|
Fart City posted:Nightcrawler is incredible, and it completely rests on Gyllenhaal’s shoulders. I think that’s a movie that’s going to only grow more appreciated in time. One of the things I've always found awkward about "Best Acting" Oscars is that we don't vote for the best actors, we vote for our favorite roles. Forrest in Forrest Gump was nowhere near an acting challenge, and only really has one scene (at the end with Jenny learning about Forrest Jr) that really requires anything more than blandly being upbeat. But it was a great role, so here's some hardware, Tom Hanks. The best acting in my mind is the acting that requires absolutely no dialog. Furiosa/Max in Fury Road go from bitter enemies to grudging friends just with the looks between them and how they react to being next to each other in the War Rig's cab. That is acting! 
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:the number one most important thing an actor can do is focus. focus on your scene partner both during and outside your lines, direct audience's attention, don't pull focus when it isn't appropriate. that's like 80 percent of it, and it's why priority one in theater is getting off-book. obviously professional level you're coming to the first rehearsal off-book, but in community productions there are weeks wasted because actors are still looking at books or getting cues when they should be doing the real important stuff, scene and character work. You'd be deeply surprised at the number of people at high level genuine big city main stage shows that not only don't come to the first rehearsal off book, but come having barely done any text work (if any at all) since the table read It's astonishing. My wife is always fuming mad because she's always off book and talks about how little of the actual work of acting and performance can be rehearsed while you're holding--or your scene partner is holding--a script
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Also my take on comedians being better at drama is that I don't necessarily think good acting comes from like, emotional skill or those sorts of things, but from experience and craftsmanship. Acting is a craft, first and foremost. There are techniques and training and practice that have to be done, not just to understand the text, but to understand language, operative words, human experience and then the meta things of working with others, focusing and listening. I think comedians tend to have just straight up done more work--or a higher volume of it anyway. Between improv classes and performances, stand-up, writing, etc; comedians on the whole tend to seem to me to be more well rounded artists usually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
I think improv definitely has a factor in comedians being able to pivot to drama so well. It allows for good reactive acting, which can be very valuable in selling someone being “in the moment.” Comedians also do very well in horror, and I think that’s because funny and creepy kind of walk arm in arm, and it just takes an ounce of pressure to lean one way or another. I’m really hoping I can catch a screening of Arizona. Danny McBride as a mental breakdown slasher sounds like something to see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Yea McBride is a good recent example because his role in Alien Covenant still has plenty of his personality in it. It's not a 100% dour and serious role, it's certainly no One Hour Photo(probably a bad example given how amazing Williams was in that movie). But he's able to dial it in at the proper level and then in the moments when real heavy emotion is called for he's able to do that as well. But a guy who has a tendency to lighten things up in tense moments isn't at all out of place in a horror movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
What does ‘on the book’ mean?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
sponges posted:What does ‘on the book’ mean? It means you don't have the script memorized and so most of your focus is on reading off the script and not playing off the other actors in the scene with you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:It means you don't have the script memorized and so most of your focus is on reading off the script and not playing off the other actors in the scene with you. (Just to add, since this is CD and not a stage forum) It usually, typically only applies to stage acting, since film isn't shot sequentially. Film actors are given what are called "sides", which are the pages from the script they'll be working on during the particular shoot they're in. Many, many film actors do not come to set with their sides memorized and waste tons of takes because they don't know their lines. One of the things some of the more renowned artists (Phillip Seymour Hoffman talked about this a lot) are known for is their preparation, which is shorthand for "knows their lines, hits their marks" This is what your Keanu's, Cruise's and Cage's do very well too, which shows in their performances On the subject of preparedness, it's also interesting to read stories about certain sets (West Wing and other Sorkin shows are famous for this) where the culture is very, very preparedness heavy. There's anecdotes about West Wing guest stars showing up to table reads and being stunned that everyone else already had the episode memorized, only to find out that WHOOPS they couldn't keep up because they hadn't done the same amount of work Laypeople think that "memorizing lines" is like, the first thing you do and would be amazed at the number of actors who just....don't. Or put it off for ages and then whine about it Waffles Inc. fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Nov 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:This is what your Keanu's, Cruise's and Cage's do very well too, which shows in their performances Beyond just the performances though, people actually enjoying the experience of working with you can be a big deal for an actor's career, at least long term. Guys like Reeves and Cage have had several points in their career where it would have been easy for them to never be heard from again but it always helps when you're the kind of person/artist/professional that other talented people want to work with. Cosmatos doesn't go to someone like Cage for Mandy if he doesn't know Cage will put the work in. That's probably doubly true of Keanu because he's known as a guy who will work his rear end off to make action look properly convincing, the difference in the results is extremely obvious so if you're making John Wick he jumps immediately to the top of your list. Watching something like 24 Hours to Live, I'm not sure Ethan Hawke put in that same work(maybe he did and Keanu's experience just makes him that much better?). Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Nov 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
Well, Ethan Hawk is basically the default Create A Wrestler model of male actors. He’s like, fine, but I don’t know that I’ve ever seen him be exceptional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Fart City posted:Well, Ethan Hawk is basically the default Create A Wrestler model of male actors. He’s like, fine, but I don’t know that I’ve ever seen him be exceptional. His acting wasn't the issue there, it was that he just doesn't move like a guy who has done this type of movie before. And maybe they toned down the choreography to fit his skillset, but there's just no comparison between the fluidity of Keanu and the awkward stiffness of Hawke. The only bit in 24 Hours to Live that I thought was genuinely convincing was the beginning when he pulls his gun on the cop and gets shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Fart City posted:Well, Ethan Hawk is basically the default Create A Wrestler model of male actors. He’s like, fine, but I don’t know that I’ve ever seen him be exceptional. You see First Reformed yet? I think Hawke is actually a very talented actor and he clearly puts a lot of thought into the craft if you ever read interviews with him. Basebf555 posted:Beyond just the performances though, people actually enjoying the experience of working with you can be a big deal for an actor's career, at least long term. Guys like Reeves and Cage have had several points in their career where it would have been easy for them to never be heard from again but it always helps when you're the kind of person/artist/professional that other talented people want to work with. Cosmatos doesn't go to someone like Cage for Mandy if he doesn't know Cage will put the work in. And inversely look at what happened to guys like Val Kilmer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:It is part of what makes him a more fascinating actor though. Left off after Far and Away on this project and I've never seen A Few Good Men before (which is up next) but it fascinating tracking his development and seeing where his career was at as he gets deeper into Scientology. Mimi Rogers introduced him so around 1986 at the time of Top Gun was when he got involved. That got deeper and more pervasive through the 90's, although Going Clear suggests that when he was in London for over a year shooting Eyes Wide Shut (around 1997) was the closest he came to ever breaking away. After he came home, he and Kidman divorced and they just went all in on making sure he was entrenched. By the time they gave him that medal and the video leaked his performances became less vulnerable and he started embodying more of these Mary Sue-ish characters. i was having this conversation about actors today at work, and particularly about Tom Cruise. one of my coworkers, who is very "separate the actors from the work" about things, including stuff like being lovely people, and doesn't like people talking about, say, Kevin Spacey being an abuser because he likes Spacey's work and doesn't like thinking about it, said he didn't think Tom Cruise's personal life had anything to do with his work, and I was of the position that it's hard not to take that into account, and what's so fascinating about Cruise is that he is a consummate professional on the set and most people who work with him have really good stories about his ethic and his personality, which is fascinating to take into account with his real life, where he's a high-ranking member of a cult that abuses people. Mel Gibson was another actor who came up in this line of discussion, although more as a director than an actor, because many of his movies are reflections of his relationship with religion and how he sees himself. I've noticed in conversations I have with other people about actors that I tend to defend actors who tend to play variations of themselves as opposed to completely diving into the character. Guys like Cage, Cruise, Michael Cera, and others in that vein, guys who you can't help but see as themselves and the interesting part comes from how they use that perception as a part of their performance, are really interesting because it rewards watching much of their body of work. The more movies you watch with Cage or Cruise in them, the more distinctions you can make between the different characters they play which really allows you to appreciate the actual range within the niche they have carved for themselves. Thats why in a movie like This is the End, where Michael Cera completely subverts the character he normally plays (which, since he is playing himself as a character, adds layers of jokes), everyone is really impressed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 07:04
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Also my take on comedians being better at drama is that I don't necessarily think good acting comes from like, emotional skill or those sorts of things, but from experience and craftsmanship. The volume of work/experience point is crucial, I think. A comedian or comic actor can get stage time for stand up/improv multiple times a night in certain cities, whereas a dramatic actor may have months between roles. Sure, they may fill the time with classes, but it’s not the same experience. Bob Odenkirk, perhaps the most successful transplant from comedy to drama currently (on tv at least) believes that comedy trains a performer to commit to performance at a higher degree. Meaning that to sustain a ridiculous scene/character, a comedian has to unwaveringly commit to the reality of their character for it work, so there no reason for them to not be able to commit to drama as well. The corollary, I suppose, is that dramatic actors seem to feel that comedy requires being looser and less committed than drama, which is why sometimes watching a dramatic actor half rear end (or over do) comedy can be really embarrassing to watch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 08:18
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:(Just to add, since this is CD and not a stage forum) It usually, typically only applies to stage acting, since film isn't shot sequentially. Film actors are given what are called "sides", which are the pages from the script they'll be working on during the particular shoot they're in. One of the things that kept RDJ in business as an actor (besides being a heart-throb) is that even when he was having drug problems, he knew his scripts backwards and forwards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 10:36
|
|
|
TheUnifiedHeart posted:Bob Odenkirk, perhaps the most successful transplant from comedy to drama currently (on tv at least) believes that comedy trains a performer to commit to performance at a higher degree. Meaning that to sustain a ridiculous scene/character, a comedian has to unwaveringly commit to the reality of their character for it work, so there no reason for them to not be able to commit to drama as well. This is somewhat related to why I think it seems easier for music stars to crossover to acting than the reverse (career-wise, if not necessarily talent-wise); there is something inherently ridiculous about being a rock star, and seeing an established actor try to become one is always going to be weirder than the reverse, I think. I'm not really too surprised that Lady Gaga could be successful in movies - she wore a dress made of raw meat to the red carpet, seeing her in a movie is not going to be jarring in comparison. Watching Bruce Willis try to make the reverse transition, on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I wasn't particularly fond of him portraying a Jewish stereotype character in Tropic Thunder. It was a funny role but it rubs me the wrong way when I think about the hypocrisy of Scientology and how viciously they react to any sort of criticism or negative press. Pretty sure he was playing Harvey Weinstein
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 19:24
|
|
bruvs be4 luvs
|
So I was just thinking that the coming day when actors are replaced with cgi simulations will probably usher in a golden age for the hollywood tabloid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:So I was just thinking that the coming day when actors are replaced with cgi simulations will probably usher in a golden age for the hollywood tabloid. I mean Star Wars has been doing that since the prequels, with face-morphing to create mixed cuts, and now doing a lot of the work with virtual actors who are now dead or too old to reprise the part as needed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 09:24
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:You'd be deeply surprised at the number of people at high level genuine big city main stage shows that not only don't come to the first rehearsal off book, but come having barely done any text work (if any at all) since the table read oh, i know. and it drives me nuts. i've never done pro work outside of stipends but i take it very seriously. Waffles Inc. posted:(Just to add, since this is CD and not a stage forum) It usually, typically only applies to stage acting, since film isn't shot sequentially. Film actors are given what are called "sides", which are the pages from the script they'll be working on during the particular shoot they're in. learning this stuff really does dissolve any fantasy about show business being a meritocracy. though knowing what we know about nepotism and abuse should have disabused that notion long ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 10:30
|
|
|
Fart City posted:I think improv definitely has a factor in comedians being able to pivot to drama so well. It allows for good reactive acting, which can be very valuable in selling someone being “in the moment.” Comedians also do very well in horror, and I think that’s because funny and creepy kind of walk arm in arm, and it just takes an ounce of pressure to lean one way or another. Funny you mention that, I just rewatched True Lies and OG Scream Queen Jamie Lee Curtis' comic timing and expressions are flawless there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 11:19
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:I mean Star Wars has been doing that since the prequels, with face-morphing to create mixed cuts, and now doing a lot of the work with virtual actors who are now dead or too old to reprise the part as needed. Yeah I know, I was just thinking is that, even in this thread, actors aren't just considered for their rolls but also their personal lives, like it matters how Tom Cruise behaves on set or his relationship with Scientology to viewers. It's why even mediocre actors can have extraordinary careers and demand high salaries, because they cultivated a 'personal' relationship with their audience which gets people to watch them regardless. When you have virtual actors, what we see of actors outside the movie will be entirely (instead of just mostly) fictitious, which could lead to exciting and new possibilities in meta-drama. Basically the plot of S1m0ne now that I think about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
I'm enjoying seeing Dave Bautista get better with everyone new film he's in. His small role in Blade Runner was great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
ReapersTouch posted:I'm enjoying seeing Dave Bautista get better with everyone new film he's in. His small role in Blade Runner was great. It was kinda sad to see him doing his best in Hotel Artemis to create some sort of memorable character but in the end he was mostly wasted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
ReapersTouch posted:I'm enjoying seeing Dave Bautista get better with everyone new film he's in. His small role in Blade Runner was great. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4KmBSmc5Dc
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
I HAVE FAMOUSLY HUGE TURDS It's art 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:43
|
|
