1
   

What is"good acting" in film?

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2003 01:28 pm
Russell Crowe bowled me over with one of his first Australian films, "The Sum of Us" where he portrays a gay man who lives with an understanding father.
0 Replies
 
BillyFalcon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2003 04:44 pm
"You need to feel the role you are playing" Maybe for a movie (they can always postpone the shoot) Or, if the character is drunk, maybe the actor should be too.

But what are you going to do on the stage if you "don't feel it?" Perhaps, turn to the audience and say "I'll be there in a minute. I'm psyching myself up."

I saw Robert Shaw in a Pinter play in Philadelphia. Near the end of the play his charater is devastated by a verbal attack from his wife and he bursts into tears." That production went to NY. I saw it a second time. At this production, he was precise, and burst into tears on cue. You don't get that kind of control by "getting into the role". There is obviously soemthing else taking place.

Acting is not believing. Acting is the appearance of believing.
0 Replies
 
BillyFalcon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2003 05:15 pm
I remember an article about acting that said when an American director and a cast run into a serious problem scene, they sit down and talk about the problem.
The British director and cast play the scene over and over until they get it right.
Must be some lesson in there.
0 Replies
 
BillyFalcon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2003 10:09 pm
I have, on previous threads, extolled the ability of Marlon Brando to play an extreme variety of roles successfully. What some postings call flexibility. Briefly
noted:
A hoodlum
An Asian
A diplomat
A cowboy
A German officer
A Mafia Don
etc. etc.

Brando also had presence, yes, but a stronger word is charisma. Charisma: "The ability to inspire enthusiasm, interest or affection in others by means of personal charm or onfluence."

I think Brando and Dustin Hoffman were/are our most
versatile actors.

Someone once asked what made Laurence Olivier the greatest actor in the English langauge. The reply. "Very simple. He works harder than anyone else."
It's been said that he came to the first rehearsal of a play with his lines learned and with a walk for his character.
0 Replies
 
mac11
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2003 11:00 pm
I'm not arguing the point that Olivier may be the greatest actor in the English language, BF. But ...

Some actors would say that learning the lines and having too much decided ahead of time doesn't leave anything to discover in the rehearsal process. Certainly a director would say that since an actor who was so prepared would possibly not be open to hearing what the director had to say about the character. I'm referring to stage work here as few films have the luxury of extensive rehearsal.
0 Replies
 
BillyFalcon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 06:15 am
mac11

You made a strong point about being "overprepared."
It gave me something to think about. I think an amateur would be "over prepared." But rehearsals involve hundreds of choices and changes and I doubt Olivier would have been rigid and inflexible. However, he would have the luxury and freedom pf being off book from the start.

Your point is well taken. I wouldn't recommend that amateurs do that.
0 Replies
 
flyboy804
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 09:06 am
I agree with most of what has been written here, which brings me to my point-Sean Penn. I consider him a fine actor who frequently has moments of going "over the top". I can usually accept this; however in "Mystic River" he was doing this constantly. I found the film excellent particularly the other performances, but Penn's disturbed me. I know I am in the minority about this since people have mentioned this as an Acadamy Award performance. If he does get Academy recognition, I hope it's for his performance in "21 Grams", which though an inferior film to "Mystic River" had a superior performance by Penn.
0 Replies
 
BillyFalcon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 09:21 pm
Mac11

"inflexible" implies that an actor knows how to do something, but does not want to.
Let me graciously suggest "limited" as a more accurate description --- " He has a limited range of roles he can play"
0 Replies
 
BillyFalcon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2003 09:42 pm
flyboy,

I agree about Penn going over the top. I have said that actors making movies can be really drunk to play a drunk, work themselves into a fury, use a variety of techniques to cry, etc. But none of these methods are possible on the stage.

A film is done once.
A play frequently runs for a year or more. How do these stage actors create the illusion of the first time? Every night and a matinee, seven to eight performances a week! You attend the 200th performance and expect it to be like opening night. And, by golly, it is! This takes stamina, powers of concentration, good health, energy, and a respect for the audience. None of these are necessarily applicable
to movie actors.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 12:42 pm
Hey, all. Honestly, after watching Submerged, a movie made for TV, I decided that eveyone in the flic did a great job in their portrayals of the trapped crew; the rescue team; the women who were waiting, etc. The fact that it was based on a true event, made it even more powerful. WOW!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 09:46:51