Movie Acting

[Jupiter]

What makes great acting? I ask this question because I was talking to a group of work colleagues a few days ago and the subject turned to Johnny Depp. Everyone (except me) seemed to agree that he is a "great actor". But I'm not sure what this means. Every time I see Johnny Depp on screen, what I'm seeing – consciously – is Depp pretending to be someone else. His performances don't seem convincing because I'm always conscious that I'm actually watching an actor pretending. For me, it's the same for every other well known movie star. Sure, these people have enormous charisma, but I don't experience any "suspension of disbelief". Unless the famous actor is under heavy makeup (eg John Hurt's Elephant Man) I just don't buy the claim of "great acting". What do others think?

[Brian]

Everyone (except me) seemed to agree that Johnny Depp is a "great actor".

I don't intend to slight the importance of your main question, but just know that you are not alone on this point at least. 

[SonicMan46]

Well, Jupiter, I'm not sure if Brian is agreeing w/ you or taking a neutral ground? 

Concerning Johnny Depp, I'm a FAN and own many of his films - the ability of an actor to assume a variety of roles and emerge himself (or herself) into the role to be believable has always been an attraction to me - I think that Depp has that ability, i.e. can you separate him from the role?

Marlon Brando was another one that had this ability - the other night I watch the film Don Juan de Marco w/ Depp & Brando, and just marveled at the interaction of the two great actors - I'm sure that both recognized the talent in each other - a wonderful movie to see the 'changing of the guard', at least IMHO - 

But one of my favorites of all time is Paul Muni - check out IMDB for a listing of his films - these are mainly from the 1930-40s; his portrayal of various roles from a Chinaman in The Good Earth, Emile Zola, & Louis Pasteur (among many other roles) is just an amazing example of an actor able to play roles in which you believe that the actor is the person portrayed (not as easy for a Clark Gable or a Gary Cooper, actors who I also love to see!) - I think Depp has this same ability as Muni, and it is special; thus, my reason for loving Johnny! 

[Brian]

I'd like to add that, as far as actors really losing themselves in their characters, or the viewer forgetting they are actors - my champion is Philip Seymour Hoffman. I have a hard enough time believing the "fact" that his characters in Capote and Charlie Wilson's War are portrayed by the same person! True, in the back of my mind I'll always know it's him and think, "Wow, Philip Seymour Hoffman is incredible," but there's something about the way that he really does appear to be two completely different people in those films - the way that, upon suspension of disbelief, it is really impossible to imagine him in any other way - that forces me to stand in awe.

Another great acting performance? Ellen Page in Juno. I know that Ms Page and her character are two different entities, but even so, if I met Ms Page and real life and she wasn't exactly like the character Juno MacGuff, it would freak me out!

[Jupiter]

Some nice performances you've mentioned. But they are only performances. I mean, do you ever lose sight of the fact that you are watching Brando? I think not. I used to watch a lot of movies and have many favourites - Taxi Driver, The 3rd Man, Clockwork Orange, Control (this ian Curtis biopic is wonderful)etc - but don't watch much at all now. They seem so artificial, so constructed. I guess as I get older I can better see the puppeter's strings.

[Saul]

I think that actors in general get spoiled once they "make it".

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

FWIW (nothing), here are some thoughts on a few people.

Harrison Ford: I know everyone thinks he's god, and the greatest actor of his generation, but I have a hard time buying his particular schtick as great acting. I just don't find him convincing. Blade Runner, in particular was really bad with the voiceover--although in all fairness even he thought the voiceover version sucked.

Julia Roberts: She's been in an astounding 853,986,645,549,546,549,289 movies (and that was just last year!), but she's another one I don't buy as a great actress. And, I find her difficult to look at to say the least.

Jeremy Brett: This guy's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes was some of the greatest acting I've ever seen. Every little quirk, twitch, and brilliant flash of inspiration was flawlessly conveyed.

John Goodman: I had my doubts about him for years because of Roseanne, but his Walter Sobchak in the Big Lebowski was nothing short of brilliant.

Alexis Bledel: Will you marry me?!?!?!?

[BorisG]

Years ago it was, "Know your lines, and don't bump into the furniture."

Thank gawd they've come a long way. The talent got better, and the pictures got worse. What are you going to do?

Tremendous college and university acting programs almost everywhere now. So much great talent, that we will never see.

The casting couch is alive and well, for boys and girls.

Each year, about 2% of SAG members find work.

If it was easy, everybody would be doing it.

[Lethevich]

I also have substantial problems with buying into acting, I tend to prefer more stylised performance such as (old) theatre or opera.

Jeremy Brett: This guy's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes was some of the greatest acting I've ever seen. Every little quirk, twitch, and brilliant flash of inspiration was flawlessly conveyed.

Neat, that is how I would put it too. He could do this remarkable thing when required to reveal that he has found a "solution" - the tiniest smile emerges in the corners of his mouth, his eyes light up, and he seems to buzz with energy. I am not really sure how he does it, but it's brilliant. To me, he IS Sherlock Holmes

[eyeresist]

Harrison Ford: I know everyone thinks he's god, and the greatest actor of his generation, but I have a hard time buying his particular schtick as great acting. I just don't find him convincing. Blade Runner, in particular was really bad with the voiceover--although in all fairness even he thought the voiceover version sucked.

I don't think anyone thinks Ford is god or the greatest actor of his generation! He's got a lot of charisma and a likable screen presence, and he's generally convincing in his roles. Looking forward to Crystal Skull.
BTW, I like the voice-over version of Blade Runner, for the most part (they could have cut a couple of superfluous lines). The worst line in BR is not in voiceover - see if you can guess which it is!

Jeremy Brett: This guy's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes was some of the greatest acting I've ever seen. Every little quirk, twitch, and brilliant flash of inspiration was flawlessly conveyed.

When I was young I was very impressed by Brett as Holmes, and the moody production of that series generally. Later, however, I watched an episode again and realised he's basically doing a note-for-note impersonation of Noel Coward!

Alexis Bledel: Will you marry me?!?!?!?

Who?

[Jupiter]

Jeremy Brett's portrayal of Sherlock is indeed faithful (I'm a huge Conan Doyle reader).

[Kullervo]

I'm with Lethe — I am more into "theatrical" performances, hence my penchant for "old-school" actors like Edward G. Robinson, Orson Welles and Cary Grant.

I don't really like Johnny Depp. I think there is now a clause in his contract that states he must play only roles with British accents. A shame because his British accent only manages to sound like an American doing an impression of how they think British people sound — pretty much akin to someone who adopts, in impersonating an American accent, a Midwestern twang.

Also: how is it that Christian Bale has fooled so many people into thinking he can act? A total non-entity on screen.

[Brian]

Julia Roberts: She's been in an astounding 853,986,645,549,546,549,289 movies (and that was just last year!), but she's another one I don't buy as a great actress. And, I find her difficult to look at to say the least.

Yep, she was raved about and even nominated for a purely mediocre performance in Charlie Wilson's War. That film was just plain dominated by the stage presences of Tom Hanks, Philip Seymour Hoffman - and the Bollywood actor who played the president of Pakistan...

[Brian]

Alexis Bledel: Will you marry me?!?!?!?
Who?

26, looks 16.

[Jupiter]

Alexis Bledel? Isn't she about 15 years old? 

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

Nice penguin avatar.

[Sergeant Rock]

Alexis Bledel? Isn't she about 15 years old? 

She'll be 27 in September. She was 19 when Gilmore Girls premiered in Oct 2000....and she's five feet seven inches tall (170 cm)...hardly a little girl if that's what you're implying.

Sarge

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

And I hear she likes to play the piano (except, unfortunately her teacher is a MORON who started her playing transcriptions of Beatles' tunes when she wanted to play classical!)

I guess Sarge and I are the only ones with good taste in women around here. 

Seriously though I'm happily married, but if I weren't, I'd more than likely send her a fan letter! 

[val]

Jupiter
What makes great acting?

I think that above all is the ability of creating a character with all its authenticity, making it alive, plausible.
I remember Hopkins in "The Remains of the Day", Al Pacino in "The Merchant of Venice", Henry Fonda in Hitchcock's "The wrong man", Alain Delon in "Le Samourai" or Bibi Andersson in Bergman's "Persona".

Even in some mediocre movies, a good actor can give a powerful presence to a character that, with another actor would be just a stereotype: Bruce Willis in "Unbreakable" or Jodie Foster in the recent "The strong one" are good examples.

And yes, I agree: Johnny Depp is acceptable, but not a great actor. Like many other Hollywood Stars (Brad Pitt, Cruise, J. Lopez, Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington). Every time I see Denzel Washington (the last was in "American Gangster") he seems to be playing the same role, over and over. It can be a politic activist, a policeman, a gangster, a journalist, a boxer, it is always the same character.

[ezodisy]

It's an interesting question, particularly for me as I usually don't think about the actors. I'm more wrapped up in the direction, in the cinematography, and right now I'd say that I consider film acting an offshoot of these two things. In line with that, the times I might notice good acting are the times the actor is in the background of the picture -- not literally, perhaps, but in terms of remaining silent, of moving through the frame, of the subtle physical gestures or facial expressions during those moments. Then when I realise that, when I notice the actor, my mind usually turns back to the director who choreographed the scene and arranged the relation between the actor's movements and the off-screen sounds, the architecture of the shot, the lighting or the colour of the furniture, for example, many possible relations all pointing again to the overall image of which the actor is just one fragment, totally dependent. In this sense convincing film acting is largely reliant upon everything around it--in other words the choices of the writers and directors--and those instances when an actor comes to the fore in a conventional sense are largely a matter of strategic necessity in the momentum and functioning of the story. This is demonstrated beautifully and ironically by the hardest type: the directors who are considered auteurs, who are judged to be slow, dense, elusive, whose vision and design dominate the film, they are the very ones who draw the most convincing performances from their actors. I don't want to put words in mouths, but I would guess that they knew, and know, that actors are just one sense and one vision within a frame of senses and visions. To add to that the actors are usually unknown people, or even non-actors, professionally speaking. And what of the actors who are used again and again in different films by the same director and who play each disparate role convincingly (Anatoly Solonitsyn for Tarkovsky, Liv Ullmann and Erland Josephson for Bergman, Monica Vitti for Antonioni)? It takes enormous talent to be able to reinvent yourself for those roles. But is it a coincidence that all of those actors are best known for their films from a single director*? And that all of those films are remembered for their technical, aesthetic and philosophical qualities and not for their actors? It's not as simple as to say that those films are balanced in their aspects, as often the actors play marginalised roles yet the force of their characters is unforgettable; or conversely they are the epicentre of the films yet it is the choreography (Jancso) or the lighting and colour (Sokurov) which are most memorable. In all these films acting is made essential, even technical, just as angle, depth of field, set design and so on are all essential and technical comprising parts. One may be more prominent, more memorable, but hardly more important than the next -- not fundamentally, at least.

All this is to say that film acting is not to be taken apart from the film. Separately but logically enough you could go on to say that there is no such thing as an actor-driven film, not even from a film whose main actor appears in every scene, such as in Le Feu Follet by Louis Mallet, and whose story focuses on the character's final 48 hours. Even there with an actor whose every sound and gesture impresses as necessary, the acting itself would not have had such an effect without the other myriad parts that combined to underpin and enhance it -- the zoom on soft, sensuous skin at the start for a character who cannot touch anything, the impotent music, the rapid cutting at the end to highlight the mood and crisis, all this is acting too, in so far as we can credit anything as being distinct from anything else. When acting is integrated in this way, and when technical considerations are made psychologically viable, more credit than is actually deserved will be given to the actor, at least publically, for convincing us of the genuine quality of the character. I don't know much about theatre but it is obviously a wholly different thing in terms of acting. But for a film the actor is just one part of many, and there's no doubt that in cinema, particularly from the two 'woods, the actor's importance is grossly exaggerated (which is another story in itself).

*Josephson apart who played two unforgettable roles for Tarkovsky