what criterion do you use to judge an actor's performance

was talking about this with a friend and i realized that i really have no way of differentiating between good and bad acting. and i always hear these causal but certain assessments of actor's performances and wonder what precisely people are basing these opinions on???

like i totally believe that people have a way judging these things that I just don't – it's basically never that i watch a movie or w/e and think "man I just didn't believe that actor" and i watch a lot of shitty movies… but sometimes it comes across as just received wisdom and totally circular. or like someone just hates a certain actor and so everything she does is terrible by default.

tittays

I use mark wahlberg as a calibration point for the performances of both men and women

i dunno man, whether my eyes are glued to them and i want to keep watching them i guess

i used to have this whole idea of 'believability' in this sort of 'oh he/she was believable as XXX' way where really the deal was, "can i tell that this person is an actor" but now i mostly just judge based on charisma, where the deal is, do i like this movie more when this person is on screen

yeah or what slocki said

which is why btw i get really annoyed at "omg denzel plays the same character in every movie" jokes--who gives a shit, most of the time when dw is on screen he is killing it and i want to watch him all the time

i dunno man, whether my eyes are glued to them and i want to keep watching them i guess

― s1ocki, Monday, February 23, 2009 7:08 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

pretty much, hence never trust film critics on 'the dazzling zooey deschanel/rebecca hall/michelle monaghan etc'.

i really hate it when crits do that drooly thing where they're all, "emily mortimer has eyes like a frightened gazelle's; they dart and weave and seem to deserve to be preserved as specimens of a uniquely female attribute—girlus foxius."

There's too much validation for "emotive" and/or technique based acting, and not enough on simply performing or the projection of certain qualities. I'm not sure what Setsuko Hara, Jennifer Connelly, Bowie, and Alain Delon qualifies as acting, but it's damn compelling.

*do qualifes as acting

im pretty sure those dudes are actors

idk, i reckon ~25% of movies for both sexes is about lookin at the pretty people up there.

xposts

other 75 is philip seymour hoffman

ya i got nothing against hotness in the movies but there's a certain way of writing about it that i find kinda lame and gross

movie star vs actors is often different.

Bogart & Spencer Tracy were never pretty.

or Bette Davis, particularly.

ya but the camera loved em

im pretty sure those dudes are actors

Yeah, but I can't imagine anything more ridiculous than casting or wanting to see, say, Jennifer Connelly as Desdemona.

idk, i reckon ~25% of movies for both sexes is about lookin at the pretty people up there.

Exactly, which is why boring pretty actors like Brad Pitt must really hate themselves in the morning.

Bogartseth rogen & Spencer Tracyjonah hill were never pretty.

god i'd hate to be in his shoes xp

brad pitt's haunted eyes convey a painful existence

A pity Brad Pitt didn't OD after Fight Club or he'd have a fucking Oscar for that

Rogen is hot now!

brad pitt can be an okay actor when he's talking and stuff and not posing

when Harrison Ford movies still made movie crits always mentioned "the haunted look" in his anguished eyes.

*still made money

movies making movies

A pity Brad Pitt didn't OD after Fight Club or he'd have a fucking Oscar for that

― Dr Morbius, Monday, February 23, 2009

what the fuck this isn't v ha ha ha, calm down

really, Brad Pitt is AT LEAST as good a film actor as PS Hoffman. he gets shat on cuz he's hot.

^^^ I kind of agree with this

He gets shat on cuz he often sucks!

nahhhh

who the hell is shitting on 2-time oscar nominee brad pitt??

brad pitt is better than hoffman imo

he was awesome in that jesse james movie, funny in that Coen brothers gym flick

i feel like he's got a pretty good rep and only gets "shit on" when he does "shitty" "movies" like the infamous meet joe black.

who the hell is shitting on 2-time oscar nominee brad pitt??

That's why I said "kind of"

who the hell is shitting on 2-time oscar nominee brad pitt??

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Monday, February 23, 2009 1:25 PM (24 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ANGELINA JOLIE, am i right, sexually

i think brad pitt is totally a good actor

lol max u r so right

Whether it assists me in achieving a top-notch catharsis. NB: usually requires using a certain amount of tongue.

hes best when hes being funny

better than PSH, probably not. psh's looks are actually an advantage tho, it allows him to disappear into more serious-seeming roles

i bet hes pretty fun to hang out with tho

schef: Alfred is!

omar so challopsy, so Rong

Know your strengths. Matthew McConoughheyneighhey isn't terribly gifted, but at least he gives moderately tolerable Tom Selleck-style performances as manflesh in loads of dinky comedies – after years of doing Serious Drama like Amistad and A Time To Kill.

psh was great in mi3 i thot

better than brad pitt would have been

fine, whatever, I'm insane.

nabisco do you really think subtle and understated are that far apart????

i do not -- i also think a thesaurus is not a very foolproof way of trying to prove that

I'm not sure if that argument is subtle, or just understated.

*applause*

http://209.85.117.197/12413/88/0/e25948//e25948.gif

You opened the door on hair-splitting, you can't get mad just because I'm better at it than you are!

(btw "exact synonym" is technical jargon used in gene research; there is no such thing as an exact synonym in terms of language, which was my point to you; the rejection of the synonym list when the objection was "those words shouldn't be treated as synonyms" is willful at best)

the relationship betwee being good and being convincing (not "realistic", necessarily, but not obviously an actor in a role) is usually pretty staightforward: the more convincing, the better. but what about, like, isabelle adjani in "posession"? she's not always 100% on, but she takes it so far, and manages to hold both the center and the edges through such incredible extremity, that it becomes a kind of stand-alone, unconvincing greatness.

Hahaha Dan I have no idea what you're talking about and I repeat -- if you seriously can't tell what I meant upthread you are beyond hope, and I know you know this

(plus, if i'd been contrasting the words "subtle" and "understated" without any further clarification, i'd totally understand the continued bitching about the fact that they're very nearly synonomous. but i was real damn clear about the nature of the distinction i was trying to make. so, damn.)

I mean this is dumb but I'll just say it once clearly and go --

- That thesaurus also lists "ingenious" and "ethereal" as synonyms for "subtle."

- In the big picture, both of those words are really clearly distinct from "subtle." They operate on different levels and mean different things. BUT BUT BUT

- But there is a particular inflection of the word "subtle" that means something a lot like "ingenious," and a particular inflection that means something a lot like "ethereal," so those are both in the thesaurus -- because the synonyms in a thesaurus try to match up a lot of the different connotations and senses of the original word, not just words that mean exactly the same thing. Their goal is to give options and facets, not precise equivalents!

- If you were trying to convince someone that the words "subtle" and "ingenious" and "ethereal" all meant the same thing, you would be wrong as hell, and pulling out a thesaurus and saying "but look they're listed as a synonyms" wouldn't make you any more right.

- Hence, while I think "subtle" and "understated" are close enough in their connotations that the burden might be on Contenderizer to unpack the distinction he's making, I think "look at this thesaurus" is not exactly some hilarious foolproof way of proving that, so I thought that was kind of a lame thing to try upthread.

^^ Dan knew all this but was pretending not to in order to be more pedantic than me, I guess

http://photobucket.com/albums/v56/justhefacts/Myspace-Graphics-Fun-Animations-027.gif

I am wasting my life here

there is no such thing as an exact synonym in terms of language

mind blown O_O

eveybody so gloomy today

oh ffs

contenderizer: The word you are looking for is not "understated", it is "muted"; as you were using it, there was no practical distinction between "understated" and "subtle" despite your best intentions.

nabisco: The fact that not every usage of "subtle" is the same as every usage of "understated" does not negate the fact that they have usages the do overlap. This is a fact of language. Furthermore, the only point in contention was contederizer's claim that "subtle" and "understated" were not synonyms. Seeing as "understated" shows up as synonym for "subtle" in a thesaurus shows that his contention that they should not be treated as such is wrong. It's not rocket science and I would expect someone who is so clearly in love with his facility with language to be able to grasp that, certainly without resorting to being an insulting dick about someone going to a better school than you did.

Think you missed the point of that joke too, dude

If my point had been "all instances of the word 'subtle' mean 'understated'", your nitpicking would have made a modicum of sense, but since it didn't it seems that you basically saw a chance to call the Harvard guy stupid.

oh hey

lets take this there

ivy league fite!111

monocles at dawn

Hahaha seriously? Dan? Not trying to be a dick with you, man, but umm ... I did not call you stupid, actually? In fact what happened -- you can look upthread -- is that I said something about a thesaurus, you said I made no sense, and I actually said I knew you were smart enough to figure out what I meant. I still believe that, actually, so ... I dunno, have a good one.

incredible just how fast this thread went from subtle to understated

what you dont know is that nabisco is wearing this shirt

http://sfn.planetonline.com/psouvenirs_com/images/Products/Harvard%20Sucks%20T-Shirt.jpg

ffs

i was not looking for "muted", which carries a variety of connotations that i specifically did not intend. i was looking for "understated".

in many ways "understated" IS synonomous w "subtle" (just as it is in many ways synonomous w "muted"). but "understated" simply does notT carry the entire range of connotative meanings that "subtle" does. "understated" is a much narrower word. i.e., almost everything that one might mean by "understated" can at least be implied by use of the word "subtle" -- but the reverse is not true. we cannot substitute the world "understated" for the world "subtle" and hope to cover the full range of its meanings and associations.

this is why i chose the words i did, and i think i chose correctly.

i suspect you know this. i suspect that even if you disagree with my definitions & choices, you understood the nature of the distinction i was making about a hundred posts back. so the fact that you're continuing to argue the point is baffling to me.

and he just hacked this road sign http://overstated.net/photos/random/harvardsucks.jpg

Max I am on-record on ILX as a higher-ed stan, but I guess can understand why there's no way to use the word "Harvard" in an argument that's not interpreted as snarky

http://images.textbooks.com/TextbookInfo/Covers/0878300007.gif

All u need to know.

btw im wearing this shirt http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i114/bozcrow/nailyale.jpg so take that yalies

just posted on n**s*h's blog:

http://i39.tinypic.com/254ydzp.jpg

well knock ur spats off come the regatta

remember yr lines & don't bump into the furniture.

Guys, you're making this too difficult:

Good acting = Edward Norton without a beard
Bad acting = Edward Norton with a beard

lol at this thread. anyone who isn't nabisco otm.

People get hired for different things. Some are hired because they are being typecast (ie, "just be yourself/do that one thing you do, that's what we want"). Others are hired because they will lose themselves into whatever the role asks ("we know you will shave your head and lose 40 lbs for this role"). Others are hired because of their fan bases ("your last film made $$$$$$$$$$, please read this script and we will make whatever changes are necessary for you to like it").

these are all essentially the same thing - you cast christian bale because you like that thing (or things) christian bale does. if he loses 40 lbs for the role, great, but that's an "external" that doesn't change the particular bale-ish spark that the director is looking for. if you cast christian bale because he's got a huge fanbase, that fanbase exists because all those people like that spark too and will pay monies to see it. they will not pay the monies if they realize that christian bale is in fact going to transform himself so utterly that he becomes unbale-ish. if he did, the director would tell his casting director to hire someone else. there is a vast army of actors out there to choose from. there's no need to ask someone to play someone utterly unlike them.

my answer is basically goole's. for me there are two levels - the first is that the actor needs to tell the part of the story that her part is supposed to tell. characters are written for a reason. actors have to figure out what that reason is - what their character is trying to accomplish - and then use posture, tone of voice, various sorts of strategies (pleading, needling, teasing, seducing) to try to accomplish it. this is actually very difficult to do but if they can do it then you're focusing on the story and not them Acting, which is what most peoples' complaints here seem to be about. the second level is what lifts a competent performace like this into something great - the strategies they use - the way they use language, or their bodies - that shows us something interesting about the way human beings do things that we'd never been able to really see before without the complicated scaffolding of our own real-life goals and anxieties thrashing across our field of vision. they show us part of the repertory of MOVES that normal people, non-actors, employ in real life, with a kind of flair or elegance or concreteness that lets us recognize it.

That second part brilliantly stated.

Now take that eloquence over to the already-idiot-jammed Sox thread.

thank you G00bie

it seem that when people here are saying "method" they mean that an actor is "really getting into character". you can do this without doing "the method". for instance i have no idea whether jim carrey (who's famous for not breaking character on set) or ddl actually gives three shits about stanislavski or uses sense memory in the way stanislavski or lee strasberg recommend. the signature strategy of "the method" can be boiled down to an actor using the memory of an event from his own life in order to access a feeling that he thinks he needs for a certain moment that he's playing. many people find this useless, and actually counterproductive, since the memory itself is of a different circumstance than what's in the script (and furthermore the feeling isn't being generated between the actors in the drama but is welling up inside one actor, hence more static and less dynamic.) but some people are able to use it to great effect. (personally i think meisner has just the right emphasis on "affect memory" or "sense memory" - use it as a pinch, a goose, not to recall a specific emotion but to recall what trying to do a specific thing feels like. i.e. if your character is trying to get someone to make an exception for him, you can imagine what it feels like to try to convince an airline check-in guy to let you on a plane that's just closed its doors. a specific emotion isn't being summoned up here, but the memory of a specific action. and then you don't remember the airport every time you're on stage - you use it in rehearsal to get into the flow of how you need to be behaving.)

regarding the two levels i outlined above, obviously they can bleed into each other. and some actors (al pacino comes to mind) have become so virtuousic at the second level that they forget to do the first.

with ALL that said, it's interesting to me how successful non-actors can be in movies whereas a non-actor would have no chance on stage. maybe it has something to do with stage acting being a much more artificial thing, more of an art/craft in the classic sense.

somehow this ties in with the traditional diff between british and american acting traditions - brits treating acting as a skill, like sports training, repeating the same thing again and again until it is honed to perfection and outwardly indicative of a precise thing; and americans treating acting as this mystical zone where one never wants to play a line the same way twice, immersing their inner spirit into the truth of the fiction (or something)

some of my favorite films this decade have had nonprofessional actors.

with ALL that said, it's interesting to me how successful non-actors can be in movies whereas a non-actor would have no chance on stage. maybe it has something to do with stage acting being a much more artificial thing, more of an art/craft in the classic sense.

i think it's mostly because on stage you really DO have to maintain a character for 1-4 hours straight with no letting up, practically no breaks, it's much more of a rigorous workout. on a film set you might do 10 minutes of acting, total, in an 12-hour day. it's a completely different skill set.

not to mention stuff like this, by robert bresson - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049902/

xpost

No one has mentioned Robert Downey Jr. I'm unsure where he fits.

he's a Good Egg.

he's iron man (the film)

hes a wonder boy(s)

hes a goth(ika)

he's Chaplin

(did the gags really well)

He's a cartoon. (At least he was in "A Scanner Darkly")