actors

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:31 pm

In a day and age where actors and actresses are a dime a dozen, where you can't walk down the street without passing a few hopefulls. What really is the measure of an actor/ess?

There are quite a few out there who fit into specific roles. The Typecast individuals who show up in some specific kind of category or don't work. Those may have their place but how many aren't like that? I'd say not too many. Something I like about an actor is if I don't neccesarily remeber them being in the movie but I remmeber their character. Actors that become who they portray. They are very few. There are others who you may recognise as they are distinctive in their appearance however can you define their personality to a specific through the characeters they portray? No.

Two I admire in general are Johnny Depp and Gary Oldman. Johnny is often playing the outcast in movies.. he seems to like this role.. it's not that he is type cast since each is unique in many ways. Some a lonly drifter, others eccentric, some cold, ect. His mannerisms, speech patterns, accents, etc are all unique. These are all things that never seem to change for most actors unless it's absolutely required that they take on a false accent. For Johnny it seems he choses to use a specific "character set" for the character he portrays that includes an entirely new personality that seems to replace his while he is on the set. Then there is Gary, who seems to fancy himself as a villain in nearly all the fims he goes into. He likes that darker aspect.. again it's not typecasting.. it's personal choice it seems as again each character he takes on is unique in many ways. for the longest time I would see movies he was in and never remember it was him. Dracula, the professional, lost in space. I mean I knew who he was.. sometimes I'd see the credits and go oh... him. However now I make a point of noticing him. He too takes on new mannerisims and accents, speech patterns.

Then there are other things that we can admire an actor/ess for. Julia Roberts has successfully maintained a career in romances and dramas from the beginning without needing to display any nudity. Now this shouldn't be something to admire.. it should be normal. However, it would seem with a male dominated industry.. that it is an accomplishment. She even portrayed a hooker without needing that aspect. The movie too was a success. Proving you don't need the nudity to make the character read well to the audience. (common excuse.. necessary nudity) She's stood to her standards and integrity and has maintained work proving her worth as an Actress and personality.

What then are things you admire in an actor/ess? Anyone specific that you like? If so.. why?

moo

Post by **Gambit37** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:07 pm

Aha, a subject well worth discussing, and far more worthy than scientology!

Are you thinking particularly about current actors (in this politically correct age, the term seems to apply to both males and females), or those who have gone before?

I admire a lot of older actors, many of whom have now passed on. I loved Alec Guiness. His portrayal of seven different people from the same family in Kind Hearts and Coronets is nothing short of astounding. Add his work in the Ealing comedies and classics such as Bridge on the River Kwai and you see a very versatile and humble actor doing what he does best. Read his retirment diarry, My Name Escapes Me for a good insight into this gentle and wise actor of the old school.

I also variously enjoy watching (for different reasons):

Peter Sellers: A great (yet tortured) comic who played flawlessly the bungling Inspector Clouseau but also showed more breadth with films such as Dr.Strangelove and Being There.

Jack Nicholson: Often intense and even scary, Jack exudes a certain charming menace on screen in his early films (The Shining), and confidence (One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest). I even enjoy his 'softer' more recent films such as As Good as it Gets and Something's gotta give. He shows that he can perform in a wide variety of roles.

Audrey Hepburn: Not just a beautiful, elegant woman, but a fine actress. She had a certain poise which none of her contemporaries shared, and is rarely present in any modern actress

James Stewart: I think ole Jimmy was a very talented actor, if a little "samey" at times. He performed brilliantly as George Bailey and it reamins a classic film because of that performance. Add Hitchcock classics like "Vertigo" (one of my fave films ever), and oddballs such as "Harvey" and you see a man throughly enjoying himself in something he was born to do.

I agree with your comments on Johnny Depp and Gary Oldman. I love the fact that JD really throws himself into a role, whether it's camp (Pirates of carribean, Sleep Hollow) or a bit more though provoking (Edward Scissorhands, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas). Gary Oldman has a certain face that is simply made for criminal roles and he usually plays thim with relish.

Other modern actors who I enjoy are

Sigourney Weaver: Flexible, convincing, confident and able to perform anything from highbrow to low camp. Think of the difference between "Death & The Maiden" and "Ghostbusters". And who can forget her in Alien? Probably one of the first really strong "kick ass" female roles in my opinion.

Kevin Spacey: Fantastic actor, and star of some of the best films of tha last few years. Very flexible, never tpyecast, can do anything: Seven, Usual Suspects, LA Confidential, American Beauty (what a fab film!)

and here's a few more who I think have great acting skill, but whom I can't be bothered to write about! : Nicole Kidman, Tim Robbins, Juliet Binoche, Al Pacino, Brad Pitt (in some things anyway), Michael Caine, Gwyneth Paltrow to name but a few.

oh, and for pure eye candy, how about Keira Knigtly?

Post by **cowsmanaut** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:29 pm

I do enjoy Kevin Spacey and O'l Jack. But again both seem to have that consistancy about them. Same mannerisms, accent, speach pattern. REgardless of the role they play. They are those I would say are good at being who they are. rather than being someone else. As far as a character goes though they are certainly an apealing one. There are many actors who have a certain personality that you favour.. while they may do much the same thing in every movie.. you still apreciate them for that character/personality they consitantly portray.

Robin Williams.. one of my favorites. how can I forget him? He, I admire for breaking his stereo type, for touching our hearts as much as he can tickly our funnybone. He can be dead pan serious.. even creepy. It's very cool that someone who made his start in comedy can show the ability to expand beyond.

This brings me to annother point.. there are those that while they may not be varried in character, can be very convincing in other ways. Namley convincing us of horror, saddness, anger. Those that can drive us to those emotions and believe we are justified in feeling them.

How much of that scene that jerks you to tears is music, camera man, storyboard artist, Director, or actor?

Nicole is fairly versitile I must admit. Though still immediately recognisable she always uses a different accent than her own. Plays a wide variety of personalities. Though her mannerisms remain consistant. She too is a favorite of mine.

Sigourny, well she certainly works well on camera. She has a certain stature about her. You immediately respect her I think. One of the qualities that got her a leading role in Alien in the first place. A breath of freash air for women of that age I would say. I especially loved her in galaxy quest though..

ahh..

moo

Post by **Gambit37** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:57 pm

Galaxy Quest is a fab film -- I simply loved Alan Rickman in that (in fact, I forgot about him -- he's a great actor too). Probably the best parody of sci-fi in recent times:

[Gwen and Jason encounter the chompers]
Gwen DeMarco: What is this thing? I mean, it serves no useful purpose for there to be a bunch of chompy, crushy things in the middle of a hallway. No, I mean we shouldn't have to do this, it makes no logical sense, why is it here?
Jason Nesmith: 'Cause it's on the television show.
Gwen DeMarco: Well forget it, I'm not doing it, this episode was badly written.

Voice of Computer: Enemy is matching velocity.
Gwen DeMarco: The enemy is matching velocity.
Sir Alexander Dane: We heard it the first time.
Gwen DeMarco: Gosh, I'm doing it. I'm repeating the darn computer.

etc, etc...

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:49 am

damn, i go away to think about who i like and miss a whole conversation : )

For no reason I've found over the years the list of actors/actresses who would be must draws to watch in a film dwindle. I can't pinpoint a reason, either. Ones who you know will be good even in a mediocre film, or who guarantee that a film will be worth seeing partially because of their performance or choices in it.

I totally agree with the johnny depp choice. i've heard in an interview how he hates to watch a film and see any of 'him' shine through. that's exactly what you want an actor to do, is to bring to life a part, not be an actor you recognise who is conveying a certain personality afterwards.

As pointed out ones who do shine through as themselves, but are good actors in conveying a situation or character i would rate jack nicolson, kevin spacey, sigorney weaver (defintely top of the list on her flexibility and prescence) brad pitt (he has done a bredth of things well form meet joe black to seven to fight club to kalifornia to 12 monkies, it really is a shame he stands out as beign brad pitt in them!). i'd also mention john cusack. I also love what he did behind the camera with grosse point blank, great film. he always seems to bring a certain intelligence to a role. Also, in high fidelity i don't imagine many other actors actually being good in that role, making the character still sympathetic in some of the more self-involved moments.
As with anything i can't think of a list pressing myself to it. i know i'm forgetting the obvious. Every name mentioned (except the older actors, excluding alec and peter, sorry gambit!,) i'm going 'yeah, of course' at, so there will be a few personal choices i can't think of just now. i agree about nicole too, again looking back on the range of what she's done she's managed to choice a variety of roles and characters.

I think that it has to be a blend of all the elements thoguh when you get truely moving movements. the right actor/actress making certain choices, but with the correct writing and then the director cutting it right. And i never, ever underestimate the power of the scoring choices to fulfill or kill a scene : )

Before it got so hyped up i managed to see and loved lost in translation. the scenes that were touching in that came from everything - the choices for more reality based interaction and dialogue, the spphia's directing.

Post by **Gambit37** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:05 am

Lost in Translation is easily the best film I've seen in the last couple of years. I've always associated Bill Murray with comedy films, and although this is a tragic comedy in some ways, it's great to see him finally doing something with more depth. The chemistry between him and Scarlett is fantastic, and the film as a whole just works beautifully, largely in part to the way Japan itself is 'directed' by Soffia Copolla. I loved this movie, and also think that her first, The Virgin Suicides is a mesmerising and exceptionally well directed debut movie -- check it out if you haven't seen it.

As for Alec, fuzzface you rotter you have no taste!

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:35 am

lol, you misunderstood, i was saying yes to peter sellars and especially alec guiness, but otherwise older british talent has tended to pass me by : )

and yup, the virgin suicides too, was persuaded to watch it by the same person that persuaded me to see lost in translation - was not disappointed in either one, and can't wait for her third!