What is"good acting" in film?

Hey, Billy, of the limerick.

You are right about stage vs. film, but I'm afraid that I am no expert in the legitimate theatre.

As to being able to tell when one actor is better than another, it's a matter of feel for me. If I can identify with the role, then I dub that actor a good actor. Kevin Spacey very rarely changes expression in his performance, but there is something about him that absolutely says:

" You are one helluvan actor, Kevin."

To date, the only movie that I have seen in which Spacey was NOT good, was "Pay it Forward".

There are other actors, of course, which I deem good, but at the moment, I can only think of one, and that is Spacey along with Kevin Anderson. (think that's his name). He never looks the same twice. He was Bobby Kennedy in "Hoffa".

"Not looking the same way twice" i believe is important, Miss Letty. I give the palm to Anthony Hopkins and to Meryl Streep for exactly that ability to appear to be someone entirely different from one film to another. That's not sure fire, though. I saw The Petrified Forest on the late show one night, coming into the film after it had begun, and thought to myself--man, somebody's doin' a real ham-handed Bogart imitation. Then they broke for commercials, and the announcer said: "We'll be right back with The Petrified Forest with Humphrey Bogart." I changed the channel.

That ability can show up in those with whom we would not expect to see it. Compare Peter Sellers in Being There to any of the more exaggerated comic parts in which he was usually cast. He so completely became the character, that you forget you are seeing Sellers.

It is a little more difficult when seeing someone simply in a single film. I reacted to the Thornton character in Slingblade very deeply, because he portrayed a character type (carried to an extreme, surely) which is recognizable to anyone who has ever lived in the South. So i think that there is an ability to "become" a character which makes for great acting. I don't think that would apply exclusively to either film or stage.

Share a little secret with ya, Setanta. I never cared much for Bogart, but that's because I was too young to appreciate him, I guess.

When I saw "What's Eating Gilbert Grape", I thought; "How did they get that kid, obviously slow, to act at all?". Isn't it a shame that deCaprio became a matinee idol?

as to Peter Sellers, I was stunned at his magnificent performance in Dr. Strangelove as the American president. I did NOT know that is WAS Peter Sellers.

Hmmmm. Billy Bob. Well, certainly wasn't a Southern aristocrat, was he.

there is a huge difference in acting in a film and acting in theater. someone who can act short scenes on a movie set beautifully may not necessarily be able to act an entire play in front of thousands.

Good acting in films & TV is much more subtle than good acting on stage. I do think that acting is required - even though occasionally we've seen children or non-actors be interesting, it's because the director has found a rare person who is interesting to watch on screen even though they can't act.

I think a good actor in a film can act with his or her eyes. It doesn't take much to convey a thought when the face is 20 feet high on the screen.

By the way, Russell Crowe isn't on my list of good actors...though I'm willing to give him a few more chances to convince me!

Setanta-I was thinking about writing the very same thing before I saw your post (not about Hopkins or Streep particularly, but the concept)

I remember the first few times that I saw Geraldine Page. I never could figure out who she was, because she always took on the part in her films, rather than simply projecting her own personality. I do agree with you though about Hopkins and Streep.

i judge actors primarily by their ability to convince me that they're not acting. at the top of my list are edward norton, robert deniro, al pacino, and joe pecci.

i thought the movie, "swingers", is a great example of a movie where the actors don't seem like they're acting. in fact i don't think they were.

ye110man i was going to say something very similar then to what you have, and Letty also on her 'Gilbert Grape' point. For me, if i start believing that the actor is actually the person they are portraying and that they are in the same situation as their character; so if it becomes entirely believably, (however absurd in some cases) that is the mark of good film acting to my mind.

No matter what expressions, dialect, mannerisms, et al the actor uses on film, it's the close ups especially that will consistently reveal that actor's own persona. Haven't seen Crowe in "Master and Commander" but I imagine he is playing a stoic sea captain. He was playing a psycho in "A Beautiful Mind" although in many scenes, that character was also rather emotionless and stoic. In "Gladiator" he was a stoic Roman, although I was impressed with the pain and the elation he masterfully underplayed. A great actor on film still has to use the basic mechanics of acting -- the art is not drawing attention to the method. Sometimes the method is to not act at all -- just give into the fact that everyone will perceive you as Gregory Peck and will still appreciate the depth of the character despite the identity of star status. I know of no performance where a film star, at least, is able to define their character to completely that you forget who they are. Independent films (and stage acting) with a little known actor can be more appreciated and impressive for individual performances. I know when I'm watching a Kurosawa epic with Tishiru Mifune, I'm watching Tishiru Mifune -- his own persona is irrevocably attached to the character.

I guess the idea is to present the character without going over the top into Oscar Mayer territory and you've done a good job as an actor.

Mr. Wizard. I will never argue with your acumen in the film venue. I just remembered Richard Burton. Wow! what an actor.Prince of Players?Edwin Booth? God! I think I love him!

As I've said elsewhere, my favorite Burton role is in "Becket," and he actually never turned in an inferior performance even in a film that didn't altogether work like "The Night of the Iguana." I loved his hedonistic, fallen from the grace of the church performance in that film.

A slightly befuddled opinion, but in agreement with the ones given:

I think a good actor or actress is one who makes oneself into the character so you forget who the actor is or one who makes you believe the character is the actor......hmmmm..

Meaning - I saw Master & Commander and felt that the captain became Crowe. I saw Silence of the Lambs and felt that Hopkins became Hannibal Lector. I'll also say as much as I find myself not wanting to like Crowe I always end up enjoying his performance. He has a certain presence that most new young actors lack.

I also think that people like DeNiro, while good, are inflexible. He will always be mafia man to me - always loud and in-your-face, and does not have the range for Remains of the Day, or Silence of the Lambs, or The Lion in Winter.

^ i agree. someone like joe pecci is a totally inflexible actor. but he's an entirely believable angry mob man unlike someone like andy garcia.

flexibility could be another measure of acting ability. dustin hoffman is good at that.

i feel that people like crowe have qualities that makes them perfect for certain roles that may not require tremendous acting skills. for example, crowe has the aurora of a leader. he would be the perfect general mcarthur.

Couldn't agree more on the choice of Hopkins and Streep.

Some thoughts about acting:

An actor who believes he is someone else, is ready for the men in white coats. Consider paying Desdemona opposite an actor who believes he is Othello. So, when he strangles Desdemona, he really strangles her.

And, further, we don't care what the actor thinks or feels. What matters is what the audience feels.

Drama = Dran (Greek for "to do")
Act = Latin "to do"

Acting is a physical task. Speech is an action as much as walking, etc.

French director Jean-Lois Barrault:
An actor should never ask "How do I feel in this scene?) What? The very heart of theatre? The actor should ask himself "What am i trying to do in this scene?)

De Niro's turn as the Frankenstein monster sunk that movie. He was just too familiar and looked and acted more like an alcoholic or drug addict than the monster. Kenneth Branagh's performance with the concerted effort to show his newly chiseled body was laughable. All the good ones have their bad day.

How about Gregory Peck as Ahab as Abraham Lincoln (he only lacked the stovepipe hat!)

Jean-Paul Belmondo is one of my favorite French actors who also seems more comfortable in playing the neer-do-well thug than other roles.

I'd add that I think that one needs two things, above all, to be a good actor; a kind of 'stage presence', and a good interpretation of rôle. You have to feel the rôle that you are playing, and in doing so, capture the audience.

I like Belmondo too- but I love most Nouvelle Vague films. I like Pierrot le fou very much, and sois belle et tais-toi. What do you think his best movie is, if there is one?

Meg Ryan at Katz's Deli in "When Harry Met Sally".

Brendan Gleeson - because I have seen him in several movies and I don't notice him as a man, an actor - I only notice the characters he plays. I know nothing about him and don't care to but I do know when he is in a movie that I will be watching.

I first saw him in movies like "The Treaty" and "The Snapper" and then he starred in "Braveheart" opposite Mel Gibson. Since then I have caught him here and there in other movies and it was always ... oh that guys face looks familiar. He is not a super-impressive over-the-top action-packed star and he is not pigeon-holed by specific roles. I think he could play any character and well.