What Is A Good Actor(ess)?

[Lighthouse]

I've seen several people comment on the acting skills of Hollywood actors, often talking about how good or bad their acting is. Usually, criticism is put upon actors who act the same way in every movie; like Keanu Reeves or Tom Cruise. Thing is, actors like Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne, Cary Grant, and Steve McQueen did the exact same thing, but are considered Hollywood icons. So what do you consider good acting? Is it being able to play a wide range of people like most character actors, or can it also be having a charismatic personality and showing it in their performance?

 

[Sentinel X]

By my standard, to be a good actor you HAVE to have some sort of versatility. Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne, etc were products of their time. They came from a time period were many film roles would have been taboo and unheard of on the silver screen. Today an actors and actress can play cannibalistic serial killers, transgendered teenage boys, gay cowboys, psychotic abusive mothers, mentally unstable ballerinas, etc and still be taken seriously. All these roles I've mentioned have had the actors portraying them win or were heavily considered for an oscar. That would be unheard of back then. So I don't think it makes much sense to compare those actors to the actors now because the roles back then were much more limited. But yes, I do think you need to step out of you comfort zone in order to be a truly good actor. Until you do that, you haven't really proven that you can act. Maybe you can perform well and you do well playing the same performance. That makes you a good performer, not a good actor.

 

[bullets]

I think a good actor is someone who makes the material believable and seems genuine while doing it. Also the ability to step into a challenging role and pull it off. Although Tom Cruise does seem to carry the same persona in a lot of films we have seen him show range.

 

[The Morningstar]

There is only one thing I want an actor/actress to do... make me believe in their character, make me believe they are a real person. That's the minimum I want.

 

[DrCosmic]

The job description of an actor is to play a part. If they play a part well, they are believable and convincing - they are a good actor. It's that simple. Being charismatic is not necessarily good acting. It's entertaining, but it has little to do with playing the part, but simply making the part more fun to watch.

Range is something else entirely. There are plenty of great actors with limited range, like the ones you mentioned. There are plenty of so-so actors with great range. A lot of people use range to bag on good actors for whatever reason. -shrug-

 

[hopefuldreamer]

You can play a part mediocre, pull off all the lines believably etc

But for me, the mark of a great actor is when you can actually make the audience FEEL what the characters going through. Fear, sadness, grief, anger etc.

I'd say the only exception to that is when your playing a character who's completely unstable/doesn't feel. Then your jobs kind of the opposite - you've gotta make sure you're not showing an ounce of recognisable emotion.

 

[Blue Sugar]

Great range is not a necessity for great acting.

 

[Mandalore464]

Someone can be a great actor/tress after only one film, so great range has nothing to do with it for me. All they have to do is bring the character to life in a believable, authentic, genuine way, and somehow make me forget I'm watching people playing dress-ups on a screen.

Being a great actor is harder the more famous you become. You have to "disappear behind the role", which, if your face and personal antics are already on the front pages of every tabloid in town, is next to impossible.

Christian Bale for example is a great actor. But he's now so famous he can't be anything else than Christian Bale playing somebody else, no matter how convincing he is. He'd have to wear a mask and disguise his voice to really sell a character (like Norton did in Kingdom of Heaven, I had no idea that was him until I read the credits).

The simple fact that you decide to watch a film based on what actor/tress is in it is a tell-tale sign that you're no longer able to truly believe in them as characters.

John Wayne, Bogart and the likes are completely unable to sell me any character they play because of how famous they are.

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy their performances, quite the opposite in fact. I'll be amazed at an actor's ability to deliver a good performance, but I just can't help watching him as "the actor playing his part amazingly" and not as the character.

So my answer is : the best actors are people I know nothing about (name, face, etc) and who help me forget I'm watching a film thanks to a flawless performance.

A great actor can be a famous actor I enjoy watching on the screen, no matter how believable they are (cause they often aren't anymore by that stage).

 

[marvelman2006]

I want an actor to create and take over a role and make me completely think they are a character and not just Mark wahlberg playing a boxer. Also make me hate, love, care, cry whatever there character goes through or does. The great examples heath ledger as the joker and daniel day lewis as bill the butcher. The worst examples are brad pitt and angelina jolie in mr and mrs smith.

 

[Mandalore464]

The worst examples are brad pitt and angelina jolie in mr and mrs smith.

I think it works fine in comedies to have actors basically playing themselves or parodying themselves. It's even funny and part of the comedy. So that's a case in which I don't mind at all watching someone famous.

I also wanted to add that no matter what, the director is as much responsible in bringing a charcter to life than the actors are.

What you see in a film is an assemblage of all the takes that were selected, paced by the director. Plus the director is ultimately the one who tells the actor how to play the role. The actor only has to comply to what he/she's being told to do.

Unfortunately that means that a lot of good actors are underrated because they had the misfortune to star in a crappy film by a crappy director, and a lot of people considered to be "good actors" may just be average actors who had the chance to star in a masterpiece helmed by a great director.

I think it's kind of irritating when people only give credit to an actor for a performance. Because it may have been a completely different performance had the actor directed himself.

 

[Blue Sugar]

I disagree with mandalore, but that's just from personal experience. If a film and performance is great than I can be just as immersed in a character played by Tom Cruise as by an unknown.

 

[Blue Sugar]

You just have to not think too much and feel more.

Harrison Ford, hugely famous, especially for Indiana Jones and Han Solo. And to me they are two totally different characters when I watch the movies. They are not Ford playing Han Solo or Ford playing Indiana, they are Han Solo and Indiana.

And that's just an example. It applies to other super famous but still great actors like Christian Bale, Brad Pitt etc too. Not saying they are always good though and that's when you start to think about the actor instead.

But I agree with that sometimes bad acting can be a cause of bad directing, and people tend to forget that.

 

[chamber-music]

Versatility or Screen presence/Charisma.

Actors like John Wayne or Tom Cruise or Samuel L. Jackson may play the same characters but they have that charisma and watchability that makes people want to watch them.

 

[marvelman2006]

I think it works fine in comedies to have actors basically playing themselves or parodying themselves. It's even funny and part of the comedy. So that's a case in which I don't mind at all watching someone famous.

I also wanted to add that no matter what, the director is as much responsible in bringing a charcter to life than the actors are.

What you see in a film is an assemblage of all the takes that were selected, paced by the director. Plus the director is ultimately the one who tells the actor how to play the role. The actor only has to comply to what he/she's being told to do.

Unfortunately that means that a lot of good actors are underrated because they had the misfortune to star in a crappy film by a crappy director, and a lot of people considered to be "good actors" may just be average actors who had the chance to star in a masterpiece helmed by a great director.

I think it's kind of irritating when people only give credit to an actor for a performance. Because it may have been a completely different performance had the actor directed himself.

I agree then what about sam jackson in pretty much any movie post pulp fiction? Theres also alot of actors who are too flashy for roles in my opinion and it makes it difficult to get past on certain ocassions. Leo did a pretty good job though with inception and shutter island in making me care for those characters and there end game.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

Versatility or Screen presence/Charisma.

Actors like John Wayne or Tom Cruise or Samuel L. Jackson may play the same characters but they have that charisma and watchability that makes people want to watch them.

I wouldn't say they play the same character. John Wayne, yea, he can't act.

 

[Mandalore464]

You just have to not think too much and feel more.

Harrison Ford, hugely famous, especially for Indiana Jones and Han Solo. And to me they are two totally different characters when I watch the movies. They are not Ford playing Han Solo or Ford playing Indiana, they are Han Solo and Indiana.

(...)

I envy that sometimes, mostly when i'm watching crap movies that don't deserve to be dissected on a technical level, that's when I'd like to be able to just sit back and get taken away by the story (unfortunately, most crappy films have crappy stories).

I can't really watch a film without focusing on the cinematography (what were the technical specs., how was this shot achieved, etc.), the editing, and so on.

It doesn't make the films less enjoyable, it's just a different way to appreciate them. I'm more interested in what's behind the story (the director's vision, the cinematography, etc.) than in the story itself.

Only a few films/actors ever manage to carry me away anymore and in the case of actors, they HAVE to not be famous to achieve that.

 

[Laderlappen]

The only thing that is important to me for an actor is that he or she gives great performances. Versatility is not important at all. If you have its a bonus, but its not the least bit necessary.

 

[matrix_ghost]

The question is what is a good actor/actress not a great one.

A truly great actor or actress can completely disappear into a role . And not just once but many times.
Examples : Daniel Day Lewis or Meryl Streep.

A good actor is someone who makes you enjoy his/her performance without making you (constantly) think " he/she sounds the same or looks the same".
For example i think Daniel Craig is a good actor. Even though he didn't master an Swedish accent and for me at least simply sounded like he was talking with an british accent in Girl with the Dragon Tattoo , i still enjoyed his performance .
Ditto TOm Cruise in Valkyrie.

 

[chamber-music]

Ultimately it comes down to performances in the role.

Steven Spielberg said in an interview he considers Daniel Day Lewis and Meryl Streep the best living working actors today.

 

[Sentinel X]

I don't know how people can say range has nothing to do with being a good actor. If you're a good actor don't you have to...you know...act? If you keep playing the same role you're not acting. You're playing the same role, and perhaps you play that role really well, but that isn't acting. I could do a pretty spot on Obama impression...does that make me a good actor? If studios started making films that starred Obama-like characters and they hired me for all of them (and the films were well received) would I be a great actor?

 

[jmc]

I think there's two categories here, actors and movie stars. To me great acting is when the actor themselves no longer becomes visible on screen, ie you're not seeing Anthony Hopkins playing a psychopath you're seeing Hannible Lector. Movie stars are different, more often than not you're paying to see the actor/actress not who they are playing, doesn't mean they are necessarily bad, they just good at those crowd pleasing roles, ie Bruce Willis in Die Hard 4 for instance.

 

[Donnie Darko]

The question is what is a good actor/actress not a great one.

A truly great actor or actress can completely disappear into a role . And not just once but many times.
Examples : Daniel Day Lewis or Meryl Streep.

I totally agree with this. Another great example is Gary Oldman. Watch True Romance, then Leon, then Batman Begins/Dark Knight. It's hard to believe it's the same guy.

Another one for me is Ryan Gosling now. I have liked him for a while now, but my wife and I watched Crazy Stupid Love last week, then watched Drive this week. Just the way he moves so fluidly between those two EXTREMELY different roles, both times making you fully believe he is the character, is amazing.

 

[flickchick85]

I think there's two categories here, actors and movie stars. To me great acting is when the actor themselves no longer becomes visible on screen, ie you're not seeing Anthony Hopkins playing a psychopath you're seeing Hannible Lector. Movie stars are different, more often than not you're paying to see the actor/actress not who they are playing, doesn't mean they are necessarily bad, they just good at those crowd pleasing roles, ie Bruce Willis in Die Hard 4 for instance.

This is pretty much exactly how I feel about it.

A few weeks back, I was trying to pay Tom Cruise a compliment by calling him one of the last great "Movie Stars" rather than one of the many Great Actors we have these days. But some people read it as an insult, as if I was saying he's a bad actor. He's not. But there ARE two molds of actors like you said, and Tom Cruise definitely falls into the classic "Movie Star" mold, and consistently delivers that quality in his movies better than just about anyone else today, imo.

That's not to say he doesn't branch out every now and then, but he's a far cry from such chameleon-like actors as Daniel Day-Lewis, Gary Oldman, and in the younger generation, Tom Hardy, Christian Bale and Michael Fassbender. And that's not a bad thing. Hollywood has thrived for decades on both types of actors, and I feel like Cruise's brand, the true Movie Stars, are becoming a much rarer commodity - partially because so many of those who could also be carrying that flag would clearly rather be a part of the other camp (like Brad Pitt and Leo DiCaprio).

In my opinion, having his brand of unique magnetic charisma - what some people call "It" - is just as valuable an asset to a screen actor as "range" can be. It just makes for a different type of actor/persona.

 

[Donnie Darko]

I think there's two categories here, actors and movie stars. To me great acting is when the actor themselves no longer becomes visible on screen, ie you're not seeing Anthony Hopkins playing a psychopath you're seeing Hannible Lector. Movie stars are different, more often than not you're paying to see the actor/actress not who they are playing, doesn't mean they are necessarily bad, they just good at those crowd pleasing roles, ie Bruce Willis in Die Hard 4 for instance.

I agree with this, too. Like people have said, Christian Bale isn't Christian Bale once the cameras start (well, he might have cashed a check for Terminator). However, as much flack as this guy gets, I also very much enjoy Ryan Reynolds, who truly plays Ryan Reynolds all the time.

 

[jmc]

This is pretty much exactly how I feel about it.

A few weeks back, I was trying to pay Tom Cruise a compliment by calling him one of the last great ''Movie Stars'' rather than one of the many Great Actors we have these days. But some people read it as an insult, as if I was saying he's a bad actor. He's not. But there ARE two molds of actors like you said, and Tom Cruise definitely falls into the classic ''Movie Star'' mold, and consistently delivers that quality in his movies better than just about anyone else today, imo.

That's not to say he doesn't branch out every now and then, but he's a far cry from such chameleon-like actors as Daniel Day-Lewis, Gary Oldman, and in the younger generation, Tom Hardy, Christian Bale and Michael Fassbender. And that's not a bad thing. Hollywood has thrived for decades on both types of actors, and I feel like Cruise's brand, the true Movie Stars, are becoming a much rarer commodity - partially because so many of those who could also be carrying that flag would clearly rather be a part of the other camp (like Brad Pitt and Leo DiCaprio).

In my opinion, having his brand of unique magnetic charisma - what some people call ''It''- is just as valuable an asset to a screen actor as ''range'' can be. It just makes for a different type of actor/persona.

Yeah, calling someone a movie star isn't necessarily an insult, as you say they're just a different type of actor. But I do agree that the true 'movie star' is becoming a thing of the past, Cruise and maybe Will Smith are really the only two left I can think of who could still pack a theatre staring in some big action film. I'd argue that we're at the stage where lesser known actors of a higher quality are simply doing more mainstream roles on top of the smaller films, I think the 'brand' actor is not long for this world.