How do you recognize bad acting?

[The Hodag]

I figure we can at least reach a consensus when it comes to porn acting, but after that it all starts to get gray.

I got to wondering about it when a friend was talking about how bad Ralph Macchio's acting was in the original Karate Kid. I'd rewatched it just a few years ago and thought he did a great job. It was a naturalistic approach that might've been born of his inexperience, but however it came about, I thought it was perfect for the character and very believable.

And then I remember trying to get some friends into David Mamet's House of Games in the 90s, and they were laughing like goons at the line deliveries. Now anyone who knows Mamet's stuff knows he elicits a certain affected style, and I can even understand how it might come off as bad acting at a glance...but I mainly just wanted to kick the shit out of my friends that day.

So tell me...how do YOU spot bad acting? What are some movies with really bad acting, or movies where everyone thinks there's bad acting but you disagree?

[Benel Germosen]

When I start looking at anything other than the screen, then somethings wrong.

[Simps]

When it doesn't feel honest.

[The Hodag]

When it doesn't feel honest.

Can you give me an example?

The flipside of the acting defenses I made in the first post is that I nearly always think Leonardo DiCaprio's acting feels disingenuous. It's almost gotta be a weird me thing, because most everyone, Scorcese included, thinks he's the shit. But he always seems fake to me. I feel like he hoodwinked the world or something.

[BENDIS!]

watch The happening

[The Hodag]

watch The happening

Sometimes I wonder...

The Happening's a painful flick, but a lot of the stars are solid actors - were they just getting crap direction or working from a bad script? Because Mark Wahlberg did some good stuff in Three Kings, The Departed, etc. He didn't suddenly magically become a bad actor.

And if someone says the acting in House of Games is as bad as what they saw in The Happening, how to explain the difference?

[dmh3000]

Can you give me an example?


I don't know too many off the top of my head, I like to remember the good parts of movies. But let's go with the standby, Anakin Skywalker of the Star Wars Prequel trilogy.

The first movie had Jake Lloyd acting very cheerful and friendly. This is supposed to be a kid who has grown up in a "Wretched hive of scum and villainy" as a slave. But that's not as big a problem when you realise there are other kids like him, so it's not as glaring. The problem comes from him never leaving this personality when he leaves Tatooine for the first time. Apparently he's supposed to be scared, but he never acts that way, even in the middle of a war zone.

Second and third movie, just watch Hayden Christiansen every time he does an emotional rant. He's just reading lines in a whiny voice.

[Pia Guerra]

Tom Cruise is an excellent example because whatever role you see him in, he's the same guy. Different outfit, same guy.

Keanu isn't that far off, but still kinda interesting.

[dasNdanger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBAMDPLo70o





das

[Greygor]

Tom Cruise is an excellent example because whatever role you see him in, he's the same guy. Different outfit, same guy.

Keanu isn't that far off, but still kinda interesting.

With the one exception

http://ablogtoread.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/tom-cruise-as-les-grossman-in-tropic-thunder.jpg

Actors like Clint Eastwood & John Wayne managed to get away with playing pretty much the same character for years, but at least I liked their films.

[Pia Guerra]

With the one exception

http://ablogtoread.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/tom-cruise-as-les-grossman-in-tropic-thunder.jpg

Actors like Clint Eastwood & John Wayne managed to get away with playing pretty much the same character for years, but at least I liked their films.

Yeah that role certainly was out there in left field. I wonder how they got him to sign up?

And Clint... man, I know he fits the same guy profile but he's just sooo good.

[Greygor]

Yeah that role certainly was out there in left field. I wonder how they got him to sign up?

And Clint... man, I know he fits the same guy profile but he's just sooo good.

I think that's it, if you have the charisma or gravitas you can get away with turning in the same role film after film.

[dasNdanger]

With the one exception

http://ablogtoread.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/tom-cruise-as-les-grossman-in-tropic-thunder.jpg

Some would argue that that's Tom's true personality! ;)



Actors like Clint Eastwood & John Wayne managed to get away with playing pretty much the same character for years, but at least I liked their films.

I agree, I don't necessarily consider 'same guy/every role' bad acting...even Cruise. I grew up on a steady diet of movies from the 30s and 40s, and most of those actors back then were the same guy, role after role, but that didn't make their performances bad. In fact, they're still my favorite movies down to this day.

The way I can tell acting is bad is how uncomfortable it makes *me* feel. Sure, there are some performances that everyone can agree are stinkers, but it's often more subjective than that. For instance, I think Christian Bale is a bad actor because I can never connect to his characters or feel any emotion for them, but most people here would disagree. On the other hand, I think Johnny Depp is a good actor because he elicits an emotional response from me every time, but a lot of people would disagree with that, too. If an actor helps you enjoy a film, than he is good - to you. If he distracts you from the film, then he's bad - but again, to you. At least that's how I've always seen it.


das

[chess]

I don't know too many off the top of my head, I like to remember the good parts of movies. But let's go with the standby, Anakin Skywalker of the Star Wars Prequel trilogy.

The first movie had Jake Lloyd acting very cheerful and friendly. This is supposed to be a kid who has grown up in a "Wretched hive of scum and villainy" as a slave. But that's not as big a problem when you realise there are other kids like him, so it's not as glaring. The problem comes from him never leaving this personality when he leaves Tatooine for the first time. Apparently he's supposed to be scared, but he never acts that way, even in the middle of a war zone.

Second and third movie, just watch Hayden Christiansen every time he does an emotional rant. He's just reading lines in a whiny voice.

This was my first thought, too.

[Greygor]

There is also a thin dividing line between Bad Acting and Bad Direction.

A good director can coax the best out of any actor.

Likewise a bad one can make even the best actor appear poor.

[Mylazycat]

For instance, I think Christian Bale is a bad actor because I can never connect to his characters or feel any emotion for them

Which actually works and makes his American Physcho performance so good. You're suppose to be watching a cold, non emotionally connected person. One could even say Batman/Bruce Wayne is suppose to be the same, just on the side of good.

[dasNdanger]

There is also a thin dividing line between Bad Acting and Bad Direction.

A good director can coax the best out of any actor.

Likewise a bad one can make even the best actor appear poor.

This is SO true. Too many examples to name, too. There is one actor who comes to mind, however. Ioan Gruffudd. I first saw him in the original Horatio Hornblower miniseries, and he was GREAT! Also, in a BBC movie called Peacekeepers a.k.a. Warriors, about UN peacekeepers in Bosnia, and his performance again was excellent. But then I saw him in Fantastic Four, and wasn't even close to being impressed. I just haven't decided if he's a good actor who has had some bad direction, or a bad actor who has had some good direction.

Example (bonus that it has Jamie Bamber from BSG in it, too):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNVv7DfwAUg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOMuLxHs92o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrINVSJm8d8

I still can't believe that's Mr. Fantastic. :p


das

[Mister Mets]

Bad acting is when an actor fails to convey what they're supposed to convey, due to a lack of talent or poor decisions (such as when a risky performance fails.)

One of the worst performances I've seen in recent memory were Robin Williams in August Rush.

[CougarTrace]

Tom Cruise is an excellent example because whatever role you see him in, he's the same guy. Different outfit, same guy.

Keanu isn't that far off, but still kinda interesting.

I don't agree with the Tom Cruise thing. He's played different types of characters quite well.

[Mylazycat]

I don't agree with the Tom Cruise thing. He's played different types of characters quite well.

Yet you never stop being aware that you're watching Tom Cruise.

[CougarTrace]

Yet you never stop being aware that you're watching Tom Cruise.

well, I can say that about the best of actors. For instance, Daniel Day Lewis, who I consider one of the best there is, is always Daniel Day no matter the role.

Thats the nature of the actors that have done well I think

[Jet]

When the characters don't feel natural, which can be the actor or the direction as others have mentioned, but the end result is still bad acting. Watch an episode of Supernatural to see what I mean, though after 100 episodes, I think its the actors that are bad there.

[Richard Pace]

Good acting and charisma are often confused.

Jack Nicholson is one of my favourite actors, but he usually does the exact same thing role after role -- or just pulls the same tricks from his acting bag. Last time I think he really acted was in WOLF. He's pretty much always watchable and entertaining, but he's also cast in "Jack Nicholson" roles where he can rest a large part of his performance on being himself.

Which is what a number of actors do, like the previously mentioned Clint Eastwood and actors from earlier eras.

Some actors are purely charisma, though. Keanu really can't act despite doing all things actors are supposed to do, but he's watchable and his "best" performances are usually delivered by the other people on screen with him and the director. SPEED, for example, was entirely carried by Sandra Bullock, Jeff Daniels, Dennis Hopper, Alan Ruck, Joe Morton, etc.. The rest of the cast sold the situation so well, all the audience had to do was believe Keanu was a heroic and stoic young cop.

~R

[Rafiennes]

If it looks like Kim Catrell -- It's bad acting.

[Ben]

When it doesn't feel honest.
I think this is what I go by.

In general, it's been hard for me to spot bad acting. Usually I just assume they're playing a character that acts like they're being played by a bad actor. We all know really odd, awkward people. I guess I tend to notice it more when it's the same actor in different roles. Or if an actor I've seen in one particular role is on a different TV show and seems super awkward.

[silverboy]

Simplest answer: it's bad acting if I don't believe them.

[silverboy]

well, I can say that about the best of actors. For instance, Daniel Day Lewis, who I consider one of the best there is, is always Daniel Day no matter the role.

Thats the nature of the actors that have done well I think

Tell me you're joking. DDL is the greatest character actor of our generation, he disappears into his roles.

[Caley Tibbittz]

Tell me you're joking. DDL is the greatest character actor of our generation, he disappears into his roles.

I think Tom Hanks is better.

[silverboy]

There is also a thin dividing line between Bad Acting and Bad Direction. A good director can coax the best out of any actor.

Likewise a bad one can make even the best actor appear poor.

I would argue that there's a greater connection between good/bad writing and acting. Writing can make an actor's job incredibly easy, or difficult.

I also think a lot of people are mistaken when they say actors who "seem the same in every role" are bad actors. This isn't true--perhaps they're not daring actors. But it's just a style of acting. As long as you believe their performance, it's still good acting.

It's like saying AC/DC suck for always sounding the same. Yeah, but they're always good.

[silverboy]

I think Tom Hanks is better.

I LOVE Hanks, but I wouldn't call him a character actor. He's done some daring roles, but the last ten years or so, he's played more Tom Hanks.

[CougarTrace]

Tell me you're joking. DDL is the greatest character actor of our generation, he disappears into his roles.

he is the master of his roles, but in every role I know its him.

Cruise was good in Born on 4th of July. He was good in All the Right Moves. He was good in Minority Report. He was good in Top Gun. He was good in a Few Good Men.

He's played a variety of roles where I think he's done well.

He's no Daniel Day, but thats a standard hardly anyone lives up to

[yeamon]

I can actually appreciate inexperienced acting more than I can appreciate transparent acting. Again, at least the inexperience is honest. But when an actor has a few tools in his method acting toolbox, and keeps going back to them over and over again, I get agitated. (See also: Reasons why I'm not happy Chris Pine is getting all this work.)

I always think of the story told about Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman on the set of "Marathon Man". Hoffman, in full Strasberg Method mode, deprived himself of sleep for two or three nights preparing for the "Is it safe?" scene. Seeing what Hoffman had done to himself, Olivier offered, "Try acting, dear boy. It's much easier."

[silverboy]

he is the master of his roles, but in every role I know its him.

Cruise was good in Born on 4th of July. He was good in All the Right Moves. He was good in Minority Report. He was good in Top Gun. He was good in a Few Good Men.

He's played a variety of roles where I think he's done well.

He's no Daniel Day, but thats a standard hardly anyone lives up to

Well, if you're familiar with the actor, then it's impossible not to recognize him/her is consequent roles...is that a criticism?

[yeamon]

While he's become a parody of himself, there is no questioning Cruise has done great work in the past. I've always thought the wrong guy got the Oscar for "Rain Man". Cruise had a much more challenging role, and pulled off a believable transformation in that film. There is also no questioning the extra-something-special he brings to a film when asked to play an asshole (Rain Man, Magnolia, Collateral, Tropic Thunder...). He may be the best at it.

[Mylazycat]

I also think a lot of people are mistaken when they say actors who "seem the same in every role" are bad actors. This isn't true--perhaps they're not daring actors. But it's just a style of acting. As long as you believe their performance, it's still good acting.

Here's the thing: if what I'm seeing is them doing a version of the same character as their last film then I am not believing their performance and this makes it bad acting.

Daniel Day Lewis is never the same in any role, I forget I'm watching him and simply accept that character as he has created it. Ditto for Depp and Leo. Heath Ledger, as well, he would have been destined to be one of the all time greats. It boogles the mind to imagine that it's the same guy in Dark Knight and Brokeback Mountain. Those two characters are zero alike. The Brokeback Mountain character moved me. His Joker frightened me. That's talent.

[Apache Chef]

The worst acting I've seen in recent memory was the guy that played Duke in GI Joe, a movie I never wanted to see in the first place.

Other examples include Kevin Costner in just about everything.

[yeamon]

Here's the thing: if what I'm seeing is them doing a version of the same character as their last film then I am not believing their performance and this makes it bad acting.

Daniel Day Lewis is never the same in any role, I forget I'm watching him and simply accept that character as he has created it. Ditto for Depp and Leo. Heath Ledger, as well, he would have been destined to be one of the all time greats. It boogles the mind to imagine that it's the same guy in Dark Knight and Brokeback Mountain. Those two characters are zero alike. The Brokeback Mountain character moved me. His Joker frightened me. That's talent.

Gene Hackman is not well known for having great "range". But among his peers, there may not be another actor more respected. He's hands-down the most "natural" screen presence I've ever witnessed.

I love Day-Lewis and Depp. But I'm on the other side (and in the minority I know) on Ledger's Joker. I never bought it, and the whole exercise seemed like a bad Peter Falk imitation to me.

[Mylazycat]

Hackman is so subtle. His performance in The Conversation was great, so real and believeable.

[James H]

This should help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPg6Q-VUqtc&feature=related

[Ultimate Lurker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbjdAZMuEd4

"Saw" when he's cutting his foot off.
"2012" when they're flying away at the beginning, watching millions die right in front of their faces, and they look like they're on a sightseeing tour.

[Rosemary's Baby]

well, I can say that about the best of actors. For instance, Daniel Day Lewis, who I consider one of the best there is, is always Daniel Day no matter the role.

Thats the nature of the actors that have done well I think

That couldn't be more incorrect.

[Rosemary's Baby]

Tell me you're joking. DDL is the greatest character actor of our generation, he disappears into his roles.

He's not a character actor.

[GrimmBen]

Glen Campbell in True Grit.

[Ryudo]

Megan Fox.

[silverboy]

He's not a character actor.

We've had this debate before, and don't need to get into it again. There's two different definitions, and I consider him a character actor. Maybe it's because I have an acting background and have that perspective.

[LenNWallace]

I watched all the Twilight movies a week back with my girlfriend. It's like an all around crash course for wannabe actors in "What not to do".

[Ryudo]

I watched all the Twilight movies a week back with my girlfriend. It's like an all around crash course for wannabe actors in "What not to do".

Yeah, Jay Leno's daughter-... er, I mean, Kristen Stewart, plays the same role in each movie she is in.

[Rosemary's Baby]

We've had this debate before, and don't need to get into it again. There's two different definitions, and I consider him a character actor. Maybe it's because I have an acting background and have that perspective.

We have. Look it up. There is one definition and DDL doesn't fit into it. He is a leading man.

[silverboy]

We have. Look it up. There is one definition and DDL doesn't fit into it. He is a leading man.

Sigh. Whatever.

[LordKinbote]

We've had this debate before, and don't need to get into it again. There's two different definitions, and I consider him a character actor. Maybe it's because I have an acting background and have that perspective.

I was once you. I once thought "character actor" pretty much meant the opposite of what I now consider it to mean. Fighting the current was too tiring, so I went with the flow.

[PeterSparker]

We've had this debate before, and don't need to get into it again. There's two different definitions, and I consider him a character actor. Maybe it's because I have an acting background and have that perspective.

Just curious what does your background have to do with it? DDL is a leading actor in pretty much all of his film work, because he's particularly good at it doesn't then make him a character actor.



As for the Cruise thing, I think he is a good (not great) actor, without needing to qualify. He may play similar parts or roles (99% of actors do though, including DDL...) but he usually can pull it off and even though I start by being very aware he's Tom Cruise in stuff like 'Born on the Fouth of July', 'Magnolia' or 'The Last Samurai' I buy into it anyway because he understands film acting rather well and usually delivers a solid performance.

[Marcdachamp]

Bad accents.

Over-reacting.

Under-reacting.

[LordKinbote]

The best actors are not acting, they are being. Some of the best performances come from people who are not classically trained actors at all; the entire Italian Neorealist movement was based on finding, not actors, but real people to play the roles. To perform, they had to delve into their own personal experience, and they produced some of the best movies of all time: The Bicycle Thief, Umberto D, Paisan, and many more.

I'm not saying that only characters rooted in reality can be great performances, but the actor needs to find some way to tether that character to real human emotion.

[The Funketeer]

Usually I just check to see if the actress is married to David Mamet.

[CougarTrace]

The worst acting I've seen in recent memory was the guy that played Duke in GI Joe, a movie I never wanted to see in the first place.

Other examples include Kevin Costner in just about everything.

Marlon Wayans was the worst in GI Joe. Thats the definition of bad acting to me.

but once again this is all something is just different for everyone. No simple rules for this.

[LordKinbote]

Marlon Wayans was the worst in GI Joe. Thats the definition of bad acting to me.

(watches another movie)

"Hey, that guy is a pretty bad actor."
"No, he's not bad. The definition of bad acting is Marlon Wayans."
"But..."
"Is that guy Marlon Wayans?"
"...no."
"Well, there you go."

[schizorabbit]

Usually I just check to see if the actress is married to David Mamet.

:lol:

Well done.

[Mister Mets]

(watches another movie)

"Hey, that guy is a pretty bad actor."
"No, he's not bad. The definition of bad acting is Marlon Wayans."
"But..."
"Is that guy Marlon Wayans?"
"...no."
"Well, there you go."

He was really good in Requiem for a Dream.

And the worst part of Dungeons & Dragons, which remains the worst movie I've ever seen.

[McAfee]

I don't know too many off the top of my head, I like to remember the good parts of movies. But let's go with the standby, Anakin Skywalker of the Star Wars Prequel trilogy.

The first movie had Jake Lloyd acting very cheerful and friendly. This is supposed to be a kid who has grown up in a "Wretched hive of scum and villainy" as a slave. But that's not as big a problem when you realise there are other kids like him, so it's not as glaring. The problem comes from him never leaving this personality when he leaves Tatooine for the first time. Apparently he's supposed to be scared, but he never acts that way, even in the middle of a war zone.

Second and third movie, just watch Hayden Christiansen every time he does an emotional rant. He's just reading lines in a whiny voice.

The scene between Christiansen and Portman on Naboo (and the hippophant-thingy) set the standard for poor acting. I felt awkward just watching it. Hell, I feel awkward thinking about it and typing my thoughts out. :?

[Jim Schnobrich]

I think this is a hard question to answer. For me it's more of a "know when you see it" situation.

[The Hodag]

I always think of the story told about Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman on the set of "Marathon Man". Hoffman, in full Strasberg Method mode, deprived himself of sleep for two or three nights preparing for the "Is it safe?" scene. Seeing what Hoffman had done to himself, Olivier offered, "Try acting, dear boy. It's much easier."

That's fantastic, man. Gotta love the professionalism (and sly wit) of the Brits.

Reminds me in a roundabout way of Ian McKellan's hysterical explanation of acting on Extras:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyoWmkhRyp8

[The Hodag]

While he's become a parody of himself, there is no questioning Cruise has done great work in the past. I've always thought the wrong guy got the Oscar for "Rain Man". Cruise had a much more challenging role, and pulled off a believable transformation in that film. There is also no questioning the extra-something-special he brings to a film when asked to play an asshole (Rain Man, Magnolia, Collateral, Tropic Thunder...). He may be the best at it.

Yeah, I think Cruise is a combination of strong actor and a lot of natural charisma. He doesn't have a great breath of characters in him, and that's fine. Bogey didn't have a great breadth of characters in him, but how cool is he to watch? Same for Nicholson, as mentioned.

I pretty much dig Tom Cruise.

[RegularJoe]

i actually think DDL tries too hard in a few of his roles. Yes, he physically embodies who he is playing (in that his physical appearance dramatically changes) but often times it doesn't feel natural to me. it feels like something TRYING to be something else.

i realize i'm in the minority here and there will likely be a post shortly after saying "this is wrong" or something equally anti-this post but he's usually more of a reason for me to NOT see a movie than for me to see one.

[silverboy]

Just curious what does your background have to do with it? DDL is a leading actor in pretty much all of his film work, because he's particularly good at it doesn't then make him a character actor.



As for the Cruise thing, I think he is a good (not great) actor, without needing to qualify. He may play similar parts or roles (99% of actors do though, including DDL...) but he usually can pull it off and even though I start by being very aware he's Tom Cruise in stuff like 'Born on the Fouth of July', 'Magnolia' or 'The Last Samurai' I buy into it anyway because he understands film acting rather well and usually delivers a solid performance.

My background has to do with it because I've studied acting for years, I know several professional actors, and know a little about the craft. So to dismiss my thoughts on the basis of "you're wrong" is a bit insulting.

I agree that DDL is a leading man, but he employs a character actor style. And to anticipate your response, this is not the same as method acting, which he also employs.

I realize most people call character acting doing bit/supporting parts. My definition is different, and it comes from my background/studies/experience.

[The Hodag]

The worst acting I've seen in recent memory was the guy that played Duke in GI Joe, a movie I never wanted to see in the first place.

Fuck, that movie hurt like hell to watch. Even there, it had a few decent actors (Eccleston, that kid from 3rd Rock From the Sun, the black guy with the unpronouncable name from Oz and Lost, etc), but a combination of shit script and shit directing reduced anything they might've offered to shambles.


Other examples include Kevin Costner in just about everything.

That dude's tough to call. He seems like an extreme version of the only-plays-himself actor, but I loved him in two of his more impetuous roles: the likeable asshole in the road trip flick, Fandango, and the over-eager gunslinger in Silverado. Haven't seen a few he's known for, like Dances With Wolves and Bull Durham, but I have to assume he's at least doing solid work there. And I know he offered up solid work in his straitlaced period with the likes of JFK, Untouchables, and No Way Out. He had some good scripts to work with, but some of what worked in those movies had to be him.

[PatrickA]

and the whole exercise seemed like a bad Peter Falk imitation to me.

Well....hmm. Now I can never watch Dark Knight again.



I realize most people call character acting doing bit/supporting parts. My definition is different, and it comes from my background/studies/experience.

Most people call it doing bit/supporting parts because that's what it means. Your background doesn't matter. You can continue to use your own definition, but every time you do people are going call you on it, because it is an established term that you are using incorrectly.

I mean, as far as that goes you can make up a whole language that only you speak but nobody is going to invite you to give the toast at their wedding.

[silverboy]

Well....hmm. Now I can never watch Dark Knight again.



Most people call it doing bit/supporting parts because that's what it means. Your background doesn't matter. You can continue to use your own definition, but every time you do people are going call you on it, because it is an established term that you are using incorrectly.

I mean, as far as that goes you can make up a whole language that only you speak but nobody is going to invite you to give the toast at their wedding.

I'm not going to make this a huge thing. I'll find an interview later where Burton explains why Depp's a great character actor. Maybe you'll be cool with it coming from him.

[PeterSparker]

My background has to do with it because I've studied acting for years, I know several professional actors, and know a little about the craft. So to dismiss my thoughts on the basis of "you're wrong" is a bit insulting.

I agree that DDL is a leading man, but he employs a character actor style. And to anticipate your response, this is not the same as method acting, which he also employs.

I realize most people call character acting doing bit/supporting parts. My definition is different, and it comes from my background/studies/experience.

Ok, as long as you're saying this is your own personal definition then I have no problem with it. But because you've studied acting doesn't really have anything to do with it, imo. I live in NYC and have many friends who are actors, some rather successful, I follow theater and film pretty closely, and have never heard this definition offered before. I just recently saw the HBO documentary on John Cazale for example and character actors such Steve Buscemi and Philip Seymore Hoffman used the accepted definition throughout, and they have a fair bit of experience themselves. Not trying to be a dick about it, and I think I do remember this discussion taking place on the board before.


So what do you define as the "character acting style"? And I'm just asking because I'm interested, not challenging you.

[Mattman]

You have not seen bad acting until you've seen Stephen Lack's "performance" in Scanners. Nothing can compare to that horrible performance. Nothing.

[silverboy]

Ok, as long as you're saying this is your own personal definition then I have no problem with it. But because you've studied acting doesn't really have anything to do with it, imo. I live in NYC and have many friends who are actors, some rather successful, I follow theater and film pretty closely, and have never heard this definition offered before. I just recently saw the HBO documentary on John Cazale for example and character actors such Steve Buscemi and Philip Seymore Hoffman used the accepted definition throughout, and they have a fair bit of experience themselves. Not trying to be a dick about it, and I think I do remember this discussion taking place on the board before.


So what do you define as the "character acting style"? And I'm just asking because I'm interested, not challenging you.

Well, and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but PSH is a leading man, if you're going with the traditional definition.

And I wouldn't call it a personal definition--it's what I've learned in my coursework. I guess it's more of a vocational definition. And I'm denying the traditional/popular meaning. Like I said, I'll find some interviews.

As far as the style, it's two different ways to approach a role...a character actor approaches it as "how do I change myself to become this person," whereas a traditional leading man style actor approaches it as "how do I bring what I am to this character."

I guess you could simplify it as, a character actor puts emphasis on the character, as opposed to the actor. But neither approach is wrong.

But that's really not what the thread's about.

[silverboy]

As promised, Tim Burton calls Johnny Depp a character actor:
http://www.radiotimes.com/blogs/558-andrew-collins-on-tim-burton-johnny-depp/
http://movies.ign.com/articles/633/633236p1.html

This person thinks DDL is a character actor, though I don't know who this person is:
http://www.thefancarpet.com/NewsPage.aspx?n_id=1336

Some other sources that don't employ the traditional definition of character actor:
http://www.listzblog.com/_best_historic_actor_roles_cinema.html


So, there you go. You can say you don't prefer or use my definition of the term, that's fine. But just calling me "wrong" doesn't exactly work.

[DEEZ]

If it looks like Anna Paquin, then you know it's bad acting.

[PatrickA]

As promised, Tim Burton calls Johnny Depp a character actor:

Except he doesn't.


"Johnny is like a character actor in a leading man's body," he once gushed. "He could do it all."

That's the first line in the article you posted (bold mine)

If I say you are like a monkey with the way you eat bananas, it doesn't mean that I think you are an orangutan. Burton is saying Depp, a leading actor, shares some characteristics with character actor cousins.

[Mylazycat]

Avatar - especially the general or head of the army guy. That was extremely painful. The CGI girl was the only person in that entire movie I accepted as her character and didn't make me cringe.

[Rosemary's Baby]

As promised, Tim Burton calls Johnny Depp a character actor:
http://www.radiotimes.com/blogs/558-andrew-collins-on-tim-burton-johnny-depp/
http://movies.ign.com/articles/633/633236p1.html

This person thinks DDL is a character actor, though I don't know who this person is:
http://www.thefancarpet.com/NewsPage.aspx?n_id=1336

Some other sources that don't employ the traditional definition of character actor:
http://www.listzblog.com/_best_historic_actor_roles_cinema.html


So, there you go. You can say you don't prefer or use my definition of the term, that's fine. But just calling me "wrong" doesn't exactly work.

Those sources are a joke. Three people using the same incorrect definition doens't make it acceptable. Those three people are just wrong.

Getting lost in a role isn't character acting, that's simply acting.

[PeterSparker]

Burton says just the opposite in that quote, and making the distinction in the first place, makes our point perfectly. :)

[Ryan Elliott]

According to the definition of character actor, it's one who predominantly plays a particular type of role rather than leading ones.

Like John Turturro and Kevin Bacon.

I think Johnny Depp is more method actor. Method actors could be leading or supporting role actors.

[WhindamPryce]

Just curious what does your background have to do with it? DDL is a leading actor in pretty much all of his film work, because he's particularly good at it doesn't then make him a character actor.

As for the Cruise thing, I think he is a good (not great) actor, without needing to qualify. He may play similar parts or roles (99% of actors do though, including DDL...) but he usually can pull it off and even though I start by being very aware he's Tom Cruise in stuff like 'Born on the Fouth of July', 'Magnolia' or 'The Last Samurai' I buy into it anyway because he understands film acting rather well and usually delivers a solid performance.

Agreed. I was just rewatching the Last Samurai a few days ago and he's pretty damn good in it. I personally rate him higher than you did though. :)

[silverboy]

You guys are mincing words now. What do you think Burton mean? Depp always plays the same kind of roles?

Or are you saying Burton doesn't know what he's talking about?

[Rosemary's Baby]

You guys are mincing words now. What do you think Burton mean? Depp always plays the same kind of roles?

Or are you saying Burton doesn't know what he's talking about?

If Burton were saying what you think he's saying, then yes, I would say he's full of shit.

[Mylazycat]

Philip Seymour Hoffman probably gives the most real performances of anyone. It always seems so amazingly not like acting.

[silverboy]

Trying to convince anybody of anything on this board is impossible. If I were talking to somebody who studied carpentry and worked on some houses, I wouldn't be arguing with him terms for wood.

[WhindamPryce]

Trying to convince anybody of anything on this board is impossible. If I were talking to somebody who studied carpentry and worked on some houses, I wouldn't be arguing with him terms for wood.

Come on man, your reasons as to why people should listen to you are

a) you've studied acting, and b) a few celebrities agree with you.

But

a) I've studied acting too as well as directing. I've directed plays and films, so I know how to work with actors and recognize good/bad acting when I see it. So when I disagree with you my opinion should be as valid as yours since we have the same background (hell even the same state), and I'd be willing to wager I have more experience in both acting (doing it myself) and directing (having others do it for me) than yourself. And

b) a LOT MORE celebrities and knowledgeable people disagree with you, including Burton in the article you provided.

So fine, your definition is valid, but you should at least accept that it's very much not the popular/generally accepted one. And let's just leave it at that, eh? :)

[silverboy]

Come on man, your reasons as to why people should listen to you are

a) you've studied acting, and b) a few celebrities agree with you.

But

a) I've studied acting too as well as directing. I've directed plays and films, so I know how to work with actors and recognize good/bad acting when I see it. So when I disagree with you my opinion should be as valid as yours since we have the same background (hell even the same state), and I'd be willing to wager I have more experience in both acting (doing it myself) and directing (having others do it for me) than yourself. And

b) a LOT MORE celebrities and knowledgeable people disagree with you, including Burton in the article you provided.

So fine, your definition is valid, but you should at least accept that it's very much not the popular/generally accepted one. And let's just leave it at that, eh? :)

I've already said that. What sorts of theatre/films have you done? (This is me being genuinely curious.)

[LordKinbote]

Trying to convince anybody of anything on this board is impossible. If I were talking to somebody who studied carpentry and worked on some houses, I wouldn't be arguing with him terms for wood.

I'll say it again: I once believed as you do, and now I know I was wrong. Trying to convince anyone of anything is hard *anywhere* when you're incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_actor

http://www.instantcast.com/LearnAbout/Articles/what_is_a_character_actor

http://classicfilms.suite101.com/article.cfm/character_actors_hold_films_together

http://www.filmnight.org/character.htm

[WhindamPryce]

I've already said that. What sorts of theatre/films have you done? (This is me being genuinely curious.)

As for theater:
acting: Comedy of Errors, Sylvia, Been Taken, Pruning the Family Tree, the Importance of Being Earnest, Lysistrata, Love Talk, House of Blue Leaves (male lead), Much Ado about Nothing, Richard III (title character), and also smaller (chorus) parts in community productions as well.

directing: On the Run (self-written), Fences, Six Characters in Search for an Author, Lysistrata (though not the one I acted in above), Othello (but the production got shut down due to budget reasons which had nothing to do with me)

As for films: well it's all indy, nothing SAG... so you wouldn't really know them if I rattled off some titles. I do my own writing/editing/directing as well, one example of that is in my sig (my last film that premiered at MSU to a standing ovation in March 2009).


How about yourself? (again genuinely curious and not trying to turn this into a "who's got the biggest dick" contest) :lol:

[LordKinbote]

How about yourself? (again genuinely curious and not trying to turn this into a "who's got the biggest dick" contest) :lol:

You'd both lose to me anyway. :)

[PeterSparker]

Trying to convince anybody of anything on this board is impossible. If I were talking to somebody who studied carpentry and worked on some houses, I wouldn't be arguing with him terms for wood.

Yeah, this discussion totally took place before in another thread, I remember it now going very similar to this one actually.

If there are people who've studied acting (and are working actors themselves on top of it) that disagree with you, which we all seem to be acknowledging has been thoroughly established, then offering the fact that you studied as well only qualifies to the fact that you've come to a different conclusion than them. And nothing else.

[schizorabbit]

Philip Seymour Hoffman probably gives the most real performances of anyone. It always seems so amazingly not like acting.

Yes, in the movie Happiness, for example, he genuinely made me wish that his sick and perverted sex phone prankster, who'd beat off and stick photos on his wall with his own cum as glue would hook up with that skinny chick from Twin Peaks. Now, that's acting.

[SMACK!]

This was an interesting thread until it devolved into bitching about semmantics. Character actor, method actor, who the fuck cares. They are just fucking terms.

To answer the OP, the way you recognize bad acting is that you are aware that the person is acting. If it feels like a performance, then it's bad acting.

[silverboy]

As for theater:
acting: Comedy of Errors, Sylvia, Been Taken, Pruning the Family Tree, the Importance of Being Earnest, Lysistrata, Love Talk, House of Blue Leaves (male lead), Much Ado about Nothing, Richard III (title character), and also smaller (chorus) parts in community productions as well.

directing: On the Run (self-written), Fences, Six Characters in Search for an Author, Lysistrata (though not the one I acted in above), Othello (but the production got shut down due to budget reasons which had nothing to do with me)

As for films: well it's all indy, nothing SAG... so you wouldn't really know them if I rattled off some titles. I do my own writing/editing/directing as well, one example of that is in my sig (my last film that premiered at MSU to a standing ovation in March 2009).


How about yourself? (again genuinely curious and not trying to turn this into a "who's got the biggest dick" contest) :lol:

The bulk of my experience has been in educational theatre (university/college), but I've also done quite a bit of community theatre and about 10 productions for a professional summer stock. I've done a bit of everything...Shakespeare, Greek, comedy of manners, Restoration, absurdism, Theatre of the Ridiculous, classic drama (Williams and Miller), a lot of modern stuff, and of course musicals. Probably my favorites for work on are Shepard and Mamet. I won't go down my whole resume, but I've also worked on Sylvia and two productions of Earnest (one as Algernon and one as Chasuble). My favorite productions have been Blood Brothers, Fat Pig, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, A Funny Thing..., Rabbit Hole, Rent, The Foreigner, Rocky Horror, Charlie Brown (twice) and Hair. Even though I was only a theatre minor (I probably could've gotten a major with a few more courses), I received several university awards and scholarships.

Though I've taken directing courses, I've only directed a few productions. Again, mostly at the university level. I'm certainly no expert, but it's something I'm excited to learn more about.

I've only dabbled in acting for TV commercials and short films (though I do have an IMDb page). My area doesn't exactly have an active community for that.

Nice to hear from fellow actors.



You'd both lose to me anyway. :)


Care to indulge us? :)

[PeterSparker]

I think we can all agree that Mel Gibson is a truly superlative actor, I mean I actually believed that Riggs liked Murtaugh. The man has a gift.

[WhindamPryce]

Care to indulge us? :)

No, let's not. Let's really not.

[The Hodag]

This was an interesting thread until it devolved into bitching about semmantics. Character actor, method actor, who the fuck cares. They are just fucking terms.

To answer the OP, the way you recognize bad acting is that you are aware that the person is acting. If it feels like a performance, then it's bad acting.

Fucking THANK YOU.

[c. page]

This was an interesting thread until it devolved into bitching about semmantics. Character actor, method actor, who the fuck cares. They are just fucking terms.

To answer the OP, the way you recognize bad acting is that you are aware that the person is acting. If it feels like a performance, then it's bad acting.

that's pretty much where i see it, yeah.

[moonspider]

ten pages and this does'nt get mentioned?!?!?!?!?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCj8sPCWfUw

[The Hodag]

The real question I've been wanting people to answer in my thread...

What'd you think of Ralph Macchio's acting in Karate Kid?

[WinterRose]

I don't know too many off the top of my head, I like to remember the good parts of movies. But let's go with the standby, Anakin Skywalker of the Star Wars Prequel trilogy.

The first movie had Jake Lloyd acting very cheerful and friendly. This is supposed to be a kid who has grown up in a "Wretched hive of scum and villainy" as a slave. But that's not as big a problem when you realise there are other kids like him, so it's not as glaring. The problem comes from him never leaving this personality when he leaves Tatooine for the first time. Apparently he's supposed to be scared, but he never acts that way, even in the middle of a war zone.

Second and third movie, just watch Hayden Christiansen every time he does an emotional rant. He's just reading lines in a whiny voice.

I always saw his bad performance in Attack of the Clones as an example of bad scripting and directing. Portman's a badass actress, but they even managed to make her performance somewhat stilted. I felt bad for every actor in that movie.

Bad acting's easy to recognize. It looks exactly like Halle Berry.

[xyzzy]

When it looks like acting.

[WinterRose]

I watched all the Twilight movies a week back with my girlfriend. It's like an all around crash course for wannabe actors in "What not to do".

ya think they'll start showing that in acting classes?

"Okay class. Today, we're watching twilight. I want you to pay particular attention to the performances of the actors..."

*After the movie*

"Okay. Hands up who thought that sucked?" *HANDS UP!!* "Good. You got the message. Don't do ANYTHING you saw just now. That's bad. NOW let's start with learning good stuff."

[Mylazycat]

For those of you who've taken acting classes, how do those work? How do they teach you to act "properly" and not seem like acting? Do they usually hold up anyone as an ideal of who to strive for?

Just curious.

[Magnum V.I.]

When my wife tells me she was jut at PT but then I see her throw away the condom! :mad:



I know where you were!!!

[WinterRose]

I think this is a hard question to answer. For me it's more of a "know when you see it" situation.

I don't know bad acting when I see it. I don't look for it. I'm looking for good acting. I figure most actors out there are at least trying a little. So the world's full of average to poor acting. GOOD acting however... I know it when I see it.

[WinterRose]

For those of you who've taken acting classes, how do those work? How do they teach you to act "properly" and not seem like acting? Do they usually hold up anyone as an ideal of who to strive for?

Just curious.

In the acting classes I had, I don't remember anyone being held up as a shining example where they said, "Him. Or her. Be like them." Cos it's a relative kinda thing. They tended to try and give me a definite idea of the difference between classical and method. There were improvisational exercises meant to encourage quick and creative thinking in a scene to loosen us up.

We were usually told to find monologues to perform. Or partnered up to perform scenes with one another before the rest of the class. Then left open to critique from our peers and professors. The most fun one of those was doing the 'big argument' scene from Barefoot in the Park (my choice). Someone was building a set for summer stock, and by lucky chance, there was a door and a stairway to burst out of when Cory was drunkenly baiting Paul. (YAY NEIL SIMON!)

We got assigned scenes to perform as well. The one I remember was the one that everyone got every year at that college. This professor was one of the state equity judges, and set great store by the classics. His litmus test scene that he tended to put EVERYONE through was the deleted scene from Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible'. The scene where John Proctor gives the "You mad... You murderous bitch!!" and smacks the crap out of whatsername.

In the end, Most of those acting classes to me seemed like a big infodump of a cross section of acting methods, after which we were kind of left to decide what worked best for us. Here's your tools. Here's what works for other people, procedure wise. Do what you're comfortable doing. Try em all out and find what works best for you and your audience.

[WinterRose]

Oo! Wait. I know another great example. Have a look at everyone's performance in the live action version of 'The Guyver'. Christ...

[Mylazycat]

In the acting classes I had, I don't remember anyone being held up as a shining example where they said, "Him. Or her. Be like them." Cos it's a relative kinda thing. They tended to try and give me a definite idea of the difference between classical and method. There were improvisational exercises meant to encourage quick and creative thinking in a scene to loosen us up.

We were usually told to find monologues to perform. Or partnered up to perform scenes with one another before the rest of the class. Then left open to critique from our peers and professors. The most fun one of those was doing the 'big argument' scene from Barefoot in the Park (my choice). Someone was building a set for summer stock, and by lucky chance, there was a door and a stairway to burst out of when Cory was drunkenly baiting Paul. (YAY NEIL SIMON!)

We got assigned scenes to perform as well. The one I remember was the one that everyone got every year at that college. This professor was one of the state equity judges, and set great store by the classics. His litmus test scene that he tended to put EVERYONE through was the deleted scene from Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible'. The scene where John Proctor gives the "You mad... You murderous bitch!!" and smacks the crap out of whatsername.

In the end, Most of those acting classes to me seemed like a big infodump of a cross section of acting methods, after which we were kind of left to decide what worked best for us. Here's your tools. Here's what works for other people, procedure wise. Do what you're comfortable doing. Try em all out and find what works best for you and your audience.

Thanks. That's quite interesting. I have always wondered if the elite actors were simply well trained and taught along the way or born with the ability to get into the skin of a character and become them. You see some musicians attempt acting and fail so badly at it (Madonna) while others seem naturally good at it (Dwight Yoakam) that you wonder if it's just something any artistic peron has in them.

[WinterRose]

Thanks. That's quite interesting. I have always wondered if the elite actors were simply well trained and taught along the way or born with the ability to get into the skin of a character and become them. You see some musicians attempt acting and fail so badly at it (Madonna) while others seem naturally good at it (Dwight Yoakam) that you wonder if it's just something any artistic peron has in them.

Now see... I think there's examples of both. People who were born with it. And people who learned it. One of my character animation professors mentioned that there is not some mythical art fairy who goes around in the nurseries in the maternity ward. Tapping random kids on the head: "You will have artistic talent. You will suck at drawing straight lines. You will be the next Katherine Hepburn..."

If you have the ability to learn a skill and execute it in a professional manner, you can learn to draw, act, write... and once you do, no one can ever take that away. Once you have those tools, you can always play with em.

This doesn't mean that some people aren't born with a natural or perhaps genetic affinity for it. It happens. But you can be taught. Of course there's also people out there who can't be taught. Bad actors who are paid millions. Try not to make yourself nuts figuring it out. It's a strange, stupid, magic-fantastic world.

And as you're mentioning musicians... Have a look at Barry Manilow in the movie of Copacabana where he's starring with Clark Kent's mom. This guy took acting lessons to get over his stage fright of singing publicly. They seem to have served him well.

[SMACK!]

The real question I've been wanting people to answer in my thread...

What'd you think of Ralph Macchio's acting in Karate Kid?

I just rewatched it recently and I think he did a teriffic job. I believed that Daniel LaRusso was a real person. Ebert was right when he listed it as one of the best films of 1984.

[silverboy]

For those of you who've taken acting classes, how do those work? How do they teach you to act "properly" and not seem like acting? Do they usually hold up anyone as an ideal of who to strive for?

Just curious.

I've worked with three different acting professors who all focussed on different aspects of performance.

The first was very much about the theory of acting. Her's was the only class where we really discussed things like an actor's job/goal, relationship with the audience, their method, the challenges they face. We discussed who we felt were good actors, and what good acting felt like. We would do improv exercises and she gave us scene/monologue assignments. We discussed things like beating out monologues, tactics, character motivation, obstacles, the magic if. She was very much about Stanislavski and naturalism. She also taught me Shakespeare.

Second was an old school musical theatre queen who was all about technique. How you stand, how you breathe, how you move, how you project, how you warm up. More practical stuff, as opposed to theory. We also got into a bit of emotional memory, and he LOVED working with verbs. He also taught me Greek, Restoration, absurdism and directing.

The third was a younger Broadway actor who was all about experimental, non-traditional stuff. We'd do improv, games, he'd make us act like animals or super heroes, just a bunch of crazy shit. That you wouldn't think would apply to a character, but in a weird way does. He directed me in a ton of productions.

I learned a lot from all of them, but mostly I've learned from the actors I've worked with.

[Mylazycat]

I've worked with three different acting professors who all focussed on different aspects of performance.

The first was very much about the theory of acting. Her's was the only class where we really discussed things like an actor's job/goal, relationship with the audience, their method, the challenges they face. We discussed who we felt were good actors, and what good acting felt like. We would do improv exercises and she gave us scene/monologue assignments. We discussed things like beating out monologues, tactics, character motivation, obstacles, the magic if. She was very much about Stanislavski and naturalism. She also taught me Shakespeare.

Second was an old school musical theatre queen who was all about technique. How you stand, how you breathe, how you move, how you project. More practical stuff, as opposed to theory. We also got into a bit of emotional memory, and he LOVED working with verbs. He also taught me Greek, Restoration, absurdism and directing.

The third was a younger Broadway actor who was all about experimental, non-traditional stuff. We'd do improv, games, he'd make us act like animals or super heroes, just a bunch of crazy shit. That you wouldn't think would apply to a character, but in a weird way does. He directed me in a ton of productions.

I learned a lot from all of them, but mostly I've learned from the actors I've worked with.

Fascinating stuff and all vastly different approaches. Thanks!

[The Hodag]

I just rewatched it recently and I think he did a teriffic job. I believed that Daniel LaRusso was a real person. Ebert was right when he listed it as one of the best films of 1984.

At last, the response I was looking for! :thumb: