tailored for one over the other, with some successfully doing both. Laurence Olivier is considered by many to be the finest theater actor ever but when he forayed into film, a lot of people thought he was an overacting ham. On the flip side, Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington, two of the most bankable and heralded film actors of their generation, got some negative reviews for their theater work, especially Julia... the critics were harsh :lol

[andgar923]

Yeah, a lot of people don't grasp that they are really 2 different mediums. Each has its own requirements from the actor and like you said, some actors are more tailored for one over the other, with some successfully doing both. Laurence Olivier is considered by many to be the finest theater actor ever but when he forayed into film, a lot of people thought he was an overacting ham. On the flip side, Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington, two of the most bankable and heralded film actors of their generation, got some negative reviews for their theater work, especially Julia... the critics were harsh :lol

One of the differences is staying in character. In theater there's no stopping really, once you step on stage you are the character until the play is over. On film, there's constant stopping and stopping and time in between. Some actors deal with that better than others, while some film actors have a harder time really finding a character.

On the flip side, there's actors like Laurence Fishburne that aren't considered legendary. Yet the cat is almost a f*ckin legend as a theater actor.

[ukplayer4]

good stuff going on in here


Eh, there's no right or wrong answer. Like I said, it's all collaborative. A lot of factors and skills have to come together in order to shape performances and movies as a whole. Just my personal opinion that talent and quality of writing is the bigger factor than direction when it comes to acting. But a skilled director can most definitely enhance an actor's performance.


hhmmm, its true film is highly collaborative, but in varying degrees. i actually think writing really varies as to the importance in plays on a performance. alot of the interesting performances lately have come from skeletal screenplays. like crazy for example was just 50 pages of notes and the acting was terrific as it was all improvisation, herzhog is someone who works this way also, von trier as well to varying degrees, also haneke. my current way of working is to write everything except dialogue. i really think as long as you are clear in explaining the character, the motivations of the scene, what needs to be achieved, point a to point b and certain notes that need to be hit that dialogue shouldnt be written. i feel like if actors have dialogue to remember they spend so long on this instead of acting naturally and working things out between themselves in the performance. editing is a nightmare but i really, really feel this is the way forward at the moment....anyway this obviously relies upon good actors and hopefully a competent director.




Paul Thomas Anderson directed "Boogie Nights," "Magnolia" and the upcoming "There Will Be Blood" with Daniel Day-Lewis. He talked with David Ansen about working with actors.

Q: Do actors like specific direction or very little?

PTA: I haven't met an actor yet who didn't like very specific direction. But on the other hand, it reminds me of the Will Rogers line "Never miss a good chance to shut up." Sometimes standing out of the way is the best direction of all.[/INDENT]

That's one of the best performances in film history IMO and the director was completely hands off. It came down to the talent of the actor and the words on the page. And think about how many great performances there have been in Anderson's flicks.

whilst i love pta i think this quote actually undermines your argument. the key point being "I haven't met an actor yet who didn't like very specific direction". this is my own finding also. anderson also, always uses very good actors, obviously you arent going to have to tell ddl anything, hes already spent the last decade preparing for the role by living in an oil well and eating sand.
i think the important thing is every director seems to have different ways of working, and this also relates to other elements of the film and how they relate to directorial approach with varying degrees of emphasis.

an interesting film to test this theory on will be when darren aronofsky finishes noah's ark. for some strange reason he has cast emma watson- truly not only a horrifically untalented human being but also a complete embarrassment to her profession. she does not even seem to give a shit about acting. aronofsky is a very hands on director in terms of crafting the performance but he also pushes actors a long way, hermoine is never gonna manage to provide what darren requires so it will be interesting to see what he does with that useless sack of shit.
thats another interesting angle, the great directors of actors seem willing to push and push and push, arnofsky for example put jackman through pure hell on the fountain and von treir actually resorts to physical/mental torture which usually means no one wants to work with him again but unquestionably he gets the best out of them. ofcourse to do this you need to have a great relationship(and that means trust) between you and the actor(meaning they have total faith in your ability to not make them look stupid) as they are willing to really sacrifice themselves for the role. of course this should really be to a large extent what defines good acting.

[AboveTheRim.]

I'm nowhere near the film critic that others are in this thread (props to don,uk,andgar), but here's my 2 cents.

For me it's pretty simple...an actor/actresses' performance is judged by how realistic their performance is, how much they actually make me feel like I'm right there in the story, how emotionally drawn i become to what they're portraying.

There are some actors like Nicholas Cage that I find bland and repetitive in every movie, they just seem to put out the same vibe despite the role that they're in.

I'm in the same boat as you.

For me, one of the best actors to repeatedly do this is Gary Oldman. Every time I see him in a film, I don't see Gary Oldman at all, rather I see Commissioner Gordon or Sirius Black or Stansfield etc..

There are a lot of actors/actresses that I see play very similar roles, and then I start to just view the character as an extension of that person instead of a completely unique character.

I don't really think there is a way to call one specific piece of acting great or good on it's own, I think the only way you can really do that is by comparing it to other actors (for me Maggie Gyllenhaal plays a farrrrrrrrrr better Rachael Dawes than Katie Holmes, so I'd say that Maggie's acting was good compared to Katies).

[KevinNYC]

Great actors are in the moment, watch some old Spencer Tracy movies. You'll never find him anticipating the emotion of the scene or the dialogue of the other character. The epitome of the idea that "Acting is about reacting."

I forget which star said it, but he said the best direction he ever got from a director was "don't act."

Akira Kurosawa upon watching Toshiro Mifune's audition (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/25/movies/toshiro-mifune-actor-dies-at-77-the-primal-hero-of-samurai-films.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) at an open call and the first acting Mifune ever did in his life (He went to the studio looking for camera work, but his friend submitted his picture the acting department.)


''A young man was reeling around the room in a violent frenzy,'' he recounted. ''It was as frightening as watching a wounded or trapped savage beast trying to break loose. I stood transfixed. But it turned out that this young man was not really in a rage, but had drawn 'anger' as the emotion he had to express in his screen test. He was acting. When he finished his performance, he regained his chair and with an exhausted demeanor, flopped down and began to glare menacingly at the judges. Now, I know very well that this kind of behavior was a cover for shyness, but the jury seemed to be interpreting it as disrespect.''

When the jury voted to reject Mr. Mifune, Mr. Kurosawa spoke on his behalf and barely succeeded in convincing the others to sign the young actor to a studio contract.

''I am a person rarely impressed by actors,'' Mr. Kurosawa later said. ''But in the case of Mifune I was completely overwhelmed.''

....
''It was, above all, the speed with which he expressed himself that was astounding,'' Mr. Kurosawa wrote in ''Something Like an Autobiography.'' ''The ordinary Japanese actor might need 10 feet of film to get across an impression. Mifune needed only 3 feet. The speed of his movements was such that he said in a single action what took ordinary actors three separate movements to express.''

Watch Anthony Hopkins in The Remains of the Day. You never catching hiim "acting." You just see a man living his life.

Watch Al Pacino in The Godfather and Godfather II and then watch Scent of Woman and see what a piece of shit that later film is and get depressed that was the film that got Pacino his Oscar. (Not Donnie Brasco which he was quite good in.)

The other thing about acting and performances. Sometimes "realism" or "naturalism" is not what the role requires. Check out how freaky great Johnny Depp is in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQkEwn3cQns&feature=related). Not realistic at all, but perfectly "true" for that movie. Check out John Goodman in the Big Lebowski (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmULYr1nsZ0&feature=related)

[KevinNYC]

I think the writing\character plays a big part in it. Bale obviously got more of a chance to showcase what he was capable of with Dicky Eklund

He was so amazing in The Fighter. His performance was a revelation to me.

Also speaking of Heath Ledger as The Joker, one my absolute favorite scenes is when he is in dressed as The Nurse. That first line where he says "Hi" is absolutely amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRG1tWQN6e8#t=0m55s

[ROCSteady]

U can learn to appreciate finer acting by simply exposing yourself to more filmd are a variety of films.

It's honestly more of an intuition thing, recognizing how the character is effective within the constraints of the script and how that performance moved you emotionally, or captivated you with absurdity.

There's not a lot of suggestions that one can make to appreciate a layered and nuanced performance other than exposing yourself to diff films and trusting your own soul!

[heyhey]

Ah, because gay people don't post reasons right?

Anyway, take a look at my hundreds of replies in other threads. I put effort in, Bieber butt licker. Di you lose an avatar bet or something?

Read what I wrote again, I gave an example of each category. You're a very dense mother****er. Bardem's performance was God-like, like watching Rondo's money game against the Heat.

I was not saying that Bardem's performance was better than anything Denzel has ever done - you're reading too much into my post.

Good acting is when you don't realize someone is acting, and you stop looking at a guy for being Jack Nicholson, or whatever their name may be. It's when they seamlessly blend into the story - like Hanks' portrayal of Forrest Gump. I don't watch that movie and think of Hanks. After that movie came out, I kept accidentally referring to Hanks as Gump.

Brad Pitt is an example of an overrated actor. I personally liked him in Se7en, Fight Club, and Snatch. His best role there clearly being Se7en. The rest of his career isn't fodder, but I see him in movies and think Brad Pitt, not the character he is playing.

I seen this criticism levied against guys like denzel and leo dicaprio too but aren't those actors just a victim of their own success. because they cultivated such strong on/off screen personas that the audience cannot separate their character from themselves as easily as they would for others.

Tom cruise is not really considered a great actor but everyone applauded his role in tropic thunder and part of the reason it seems was because his appearance was so obscured that we didn't think of him as tom cruise.

I think performances is obviously part acting ability and proper casting and great performances require both. You can be a "bad" actor and be cast well which result in a good performance without really credit to your acting chops . like Keanu in matrix, bill & ted or my own private idaho for example

[andgar923]

I seen this criticism levied against guys like denzel and leo dicaprio too but aren't those actors just a victim of their own success. because they cultivated such strong on/off screen personas that the audience cannot separate their character from themselves as easily as they would for others.

Tom cruise is not really considered a great actor but everyone applauded his role in tropic thunder and part of the reason it seems was because his appearance was so obscured that we didn't think of him as tom cruise.

I think performances is obviously part acting ability and proper casting and great performances require both. You can be a "bad" actor and be cast well which result in a good performance without really credit to your acting chops . like Keanu in matrix, bill & ted or my own private idaho for example

GREAT points which I was gonna touch on.

There's actors that refuse to do interviews and even when they do, they reveal as little of themselves as possible because they don't want people to know much about them. It seems as tho we know about Will and Denzel a bit too much, their over exposure makes us feel as tho we know them. So we start to see pieces of themselves in some of the roles they play.

We see this with new actors all the time. They come out in a movie and we're like "Yo this actor is dope!" but after a few more movies and interviews we start to feel as tho we've seen that character before, we've seen the actor do a similar performance. Actors can only do so much before people start to recognize similarities or get familiar with their nuances.

[andgar923]

The uniqueness of Depp.

Do any of you comprehend how hard it is for Depp?

I understand that he gets labeled as playing the same unique character, but when you dig deeper, one can start to see the differences. On the surface it may appear as tho he's playing a variation of the same character or even himself, but this isn't the case.

So why is he unique?

He's unique in the sense that while his characters are often times colorful, they're actually quite different. But that's not really why I find him unique. What I find unique is the CHALLENGE of creating these characters that have no basis. DDL is considered the best actor of his generation and with good reason, but I find those characters easier to find a basis/foundation. Depp's characters at times are so bizarre and out there that I'm sure it's hard to find those starting blocks, but the challenge is in not just creating these fictional characters with very little basis in reality. But to make them unique and different from one another. One cannot compare Edward Cissorhands to his Pirate or Wonka... completely different characters. I mean, just looking at the shit he does with his eyes is amazing. The man can act circles around almost everybody with his eyes alone.

http://www.90smovies.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/edward-scissorhands.jpg


http://www.nodeju.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/johnny-depp-pirates-caribbean-amusement-park.jpg

http://img2-2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/050630/101241__depp_l.jpg

Forget the makeup, just concentrate on his eyes... they're completely different people (characters).

And his mannerisms while similar on the surface are again different. His entire body movements, delivery, tone etc. he's simply brilliant.

And then we get into his more reality based characters, you know... the ones that most people usually praise and don't consider schticks/gimmicks. Without all the makeup and costumes people tend to appreciate him more and rank him with DDL (or as close as possible), but imo it is in the fantasy filled characters that I find the most interesting and creative.

I can see Depp pull off some of the work that DDL has done. I'm not sure if I can say the same about DDL tho.

I can go on and on about Depp's preparation but that's for another thread.

[Jackass18]

There are a number of factors. It depends on the role. Some roles were meant to be over-the-top. Not all roles were meant to be realistic and highly believable, so you can't compare all performances based on that. There's a number of questions that come to mind. How well did that person fill the role? Is that person that role? Did he/she make you forget he's/she's acting or does his/her performance make you think it's an actor trying to play that role? Was it memorable or forgettable? How well did the actor convey what he/she was supposed to convey? Also, there are plenty of roles where an actor doesn't get a chance to shine. It's kind of hard to have an excellent performance if you took a shitty role. Acting can only get you so far if the role is empty. Then, there's always screen presence and charisma.

[NuggetsFan]

He was so amazing in The Fighter. His performance was a revelation to me.

Also speaking of Heath Ledger as The Joker, one my absolute favorite scenes is when he is in dressed as The Nurse. That first line where he says "Hi" is absolutely amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRG1tWQN6e8#t=0m55s

No doubt. I think writing\characters is another reason why there's alot of shitty actresses. Always a need to play the typical sister\mother\wife\relationship role. Sure it happens with dudes where they just get some witty dude to play himself but not nearly as many great roles for women as their is men.

[NuggetsFan]

I can see Depp pull off some of the work that DDL has done. I'm not sure if I can say the same about DDL tho.


I like Johnny Depp but a DDL movie I couldn't see him playing is the "Ballad of Jack and Rose". Fear and Loathing was a great performance I thought. Haven't seen the other movie, where I've heard Bill Murry plays Hunter S.Thompson better.

Johhny Depp kills it playing those weird unique charcters. When I watched Rum Diary just felt like I was watching another version of Captain Jack Sparrow. Which I liked so whatever.

[Godzuki]

i'd just like to give a shout out to Jensen Ackles, probably one of the most unheralded and underrated actors of today :bowdown:

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTMwMjY1Mjc1NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTEwMjA3NA@@._ V1._SY314_CR6,0,214,314_.jpg

his acting ability and range is ridiculous. probably one of the most versatile actors i've ever seen.

[breadwitheggs]

I can see Depp pull off some of the work that DDL has done. I'm not sure if I can say the same about DDL tho.

I can go on and on about Depp's preparation but that's for another thread.
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22124895.jpg

http://content.internetvideoarchive.com/content/photos/075/000317_25.jpg

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/michaelwalford/2007/01/12/my_beautiful_laundrette_1.jpg

http://thebestpictureproject.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/myleftfoot2.jpg

[dunksby]

In the name of the father trumps anything Depp has ever done and I'm a fan of Depp's acting.

[DonDadda59]

Johnny Depp was always a poor man's Gary Oldman IMO, even though he's filthy stinkin rich :oldlol:

[KevinNYC]

In the name of the father trumps anything Depp has ever done and I'm a fan of Depp's acting.

In the Name of the Father just kills me. It might be the Irish accents.

Pete Postlethwait is fantastic in it too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ff5KjZ7vM

[KevinNYC]

Regarding Depp and Daniel Day Lewis. Do you think DDL would have been better at being Ed Wood at being Hunter S. Thompson? Edward Scissorhands? They're two very good, but different actors? and Depp is the better comedic actor. Lewis probably the better dramatic actor.

Comedic actors always get underated when talking about acting because some how it feels frivolous.

[KevinNYC]

And the Bill Murray Hunter S. Thompson movie is not that good.

However, I am looking forward to Bill Murray in this. (Hyde Park on Hudson)

[dunksby]

Regarding Depp and Daniel Day Lewis. Do you think DDL would have been better at being Ed Wood at being Hunter S. Thompson? Edward Scissorhands? They're two very good, but different actors? and Depp is the better comedic actor. Lewis probably the better dramatic actor.

Comedic actors always get underated when talking about acting because some how it feels frivolous.
Depp has had too many average movies playing repetitive roles that all resemble each other.

[NuggetsFan]

An actress who I think kills it alot is Natalie Portman. My favorite by far. Really good at portraying different roles IMO. Been in a bunch of really amazing flicks too. Black Swan, V for Vendetta, Garden State, Closer and even killed it with one of the best child performances in Leon. Been in a few really generic movies like No Strings Attached where she basically played the same ol rom com female too tho.

Looking forward to her in those two upcoming Malick films with the stacked casts.