What is good acting?

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

For real. He's an AMAZING actor. My favorite.

Mine too.

 

[Southern Kross]

Just spotted this on the list. I'm a huge fan of Tony Leung!

And Happy Together is definitely one of the best movies I've ever seen.

I haven't seen Happy Together, but he was great in In the Mood for Love and 2046.

To get back to "What makes a good actor?", for me it's pretty simple: If I fully believe you are this person who you are pretending to be on screen -- even with me knowing you're not -- then you're acting successfully. And you're an even better actor if, as this person, I can see the world through your eyes and resonate with you and you can convey your emotions and thoughts to me so that I feel them and understand them.

There are qualifications to that. (For example, if I know you are playing REALLY against type for who you are and what you've done in the past, that increases my estimation. If I know you are just being yourself, then that's not as much "acting" per se. Or if you have a terrible script, it's harder for you to seem like a real person no matter how good you are.)

Agreed.

But for me there's even another level beyond suspension of disbelief. To get all Fi on this, to me a great performance hits these moments of such sincere human truth that it gives me the shivers. It's like hearing a song sung slightly out of tune and then there's this moment where it's so perfectly on key that it just goes straight through you and touches something beautiful and primal deep inside you. It's like it's so real and true that it's overwhelming. I love when that happens.

Also, I think truly great actors are versatile across various films, but for the most part a great performance is something you can only define within the bounds of the film itself.

Still, it's complicated. Quvenzhané Wallis was highly praised (and nominated for awards) for her performance in Beasts of the Southern Wild, despite her being 5 years old when they shot it. There was a bit of debate because many people believe the director must have effectively manipulated the performance out of her and/or created it in the edit. She was fantastic in it and utterly charming, but I struggle to believe a 5 year old can consciously make acting decisions of any complexity.

And not a single mention of Daniel Day-Lewis was seen that day..

He's my favourite as well.

What he did in There will be Blood was indescribably amazing. I have trouble even connecting the actor to the character; it's hard to believe that that was actually DDL playing him. And that was not an easy character to convince an audience of.

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

He's my favourite as well.

What he did in There will be Blood was indescribably amazing. I have trouble even connecting the actor to the character; it's hard to believe that that was actually DDL playing him. And that was not an easy character to convince an audience of.

Have you seen Lincoln?

 

[Southern Kross]

Have you seen Lincoln?

Yes. He was excellent in that too.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

D-day is awesome. I'd give anything a chance if he's in it.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I think good acting is a combination of being convincing and overcoming a challenge.

The first I think is fairly obvious. It's the degree to which you can believe the actor is the character, knowing, feeling, experiencing the same things.
The second refers to the difficulty in playing the part. This not only means it takes good acting ability to play someone that's highly different from oneself, but especially that it takes good acting the make something decent out of bad writing.

 

[21%]

But for me there's even another level beyond suspension of disbelief. To get all Fi on this, to me a great performance hits these moments of such sincere human truth that it gives me the shivers. It's like hearing a song sung slightly out of tune and then there's this moment where it's so perfectly on key that it just goes straight through you and touches something beautiful and primal deep inside you. It's like it's so real and true that it's overwhelming. I love when that happens.

This is exactly how I feel! I can really get high off these moments, and good ones can keep me in a good mood for days. I know that it's highly subjective though.

My problem is that I know I'm extremely biased towards stories about damaged people, especially those who are struggling with issues of guilt, identity and self-worth. I also need to be able to sympathize with my characters, which is again highly subjective, so a lot of the time I don't trust my judgment when it comes to "who's a good actor".

 

[Totenkindly]

But for me there's even another level beyond suspension of disbelief. To get all Fi on this, to me a great performance hits these moments of such sincere human truth that it gives me the shivers. It's like hearing a song sung slightly out of tune and then there's this moment where it's so perfectly on key that it just goes straight through you and touches something beautiful and primal deep inside you. It's like it's so real and true that it's overwhelming. I love when that happens.

True. That's just kind of a concept I summed up in "real" and it's something that bumps a decent movie up to astonishing. There's someone acting according to a type, and there is someone who is actually being a real person in the sense it rings perfectly true (sometimes that intersection with truth is stronger than others within a performance), and it's like the entire universe is vibrating with it, and I become part of it. I think those are the moments I love for as a viewer of film (and reader of books, actually).

Also, I think truly great actors are versatile across various films, but for the most part a great performance is something you can only define within the bounds of the film itself.

Yes, the great actors have those moments occur more often within their various performances, but it's still on a "performance" basis. It occurs within the guise and constraints of a particular character; it has to be incarnated.

Still, it's complicated. Quvenzhané Wallis was highly praised (and nominated for awards) for her performance in Beasts of the Southern Wild, despite her being 5 years old when they shot it. There was a bit of debate because many people believe the director must have effectively manipulated the performance out of her and/or created it in the edit. She was fantastic in it and utterly charming, but I struggle to believe a 5 year old can consciously make acting decisions of any complexity.

Yes, partly because the nuances of thought have not yet been developed, and the breadth and depth of life experience is not there to give them context for those decisions.

I remember reading a review that include interviews about the kid who played Sid in "Looper" last year -- I think he was only 5-6 or so when they filmed it -- and it was really fascinating because his performance was incredible (I think he did a better acting job than many adults in other films have done), and while his answers to the questions were articulate especially for one so young, they were also obviously the words of a very young boy because he didn't have a lot of context yet for things. And he had the same interests and attention span and whatever else as a young boy. And when he described working on the set, it was clear the director had to frame a lot of things for him. Yet it was still remarkable because the boy obviously has an aptitude for it -- that the director WAS able to convey the emotions he wanted expressed, and the boy was in sync with those emotions in his short life enough to know what to draw on for that scene.

EDIT: DDL was great in Lincoln. You know who else I thought was pretty decent? James Spader. I didn't even recognize him as Bilbo... even AFTER I saw the credits.

 

[Southern Kross]

D-day is awesome. I'd give anything a chance if he's in it.

This is exactly how I feel! I can really get high off these moments, and good ones can keep me in a good mood for days. I know that it's highly subjective though.

My problem is that I know I'm extremely biased towards stories about damaged people, especially those who are struggling with issues of guilt, identity and self-worth. I also need to be able to sympathize with my characters, which is again highly subjective, so a lot of the time I don't trust my judgment when it comes to "who's a good actor".

Such a 4!

I like those stories too. Have you seen Capote? What you're saying makes that film immediately spring to mind. God I love that film - and the performances are incredible.

As for not trusting your judgement, who cares? If you like something that's all that really matters. And trust me the reverse problem is far worse. The film forum (well it mainly revolved around Oscars discussion but it was general film talk all year round too) I used to belong to was full of dogmatic, arrogant, hateful, pretentious assholes who each thought themselves the ultimate objective judge of quality film and performances. I got sick of their constant denigration other great films or performances (that they didn't deign to consider worthy) and their complete refusal to acknowledge that subjectivity was even a element - so I left after being there for several years. So being appreciative but ambivalent is a pretty decent position to take up.

I remember reading a review that include interviews about the kid who played Sid in "Looper" last year -- I think he was only 5-6 or so when they filmed it -- and it was really fascinating because his performance was incredible (I think he did a better acting job than many adults in other films have done), and while his answers to the questions were articulate especially for one so young, they were also obviously the words of a very young boy because he didn't have a lot of context yet for things. And he had the same interests and attention span and whatever else as a young boy. And when he described working on the set, it was clear the director had to frame a lot of things for him. Yet it was still remarkable because the boy obviously has an aptitude for it -- that the director WAS able to convey the emotions he wanted expressed, and the boy was in sync with those emotions in his short life enough to know what to draw on for that scene.

Yeah, with kids that young they often trick them into a performance by giving oblique direction. The director might tell the kid to think about ice cream to give the impression of soulfulness or whatever. There has to be an element of intention behind it or else it's just smoke and mirrors. I do agree that ones like the kid in Looper deserve praise for possessing the charisma to carry a film forward and the expressiveness that people can relate to.

EDIT: DDL was great in Lincoln. You know who else I thought was pretty decent? James Spader. I didn't even recognize him as Bilbo... even AFTER I saw the credits.

Spader was fantastic, and I'm not even much of a fan of him ordinarily. Him and Tommy Lee Jones just lit up that film.