What makes someone a great Actor

[Guest Vern Gagne]

For me it's the ability for an actor to make you truely think they are that person.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

I'll agree with you there, Vern. The ability to become the character they're playing, and really make you feel it.

[Guest red_file]

Rarely do the actors I admire make me believe that they are the characters they are playing (perhaps I'm incapable of such a thing), though the good ones do seem to play their parts with conviction. Some actors I enjoy change their performance from role to role, others work the current character into a variation of the (insert actor's name)-show. Both are enjoyable under the right circumstances with the right actor.

 

I don't think that there's a laundry list of qualities that can be listed, the gestalt of which making a great actor. Maybe it's like porn: I'll know good acting when I see it.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

One of the things that makes an actor truly great is their interaction with the other characters and the scene in general.

[Guest Lethargic]

Once somebody becomes famous, I think it's impossible for me to think of them as a character. I can indentify Christopher Reeve as Superman because that was his debut sorta. But, if somebody like Josh Hartnett plays him in the new one, it'll be Josh Hartnett in tights. If I watch a Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino movie, I never see any difference between him in one movie and in the next for the most part. It's usually always just DeNiro or it's alway Pacino. The only part I can think of DeNiro not seeming like DeNiro was his part in Jackie Brown. Pacino? Can't think of one where I didn't just look at as Pacino.

 

Of course if you want my real answer for this.... What makes someone a great actor is the ability to read and memorize the lines. That's pretty much it as far as I'm concerned. Actors and acting don't make or break a movie to me. The writer and director do. Actors try to act like they're important and that they're artists. I don't buy it. For the most part, their dialogue is written by somebody else and their characters are invented by somebody else. They really have very little to do with it besides just filling a empty space. Remember, actors are just cattle.

[Guest notJames]

The mark of a great actor is the ability to wear many hats and wear them well.

 

Example: Julia Roberts sucks because not only does she "act" like herself in all her films, but she takes the same damn roles all the time. Booorrrrring. Same goes for Tom Cruise, Ben Affleck, and Jennifer Love Hewitt.

 

Now take someone like Johnny Depp. He's played practically every archetypical Hollywood and non-Hollywood role there is, and he's done them all to perfection. Just look at a list of his roles and you can see the kind range he can achieve, from funny to serious to poignant to absurd to modern to period piece and back again. Same goes for Jennifer Jason Leigh, Edward Norton, Kevin Spacey and Angelina Jolie. I would have put Brad Pitt in the former list had it not been for his work in Fight Club and Remains of the Day... and before you ask, no I never say 12 Monkeys but I've heard he was phenomenal in it.

 

And I agree with lethargic to some extent. The greatness of a movie to me hinges on how interesting the material is, how well it's presented in terms of execution of plot and well-writtenness (?) of plot, and how satisying the ending is. However, certain actors can carry their roles better than others. I could believe it when River Phoenix played a down-and-out male prostitute in My Own Private Idaho, but not when Keanu Reeves did it. There's a certain believability that actors can portray when they have the skills, and by the same token, countless other Hollywood creations are exposed to the nines when don't/

[Guest El Satanico]

Even with great writing and directing a movie needs good performances from the actors. Without good performances even a well written and directed movie won't be nearly as good. Writing and directing may be more important, but the acting still plays a big part.

 

However it's true that great writing and/or directing CAN make a mediocre actor look decent.

[Guest WrestlingDeacon]

It's often said that the highest form of acting is when you can't tell that the person is acting. That's tied into thinking that they are the character, but there's also an assured ease, a confidence, a screen presence that ties into that. Some of my favorite actors are guys you mention and people will say "him? he's ok...well, come to think of it, I guess he is pretty damn good."

[Guest El Satanico]

To me great acting is if I buy what the actor is trying to sell. I don't have to totally believe them as the character as long as it's a good performance. Keanu Reeves is an awful actor because i can't buy him as anything other than himself. He's always "surfer dude" which is what he normally is.

 

(Did any of that make sense? It made sense when i was typing it...not too sure now.)

 

Actors that can wear any hat and totally become the role they're playing are great, but that isn't the only way an actor can be great. DeNiro, Pacino and JACK basically act the same in most of their movies and they are still good actors. What makes them good actors is that they can take the same basic acting style and make it fit with their current role.

 

So there's basically two types of "good actors". Those who can totally become their roles and those who make a certian acting style fit into their roles. Those who can totally become their roles are the best overall actors.

 

Anyone else think that Johnny Depp is one of the most underappreciated actors working today? I can't even remember the last shitty movie he has done yet you hardly ever hear people talking about him when talking about good actors. Him and Vincent D'Onofrio are both totally underappreciated even when both continue to churn out great performances in a wide range of different roles.

[Guest notJames]

D'onofrio, definitely. I might add Philip Seymour Hoffman too, since he's such a great character actor, but I'm not sure if he's underappreciated or not. He's in so many of my top 20 movies, from Boogie Nights to Happiness to Magnolia.

 

And you're right, ES, guys like Pacino, DeNiro and Nicholson are the exception to my rule because of the wealth and breadth of their resumes, even though they don't often stray from their typical roles. Not too many actors I could lump in to that elite group... maybe someone like Emily Watson, who plays the vulnerable, quirky, damaged soul to perfection. I'm sure there's more; I just can't think of them right now...

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Someone said he never saw Pacino in a part where he didn't just think of him as Pacino... Scent of a Woman and Dick Tracy are exceptions.

 

The measure of a true actor is not if WE believe he's that character, but if he allows US to become that character. To feel what he feels, with the actor as a medium between the soul of the character ad the audience.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

Of course if you want my real answer for this.... What makes someone a great actor is the ability to read and memorize the lines. That's pretty much it as far as I'm concerned. Actors and acting don't make or break a movie to me. The writer and director do. Actors try to act like they're important and that they're artists. I don't buy it. For the most part, their dialogue is written by somebody else and their characters are invented by somebody else. They really have very little to do with it besides just filling a empty space. Remember, actors are just cattle.

Oh come on. To write off an entire art like that is ridiculous. Good acting is absolutely that important, its what provides a human, personal connection. Anyways, the question didn't specify movies, and there is certainly no way in hell you could make that statement about stage acting.

[Guest razazteca]

Jack Black is a great comedian, in the lines of the next generation fat comedian with a brain who thinks he is a rock star.

 

Robin Williams is good when he is not on Speed trying to do the Mork & Mindy character. Robin attempts at serious roles has made him a complete actor, Good Will Hunting and that doctor movie were good.

 

Jim Carey has taken over the role of the crazy goofy comedian from Robin as in the case of Ace Ventura, The Mask, Me Myself & Irene. But Jim has not been able to conquer the serious roles in Drama yet.

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

Acting is incredibly important to the way a movie or play turns out quality-wise. Would you rather people walk out and just say their lines, standing completely still and such? It'd make the movie/play so boring you wouldn't be able to watch it, no matter how great the screenplay/script was.

 

Some actors are underestimated because they usually play the same role in minor films, or have their own delivery that makes the roles seem bad to some. Michael Biehn is one of these actors, IMO, as he played a similar, yet different, role in Terminator as he did in Aliens, and he played almost a completely different role in Tombstone.

 

And yes...Johnny Depp owns.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

So acting has nothing to do with it? Just writing and directing?

 

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

I just have to weigh in on Robin Williams' doctor movie, which I can only assume is Patch Adams. That movie is just terrible. It's so pandering. It's like "Hey, don't treat your patients as objects, treat them as people." Wow. What a far out concept no one has ever thought of before. As a plot device (and since it was a true story, that lends it some merit I suppose), ok, that's fine. But the way that movie treats it's audience is just shameful. We, as a whole, know what the message is. I found it to be one of the most sacharin (sp?), touchy feely pieces of fluff Hollywood has churned out (at least until Pay It Forward came along).

 

Williams can be a good dramatic actor. I just think that's a bad example. Good Will Hunting was good.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

He was excellent in One Hour Photo, and I enjoyed him in Insomnia very much.

[Guest razazteca]

Williams can be a good dramatic actor. I just think that's a bad example. Good Will Hunting was good.

its a chick movie but you are correct it was a bad example

 

what makes a good actor is the ability to go beyond the type casting, but if the 1st role outside of the "usual character" is in a very poor directed or produced film they that actor will be trapped in the type cast role.

[Guest converge241]

"For me it's the ability for an actor to make you truely think they are that person."

 

couldnt have said it better..its simple but its true ,..i just have to forget who they "really are" (or rather our perception of them) and indulge in who they are playing

[Guest Lethargic]

Someone said he never saw Pacino in a part where he didn't just think of him as Pacino... Scent of a Woman and Dick Tracy are exceptions.

Scent of a Woman is one of my favorite movies but it's still just Pacino blind. And the only reason Pacino isn't Pacino in Dick Tracy is because he's covered in makeup.

[Guest Lethargic]

Oh come on. To write off an entire art like that is ridiculous. Good acting is absolutely that important, its what provides a human, personal connection. Anyways, the question didn't specify movies, and there is certainly no way in hell you could make that statement about stage acting.

I'm not writing off any "art" because I despise the fact that people even call movies art. That's a whole other argument I don't need to get into.

 

I never said good acting isn't important. I just find it over-rated, it's nowhere near the most important part of a movie and those people sure as hell don't deserve the amount of money they get paid. It all comes down to the writing and the directing. There are good actors and bad actors. You take any good actor and put them in a good part, they'll be good. You take a good actor and put him in a bad part, he'll probably suck. Bad actor in a good part, might be good.

 

Liam Neeson in almost ever movie he's been in: a good, sometimes great, actor.

 

Liam Neeson in a movie written and directed by George Lucas: looks like one of the worst actor in the history of movies.

 

Any good actor can play a good part. In the previous mentioned Scent of a Woman, Pacino is great. But there are probably a dozen other people out there that could've sat there pretending to be blind and going HOORAH HOORAH all the time and been just as good. The person playing the character doesn't make or break the movie, the character itself does and the character was invented by Giovanni Arpino. Not Pacino. Hell, a friggin editor has more impact on how the actual performance comes out than the actor himself does.

[Guest Downhome]

See Spacey, Kevin.

[Guest Downhome]

Of course if you want my real answer for this.... What makes someone a great actor is the ability to read and memorize the lines. That's pretty much it as far as I'm concerned. Actors and acting don't make or break a movie to me. The writer and director do. Actors try to act like they're important and that they're artists. I don't buy it. For the most part, their dialogue is written by somebody else and their characters are invented by somebody else. They really have very little to do with it besides just filling a empty space. Remember, actors are just cattle.

I've never seen anyone so obviously show themselves just how little they know about film in my life, more so than this right here. I don't even feel my need to explain why I say this, everyone here should know what I mean.

[Guest razazteca]

the ability for the actor to make the words come to life making the character have a personality beyond what you might expect from the person playing the part makes a good actor. It takes charisma, knowledge of language and/or accents, and know when to ad lib are the skills needed to be a successful actor.

 

Kevin Spacey in Usual Suspect, Se7en, LA Confidential were good performances.

[The Dames 0]

Please pardon the mark in me....but when I see Scarface, I don't see Al Pacino, I see Tony Montana. Any other Pacino movie, it's Pacino to me...but not Scarface. No sirree.

 

Dames

[Guest notJames]

Robin Williams' best work IMO was in The World According to Garp and Dead Poets Society. He was able to reign in the frenzy of his stand-up act and be funny in small but effective doses when called for, and the dramatic bits were moving and touching.

 

His work in Good Will Hunting is definitely an extension of that range, but it can't beat his earlier work, if only to show how well he made the transition from comedian to actor.

[Guest red_file]

Of course if you want my real answer for this....  What makes someone a great actor is the ability to read and memorize the lines.  That's pretty much it as far as I'm concerned.  Actors and acting don't make or break a movie to me.  The writer and director do.  Actors try to act like they're important and that they're artists.  I don't buy it.  For the most part, their dialogue is written by somebody else and their characters are invented by somebody else.  They really have very little to do with it besides just filling a empty space.  Remember, actors are just cattle.

I've never seen anyone so obviously show themselves just how little they know about film in my life, more so than this right here. I don't even feel my need to explain why I say this, everyone here should know what I mean.

Lethargic seems to have displayed a fairly insightful knowledge of the essential players in film, so, at least the sub-moron that is myself needs further explanation. Other individuals are more essential to a film than good actors (even directors get more credit than they deserve).

[Guest Lethargic]

Of course if you want my real answer for this....  What makes someone a great actor is the ability to read and memorize the lines.  That's pretty much it as far as I'm concerned.  Actors and acting don't make or break a movie to me.  The writer and director do.  Actors try to act like they're important and that they're artists.  I don't buy it.  For the most part, their dialogue is written by somebody else and their characters are invented by somebody else.  They really have very little to do with it besides just filling a empty space.  Remember, actors are just cattle.

I've never seen anyone so obviously show themselves just how little they know about film in my life, more so than this right here. I don't even feel my need to explain why I say this, everyone here should know what I mean.

Lethargic seems to have displayed a fairly insightful knowledge of the essential players in film, so, at least the sub-moron that is myself needs further explanation. Other individuals are more essential to a film than good actors (even directors get more credit than they deserve).

I think directors get a little too much credit too. The guys that really get screwed are the screenwriters. They very rarely get any respect. Besides 2 or 3 like Charlie Kaufman there's not that many out there that people know by name and give any respect. But yet, 90% of the movies out there begin with the screenwriter's vision, not the director's and sure as hell not the actor's.

 

Still, on the actors side. Are there people I enjoy watching more than others? Yes. I'll watch anything to see Milla Jovovich for 2 hours, that doesn't mean I don't think there hundreds of other people out there that couldn't do just as good as a job as her or better. I've watched Glengarry Glen Ross twice this year already. It's got some of my favorite actors ever in that movie and it's fun to watch them just go at it. But that movie would be nothing at all without David Mamet's dialogue giving those people those fantastic lines. I just get tired of the BS actors try to feed us all the time about how important they are. Jodie Foster annoyed the piss out of me that she wouldn't do Hannibal because she didn't think "her" character would do that stuff. Well, Jodie, Clarice is NOT your character, it's Thomas Harris' character. If anybody should know what she'd do it's HIM, not the person that just acted out HIS character in front of a camera. And I don't think an actor needs to ride around with cops for 6 months for "research" before playing one unless they're studying a specific real life person they're going to play. The actor should get everything they need to play the part from the script, if they don't, they need a new writer. I kinda doubt that Humphrey Bogart went and lived in Africa for a year so he could learn how to play his role in Casablanca. I doubt if all those guys in Stalag 17 went and stayed in a Nazi prison camp for 6 months so they could convincingly play their parts. I think so called "great" actors should just be able to pick up the script, go in and do the part without all the hoopla. The majority of them seem to just be spoiled, pampered prima donnas that really believe that the world revolves around them and our culture has made them that way by spending 6 months out of the year wondering what Nicole Kidman will wear to the Oscars this year. In reality they're just people who read another person's words how another person tells them to. Does that take talent? Of course. Is it important? Yes. But in the grand scheme of things, except for rare occasions, it's not the most important part. For the most part I base my reasons for watching a movie on who directed it, produced it or wrote, not acted in it.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

For what it's worth, Thomas Harris made all the wrong decisions with Hannibal. Yes, I know they're his decisions to make, but that's just the way I look at it.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Lethargic: Even if other personnel are more essential to a good film, to discredit actors all together is PREPOSTEROUS. Especially in stage shows were the acting is 90% of everything.