Oct 01
What is a good actor?
Right now, I’m in “rant about actors” mode, so don’t take me too serious. But let’s make a brave statement:
there isn’t such a thing as an über-actor. There are just (good) actors and bad actors. That’s it.
But let’s start at the beginning. A good story isn’t good because of the acting, it is good because of the drama, the specific dynamics the playwright has put into it. The screenwriter is the one who creates great characters and it is the screenwriter who puts all these great characters into the high drama the story unfolds just in front of our eyes.
David Mamet once said, I won’t quote him literally, that he isn’t so fond of “serious acting”, the magical “art of acting”. For him, acting is more like craftsmanship. He used to tell his actors things like “look angry!” and rolls camera. But if Mamet is right, where do all these big moments in acting history come from? Is it really the actor?
Who can tell. For sure, in most cases the actor wasn’t the one who invented the story. The writer is a guy with thick glasses everyone makes fun about. The type of guy you would call up at the very end to join your team, back in the days at school. But it was this guy who wrote the stuff the superstar actor is about to do and to say. Once, in the golden era of Hollywood, writers were the rowing slaves of the system, they even weren’t allowed to join the crew on set.
The set is a good prompt to continue this rant. As the audience, we are inclined to say: oh, this was good acting! But who was responsible for that? Did anyone of us see the actual shooting on set? Seen the actor forgetting his lines. Have we heard the director’s commands? Seen the number of re-takes? No. Somebody just says: “good acting”, and everyone on the media junkett will parrot this opinion, because acting is such a subjective and mysteriously art-form.
There are numerous perspectives you can take tackling the question of good acting. One of it (mine) is to say: there isn’t so much magic in good acting. There is just an actor who managed it to not ruin the cleverly woven fabric of the story and the character. The actor just fits the part - as easy as that. This is why most actors do not actually act that much. They just act out themselves.
“The method“, as taught by Strasberg/Stanislavski is meant to bring the actor into a position where she/he authentically feels like the character and thus is able to reproduce authentic feelings. Acting as a psychological process. Okay. But how much simpler is it to just be like the character? It is not such an achievement if you are a mafia type of guy and thus can quite convincing play a mafia type of guy.
The Academy seems to honor, besides a few others, mostly two categories of actors: the beautiful superstar actor who dares to play a very ugly character, preferably by heavily changing their own appearance. And the actor who works therapeutically on his own life while filling a part in a film or play. So the basic receipt is to (a) gain weight, lose weight, use an ugly rubber nose or some other sort of makeup to fill your part, or (b) be a former drug addict, victim of some crime or the like to prepare for your role as drug-dealer/drug-addict or mass murderer/cop respectively. In all these cases you are basically yourself, but everyone will regard “facing your fears/trauma” as good acting. And such a fit in real life and played life is very welcome in promoting the film/play in the media. Good acting?
Rewind to the poor writer: she/he managed to write an intense story with intense moments. The director is talented enough to translate the written word with the help of the cinematographer and everyone else on the crew into a stream of intense images. The actor is the one who says the lines, in the very focal point of all this, the overall setup. Blam, what a great moment on film. Who is responsible? Of course, the great art of the actor - who in fact just managed to not ruin the scene.
The whole process of casting is basically finding someone who fits the part. If you are looking for a perfect villain, in most cases someone who already looks evil in a way will be a good fit. An actor physiognomally needs to fit the part. So acting is a mixture of the actor’s overall appearance, the gesture and voice. If everything comes in right, there you have it, “good acting”. But wait, where was it again, the art of acting..? Seems it got lost in all the other main criterias.
As said, there are numerous ways to look at it. Acting can be an art-form, in the very few cases where the actor’s attitude (towards acting and the role) and the specific challenges of a certain part meet. It can!
And an actor can make or break it. Please note that I did not say “a good actor…”. To sum it all up (and to placate everyone a bit), for me, it is important to understand that film and theater is a team effort. A single actor can add the final polish, but in every case it is not the singular effort the star-system is making us believe it is. Take my post as a pledge for a more pragmatic acting approach.
