What Is A Good Actor(ess)?

[SuperSoldier985]

Well, other than pure talent...(the 1%)


I think for 99% of actors out there, it deals with having a collection of memorable roles in memorable movies or tv shows. No one is going to remember a good performance in a forgettable movie or tv show and vice versa. You need both. It's this logic that explains why some actors seem great in certain movies and roles, but not that great in others. If you want to become a true icon as well, you have to do all these things and at the same time, you need consistency and create a balance between how you impact the movie industry on and off the screen.

Depending on how memorable the role is and how memorable the movie(s) are will create the balancing calculation as to how fast people can take you as credible actor (this explains how actors like Chris Hemsworth still has a career and Brandon Routh doesn't).

Sometimes consistency can push someone's acting credibility much farther than just "range" (who cares how much range you have--if you're showing great range in mediocre films, it can backfire on your credibility)--Basically if you act your ass off even while playing the same kinds of roles and in good movies, you'll build up your credibility in a much more linear fashion.

And of course, a lot of the time, it's luck. If you're a mediocre actor and you land a project with an excellent acting coach, a talented director, and someone who believes in you and you're playing a role that fits you perfectly--if that film becomes a success, you can become a credible actor almost overnight. Of course, you'll have to live up to the standards you've created for yourself.

 

[Lighthouse]

Let me ask another question. Do any of you think Arnold Schwarzenegger is a good actor?

 

[SuperSoldier985]

Let me ask another question. Do any of you think Arnold Schwarzenegger is a good actor?

Yes and no. Mostly yes and I'll explain.


The thing is, the roles he plays and the movies he stars in are so incredibly memorable--not only that, but he probably has a slightly better than average batting average when it comes to consistency among his more memorable roles. With that, you cannot easily call him a bad actor...but I'd slap anyone in the face if they think he's a great actor.

What adds to his convincing ability is his dominating screen presence and charisma, which outweighs his actual acting ability. So he can get away with it.

 

[lime]

For me a good actor (ess) is one that can transform in to any character. For me the great actors have to be able to transform every basic tool the actor have: voice, expressions, mimics, movements and all.

The truly great actors are these who are nothing alike them selfs in the movie they play, and I don't mean makeup and stuff.

Daniel Day-Lewis in both Gangs of New York and There Will be Blood are the perfect examples.

Johnny Depp in nearly every single of his movies.

Meryl Streep: from playing in Julie and Julia to playing in The Iron Lady.

These chameleon actors are truly great.

 

[jmc]

Let me ask another question. Do any of you think Arnold Schwarzenegger is a good actor?

I consider him a good movie star, or did in his day, good at entertaining the crowds. As I said on the last page there's a difference between movie star and a genuine actor, ones there to entertain, ones there to perform, and both can be good.

 

[moviedoors]

I'll say this: In my own personal experience, I find working with actors to be everything from joyous to unbelievably irritating. And that wide range of experience is reflected in how I feel about them as a viewer. I like all kinds of them, from the quite, barely doing anything subtlety giants, to the big, showboating kind, to the efficient, workman-like day player, to the bit part player, to the thankless roles, to the big villains, it's an endlessly fascinating craft. The whole mindset of what it means to want or need to be an actor is one seems foreign to me, and I speak as someone whose been forced into to doing many more times than I ever thought I would have to be. The good ones, and there's so many of them, doing something I don't feel like I'm capable of ever getting a handle on, and respect the hell out of that.

 

[SuperSoldier985]

For me a good actor (ess) is one that can transform in to any character. For me the great actors have to be able to transform every basic tool the actor have: voice, expressions, mimics, movements and all.

The truly great actors are these who are nothing alike them selfs in the movie they play, and I don't mean makeup and stuff.

Daniel Day-Lewis in both Gangs of New York and There Will be Blood are the perfect examples.

Johnny Depp in nearly every single of his movies.

Meryl Streep: from playing in Julie and Julia to playing in The Iron Lady.

These chameleon actors are truly great.

I'm not disagreeing with you, however, you're only describing a certain type of actor--that's not fair.

What about character actors like Michael Shannon? He doesn't display the kind of range that a Daniel Day Lewis, but what he does bring is amazing presence, intensity, and memorable roles with consistency.

To me, there are three types of actors, all which have the capacity to being no better actor than the other.

The type you already described are "chameleons"--I'm okay with that terminology.

The type I described are Character actors--like Shannon, Patton Oswalt, Mickey Rourke..etc

The third type I would call Straight actors--actors that are usually in between character and chameleons. These typically are the actors that are hugely popular because they can usually play themselves and at the same time, still have enough range to fit whatever the role demands (i.e., Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, Denzel Washington, George Clooney).

 

[Laderlappen]

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?

Well we have different opinions so I cant call you wrong for thinking like this. But I can write what I feel. What makes a great performance is not looking different, having different accents, etc. in films. A bad actor can lose weight, grow a beard, speak with a different voice, speak with an accent, yadda yadda. There is no acting in that bit. A great actor and an actor with great range are two completely different things. Acting to me is about making the character alive, and making what that character does and feel, feel real. Only a great actor can do that. 2 of my fav actors of all time were James Stewart and James Dean. They werent very different in their movies and in real life, but they were so alive on film.

I dont think your example of an Obama impression is a good example. Impressions and acting are apples and oranges. Impressions are just about looking and/or sounding like a person. Thats not acting. But if you played a character in a film, and played that character in every film, and did that really well, yes you would be a great actor. Charlie Chaplin did this.

 

[Mandalore464]

2 of my fav actors of all time were James Stewart and James Dean. They werent very different in their movies and in real life, but they were so alive on film

You'r right on that one, and a lot of people don't really appreciate how difficult it actually is to just be yourself in front of a camera. It's extremely easy to look and sound phony, even if you're just playing yourself, because of the circumstances (dozens of crew members watching you in silence, equipment and cameras rolling, having to hit your marks...). That makes it extremely difficult to just convince yourself you're in a real situation, and not overact.

 

[spider-neil]

I have the following criteria for good actor/performance

1. do I 'buy' the character/performance
no matter how outlandish the setting I have to BELIEVE what the actor is selling me.

two examples of what for me are some of the best performances I have ever seen. denzel in training day. this cop is losing it over the course of the and not for one second do I not believe. an utterly nuanced, layered and convincing performance. and the other is ledger's joker, for me that movie is full of holes but not for one second do I not buy the character of joker.

but you can also have brilliant casting, for instance keano reeves was hilarious in much ado about nothing, an absolute joke but the casting in matrix completely works and I believe without question his performance of a confused man shown a fantastical reality.

2. the actor has to have charm/charisma

hard to quantity this one. you have alan rickman as a terrorist in die hard and he is blowing people away in cold blood but you are still drawn to the character because he has a certain style and charm and for me this is VITAL for an actor.

there is more to acting than just reading lines, you have to immerse yourself in the character and more you have to give that character a personality that can't be explained in mere words on a piece of paper. I've seen performance where is nothing 'wrong' with it but I've seen very few peformances that are truly memorable because the actor elevates the character into something 'more'.


3. the actor can't bring the same peformance to every movie

three actors I can't stand, al pacino, robert de niro and will smith.
why, because the actors give the same peformance in every blasted movie I have seen them in. now I recognise that de niro was something special early in his career but that is no excuse to me, look at clint eastword, he doesn't 'phone it in' even though he could coast on his early reputation.

basically when I watch a movie and I see a known actor I don't want to see 'will smith' (for example) give me the character you are supposed to be portraying, don't give me 'you'. this is why a lot of times I prefer to see unknowns.

so in closing; 'what makes a good actor?'

someone who makes me utterly believe the person they are playing. that same actor going on to play another character and making be utterly believe that character and finally that unexplainable quality that turns a good performance into a 'great' performance.

some of my all time favorite performances;

in no perticular order;
1. denzil - training day
2. ledger - TDK
3. rickman - die hard
4. stewart - rare window
5. hopkins - silence of the lambs
6. reeves - superman
7. rutger - blade runner
8. robbins - shawshank

there are more but these are my absolute favorites

 

[Bobber]

3. the actor can't bring the same peformance to every movie

three actors I can't stand, al pacino, robert de niro and will smith

What?...
I mean, sure, their careers have taken an awful turn (particularly De Niro, who seems to not care anymore), but they're two of the most gifted film actors in history. Both have played a mass amount of different and varied characters.

 

[spider-neil]

What?...
I mean, sure, their careers have taken an awful turn (particularly De Niro, who seems to not care anymore), but they're two of the most gifted film actors in history. Both have played a mass amount of different and varied characters.

They're coasting, I'm supposed to give them a by because they were good 20 years ago?

 

[childeroland]

A good actor so enthralls you with his/her performance that even if you can't forget who they are, the story's enchantment still works on you. It's better for an actor to do this in a wide variety of roles but not necessary to be a good actor. I never forget Bogart is Bogart but when watching one of his films, I don't care.

 

[Airwings]

How come actors who play troubled characters, maffia members or people who work themselves up in society - always are getting praise? Even if the actors in question often return to those kind of roles.
But actors who play rich people, lords, royalty or any kind of upper class - don't seem to be praised that much. Doesn't matter if they play the characters very well, just as well as the actors who play the former kind of roles.
Is it because the former requires real acting, and the latter is only about giving a performance?

 

[childeroland]

What's the difference between "real" (?) acting and giving a performance?

Anyway, actors playing rich folks, etc are praised all the time. Colin Firth and Guy Pearce in The King's Speech, Helen Mirren in The Queen, Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love, the upper-class characters of Downton Abbey...

 

[Airwings]

childeroland: The difference between acting and "performing" has already been stated in this thread
I was thinking about Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, who have played the same kind of tough roles a lot.
Compare it to Roger Moore who rose to world fame as a movie actor about the same time, and mostly plays more light stuff, snobbish characters and similar. Even his previous TV work had the same elements. And if I can mention someone older, then we have David Niven who did play many aristocrats and so. Both of them play their roles just as well as De Niro and Pacino play theirs
But who get all the praise?

But from your examples.... I see that the attitude is about to change.

 

[Airwings]

Just want to bring up Robert Redford as well. He's not in the same league as De Niro/Pacino, just because he has a somewhat softer and not-so-tough approach to his acting, compared to them. Doesn't matter that he's a star, with a lot of great films under his belt.
Playing bad-ass characters always leaves a bigger impact on the audience. Sad, isn't it?

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

They're coasting, I'm supposed to give them a by because they were good 20 years ago?

Yeah. Pacino is 71 and De Niro is 68. Great roles just aren't written everyday for those ages so they do stuff that's beneath their ability. Is De Niro really supposed to delve into the psyche of Jack Byrnes for a third time the way he did Travis Bickle? They've earned the right to coast because they're legends.

 

[Laderlappen]

What's the difference between "real" (?) acting and giving a performance?

I dont understand the difference either, nor have I seen it mentioned on this thread.

Its one of these things I find very annoying when somebody takes two words of the same meaning and speak like there is a difference, when that poster means something completely else than they say. Its like when people make a difference between the words favorite and best, when what they actually mean is something completely different. I mean no offence Airwings, but suggest you really exaplin what you mean when you say this.

 

[Laderlappen]

Yeah. Pacino is 71 and De Niro is 68. Great roles just aren't written everyday for those ages so they do stuff that's beneath their ability. Is De Niro really supposed to delve into the psyche of Jack Byrnes for a third time the way he did Travis Bickle? They've earned the right to coast because they're legends.

This happens to everybody when they get older. Bob Dylan is not quite as good now as he was when he was younger, should we then ignore what he did in the 60's and the 70's?

 

[Bobber]

I get so annoyed when people say De Niro has just been playing the same role over and over.
Bang The Drum Slowly, Mean Streets, Godfather Part II, 1900, Taxi Driver, The Last Tycoon, The Deer Hunter, Raging Bull, The King of Comedy, Once Upon A Time In America, Brazil, Goodfellas, Cape Fear, Casino.

Despite the fact that a fair few of them are sociopaths, their characters are still radically different.

 

[Airwings]

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.

The second post in this thread. Next time you can look yourself. I don't need to quote every post when I write, not if you have followed this thread.

 

[Airwings]

I get so annoyed when people say De Niro has just been playing the same role over and over.
Bang The Drum Slowly, Mean Streets, Godfather Part II, 1900, Taxi Driver, The Last Tycoon, The Deer Hunter, Raging Bull, The King of Comedy, Once Upon A Time In America, Brazil, Goodfellas, Cape Fear, Casino.

Despite the fact that a fair few of them are sociopaths, their characters are still radically different.

I didn't say he ALWAYS plays the same role. I said he often return to those kind of roles. I was very careful with how to describe that. Yet people don't understand the meaning behind the words, they interpret the post just as they prefer.

 

[Bobber]

I didn't say he ALWAYS plays the same role. I said he often return to those kind of roles. I was very careful with how to describe that. Yet people don't understand the meaning behind the words, they interpret the post just as they prefer.

Doesn't change the fact that I just went over a lot of De Niro's filmography from 1973 to 1995 (I'll say Hi Mom and Jackie Brown and go from 70 to 97). And I haven't even included Awakenings, Bronx Tale, Sleepers etc. where he plays very different roles as well.

 

[Airwings]

Bobber: But you must see that he several times played violent criminals, and he's been in many maffia-themed films.
The two Analyze films even use the stereotype Robert De Niro character, for fun. If he wasn't know for that kind of roles, then they would have got another actor for Paul Vitti.
The same can be said about Stardust, where he first is tough as hell, and turns out to be something completely different