How Surprised Should We Be By Good Acting?

Hmmm. Your conception of actors as mere "workers" instead of as artists (albeit artists who are being paid) seems to conflate their performances with themselves. When a painter paints, "good job" is faint praise indeed.

If people would speak intelligently about the facets of quality performances, rather than just saying "What a great performance!" then maybe that would be better.

The line between "basic requirements" and "praiseworthy work" can be debated for any performance, so it's impossible to treat this as a general question.

Reply

This would be a lot better if you had examples of lowered expectations leading to undeserved praise.

Also, yes, you should feel something like awe or admiration when someone does their job well, no matter what the profession.

I think you might be trying to define what is a "good" job and what is just mediocre, which is for the most part subjective when it comes to the arts.

Reply

I don't think it's different than any other field/work. You have a bunch of people who are pretty good and only a few who are praiseworthy and even less who are the benchmark by which others are judged. It would be nice if everyone who did something was awesome at it but then we'd have nothing by which to judge awesome, would we?

Reply

Hugh Laurie really is exceptional and having had NO formal training as an actor, his talent is purely natural. That's one of the reasons he's sooooo brilliant. Also, he's insanely hot.

Reply

a good actor makes the audience smile with recognition and we know they're going to do a good job in almost every piece of work they do. A great actor/actress is someone who continues to surprise the audience no matter what they expect. An example would be Hilary Swank. She works really hard for each role.

Reply

This gets to the heart of something that I've been thinking about recently, after watching Half Nelson. That movie had come highly recommended to me by several of my trusted friends, and I did enjoy it--a lot--but something about it frustrated me, and it might not even be the movie's fault, exactly. I thought its portrayal of a high-school classroom was the best I've seen since The Wire. In fact, I was psyched to see a couple actors from The Wire make brief appearances. What I didn't like was that the movie seemed like the Ryan Gosling show. The part of the teacher just seemed like the perfect vehicle for some lucky white twenty-something male actor. And his character was better developed than any other--and you could argue that Half Nelson is sort of the teacher's story, but his details seemed applied with more care. For example, there's a dinner party scene where his mom puts on the Free to Be You and Me record. The girl never got that kind of specificity. That's the way I'm remembering it, anyway; it's been a few months.

This is also half of my problem with most bio-pics, from Walk the Line to Ray to The Hurricane to Gandhi. It seems like we're just meant to marvel at these movies' authenticity, and in particular the authenticity of the star performances. Ryan Gosling is amazing in Half Nelson, I don't deny it, but it's frustrating flipping through Amazon reviews (say) and seeing his name over and over and over: Ryan Gosling is amazing as the crack-addicted teacher who forges a unique bond with one of his students, Ryan Gosling deserves every award he gets, Ryan Gosling is the best young actor in movies today. I'm tempted to say that this fixation on the lead actor undermines other parts of the movie, but I think it's built into the Half Nelson's DNA. It's everyone's fault, you know? This is a really half-baked argument so I'm sorry if it doesn't make sense but it's interesting to me. If all we can notice is how powerful the lead actor is, I feel like the movie must be lacking in other areas. What do you think?

Reply

I think its a sliding scale, its sort of like apprising the value of a home, you base it off of other "comparable" homes within that area.

Could I have found a better analogy, sure, but stick with me here.

What if I walked up to you and said "George Clooney in a contemporary crime thriller."

You would know about 80% of all the types of emotions and scenes that Clooney will probably have in such a movie. When you finally watch the movie, you will not be surprised, you won't be underwhelmed, either. You'll merely grade it as "par for course"

What if I told you "Jessica Biel in a period piece set in early 1900's Vienna"

First thing you'd say would be that its going to be pretty goofy acting. And then you find out that she's remarkably up to task in The Illusionist. So now, you ARE surprised.

Can another actress do that part better? Absolutely. She breaks her mold (or at least the one we've defined for her), and we notice. It stands out.

That's pretty much because we don't see actors and actresses as true shape-shifters, we've already defined career roles for them, he's a tough guy, he's the brooding type, she's a perky person, he plays jackasses, that guy plays a straightman. Since Hollywood does not see a reason for ANY actor to play against type (why should they, there's tons of people capable of fulfilling any one role) we notice these odd occurrences when somebody does trascend our expectations of them.

Reply

I've been thinking about the line between good and extraordinary ever since I saw the scene below (I'm talking about Dillahunt, not Pitt). It completely reset my standards and everything I thought I knew about acting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRn8Qu1NPL4

So currently the line is at, "Holy $#%&, can actors do that!?"

:)

Reply

The Assassination of Jesse James... what a movie that was!

And Garrett is amazing anyways; I would classify him as able to play any role and do it with perfection. In fact, he's so good he played two completely different characters on Deadwood, and pulled it off exceptionally well.

That being said, I think it's difficult for a well-known and established star to break away from his perceived persona once it's cemented in our mindset. Pitt is a great example, because we've all pieced together what he's like based on the average sum of his roles, and each film should in theory be another avenue away from that sum, but rooted in it well enough to see where he's coming from. That works for him, and somewhat helps each new role he takes to be believable because we can see how this caricature of himself has real roots. However, when he's given a vehicle to excel and break away from that comfortable caricature of himself, he surprises us and exceeds our expectations, like he did in 12 Monkeys for instance.

For an actor to remain exceptional in the eyes of his critics, he or she needs to constantly press that envelop in different ways to different degrees. Some do this by doing 1 film a year, or two, so we tend to clear our minds of the last role he/she had in time for the next. But the best do it by immersing themselves so deep in the role that we forget they are acting, that they are anything but the character telling or showing us a story, and that we're there with them, in that room, in that conversation. The best use their surroundings and costars as cohesive instruments instead of props. The best realize that they are borrowing this character for a short while, and then giving it back to its own path, its own destiny. When you can see that, taste it, feel it, that is the mark of a superior actor or actress.

Reply

Great actors are hard to find nowadays. This whole topic brings up so many words in my head that I can't even get them all out - so I'm just going to leave it with a short thought:

Today's movie goers and directors/producers are so obsessed with the next big budget feature and "who's the best looking" that they forget how amazing a film can be with amazing actors.

I think a good case is Jennifer's Body (some hated, I dug it) - Amanda Seyfried smoked Megan Fox in terms of acting but guess who's listed at the top of imdb.com and all the other movie posters?

Reply

I enjoy watching mediocre actors grow in their roles. It's rare to see this in movies (since most actors don't last beyond a trilogy if a character gets to be revisited), but far more common in television.

Which may be why many movie actors eventually become typecast. As they play similar roles over and over again, they become comfortable with the beats and subtleties of the characters. This can often lead to them being overlooked, and requires a dramatic shift in roles to make people realize they're actually talented with their craft. This often results in either a comedic actor going dramatic, or vice versa.

Reply

I also think that, in Laurie's case, it has to do with acting that elevates the material he's doing. People praise his acting in House b/c it makes a good show become VERY good. It's not just the accent (although accents are challenging for lots of actors, even good ones), nor the acting (although his acting is great); it's his ability to make the material seem better than it is.

In terms of praising good acting: why the heck not? If someone cleans a house well, I would praise them. If someone played the piano beautifully, I would compliment them. When someone does something else, they should be complimented, b/c I've been subjected to several instances of people doing things badly.

Reply

Great acting can appear in many ways.

In the case of DeNiro, he just is such a good actor at portraying whoever his character is we expect the exceptional.

I still think Johnny Depp deserved the Oscar for best actor for the first Pirates of The Caribbean movie...because I never would have guessed that jack Sparrow was being played by Depp. He was completely transformed into this psychotic rogue of a pirate.

Seeing Keanu Reeves actually show emotion other than stiff responses to those around him may be exceptional work for him.

Robert Downey, Jr. in the role of Tony Stark did a great job as we saw his character grow as a human being. Is that his acting ability or a well directed movie?

Heath Ledger was not identifiable per se as the Joker, which is why so many may have felt his acting in The Dark Knight should have been Oscar worthy as the character was transformed beyond anything he had previously done. Jack Nicholson as the Joker was still a snide Jack Nicholson with white make up.

Reply

The main problem now is that we're all used mediocrity. In music, television and film.. all we get most of the time is a half assed job from everyone (directors, musicians, actors and producers of the crap that has been fed to us as entertainment in the last few years). When you see someone like Hugh Laurie doing his job well, it sometimes takes us by surprise. He IS just doing his job.. the way that that all actors should be.

Hugh should be praised for his work.. but at the same time, it is also time to start grumbling to all those who put out CRAP that we expect something BETTER from them. Raise the bar!

Reply