What makes someone a great Actor

[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.

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.

Sorry, but it still is fairly obvious to me that you have no idea how the structure of a film, from idea to big screen, is done. All aspects are equally important over all, and in some cases more so than others. I compare it to a grand orchastra playing, as each instrument must not only be in tune and the such, but also, must all be working together, hand in hand.

 

Is is then when the true greats and classics of cinema are born.

 

To underscore a director, actor, and other such vital pieces of a film is asinine and uncalled for, and could only be said by someone who has no idea how it works. To say an actor "just reads words" if fucked up, I'm sorry, but that's how I feel. Hell, I'M an aspiring screenwriter and film maker, so I know about how writers don't get the recognition of a say, Tom Cruise, but there's a reason for that, obviously.

 

People pay to see their favorite actors, they do not pay money because "John Smith" wrote the film. You may, and I may, but the common public gives a shit's ass about the writers, it just isn't something they care about.

 

The writers/ideas are the heart and soul of a film.

 

Actors are the body and vessel of the ideas of the film.

 

Directors are the power over the body and soul, the higher being if you will.

 

It takes all to produce a classic.

 

I know opinions are great, but I'm sorry, but you are wrong about how you think of actors, you just are. To say what you say, is just showing you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I would venture to guess you are not aware of the process that a script goes through once the writer finishes his original idea. I also venture to guess that you are not aware that actors and dirrectors have a fucking HUGE part in different aspects of that idea, script, once it's presented. It's a group project with all working together as one. Obviously not all films are like this, but when you really get a classic, when you really have one for the ages, when you finally have that "magic", it's because all of the parts of the body, all of the instruments in the orchastra, were working together, hand in hand, giving their equal share.

[Guest Downhome]

By the way, as much as you say otherwise, it takes a certain special actor for certain parts to come alive. To just replace someone with another person will NOT give you the same results. Actors all bring something different, they all have a different way to interpret the character which they are trying to "bring alive", it's just different.

 

I could continue this for hours, citing examples of actors, roles, parts, blah, blah, blah, but I really don't find a need to do so, as I said earlier, I assume most everyone here knows what I mean.

 

I'm sorry if I sound like an ass, but I love film more than anything else in the world, and I actually take it as a personal insult for some people to say some of the things you've said, because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Again, nothing personal, it's just something I'm very pasionite about, that's all.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Do you know whose contributions are really ignored? Editors. Annie Hall is the classic example. The contributions of the editor to making that a successful movie are ridiculously overlooked, considering the vast amount of footage and the chaotic number of scenes that Allen actually shot.

[Guest Lethargic]

Sorry, but it still is fairly obvious to me that you have no idea how the structure of a film, from idea to big screen, is done. All aspects are equally important over all, and in some cases more so than others. I compare it to a grand orchastra playing, as each instrument must not only be in tune and the such, but also, must all be working together, hand in hand.

 

Is is then when the true greats and classics of cinema are born.

 

To underscore a director, actor, and other such vital pieces of a film is asinine and uncalled for, and could only be said by someone who has no idea how it works. To say an actor "just reads words" if fucked up, I'm sorry, but that's how I feel. Hell, I'M an aspiring screenwriter and film maker, so I know about how writers don't get the recognition of a say, Tom Cruise, but there's a reason for that, obviously.

 

People pay to see their favorite actors, they do not pay money because "John Smith" wrote the film. You may, and I may, but the common public gives a shit's ass about the writers, it just isn't something they care about.

 

The writers/ideas are the heart and soul of a film.

 

Actors are the body and vessel of the ideas of the film.

 

Directors are the power over the body and soul, the higher being if you will.

 

It takes all to produce a classic.

 

I know opinions are great, but I'm sorry, but you are wrong about how you think of actors, you just are. To say what you say, is just showing you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I would venture to guess you are not aware of the process that a script goes through once the writer finishes his original idea. I also venture to guess that you are not aware that actors and dirrectors have a fucking HUGE part in different aspects of that idea, script, once it's presented. It's a group project with all working together as one. Obviously not all films are like this, but when you really get a classic, when you really have one for the ages, when you finally have that "magic", it's because all of the parts of the body, all of the instruments in the orchastra, were working together, hand in hand, giving their equal share.

If you noticed I said "most" and "usually" a lot. That means I'm not taking about every single movie. Obviously a really great movie is only great because everybody that worked on it was great. But the number of great actors and great movies is very, very small. Though I really don't understand where the disagreement is anyway because I didn't really disagree with ONE thing in your response. I know it's a unpopular opinion which is why I came back to explain my thoughts some more. But it really just comes down to the fact that I find acting and their roles in the process to be very over-rated. Un-important? No. Not un-important at all. The most important? Not at all. I just don't have time for the BS that a lot of actors try to spin to make themselves look like Gods and like they make or break a movie.

 

The only thing I do take exception to in your response is the movie love stuff. YOU love film? Nobody here loves film more than I do. Not you or anybody else. Nobody. Nada. Zilch. The same amount? Possible, but more is totally impossible. Besides my 2 or 3 other side hobbies into sports and music or whatever, I really don't do much besides something to do with movies. Writing, watching, trying to get everything together to start making my own little movies. The only things I do on this computer are related to movies. Running my movie site, writing my scripts, checking out the going ons. The only reason I post here is because of this movie section. I could give a damn about the wrestling crap anymore. I have no idea what the process is of a script to screen? You're an aspiring screenwriter? Well, how many people in this thread have actually written a script and sold it? Is anybody but me holding their hand up? I find the chances slim. I sold my first one just a few months ago. I don't really like to bring that up and I've never really told anybody online about it because it's like I'm giving myself a big cookie and makes me feel like a bragging dick. But in order to show I do have SOME sort of knowledge about how the business operates I'll pull it out. Did I get rich off of it? No. It's no big Hollywood deal, just a small indy thing. Will it ever actually get made? Maybe, but I don't hold my breath of ever seeing it before I die. Will what I wrote end up on screen even if it does get made? Not all of it. The dialogue will all end up different probably. Hell, even I think my dialogue sucks. And that right there IS the thing that actors are generally needed for. You can write the best line ever but once you hear somebody say it, it sounds like a monkey wrote it. So the actor can take that, still say the same thing but just fix it to sound right. But anyway, yeah, I've been through the process myself. I went though talks with different people that were interested in the script but only if this, that and the other thing was changed. So yeah, I have an idea of how it works.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

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.

Yes, incredible movie love there. Of course film is an art. And it was the art of acting I was referring to, not film. To label either of the two as not art is simply wrong. They can be other things, but they remain art.

[Guest Lethargic]

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.

Yes, incredible movie love there. Of course film is an art. And it was the art of acting I was referring to, not film. To label either of the two as not art is simply wrong. They can be other things, but they remain art.

You can call it art all you want but that doesn't mean I have to. I consider paint and all that crap art. I consider music to be music and movies to be movies. I just can't take a lot of these people serious when they call themselves artists, it comes off as just an attempt at slapping themselves on the back and making themselves feel important. I just can't call a movie like "Reptilian" art without feeling like a jackass. If other people want to, go ahead, but it's my own personal little hangup. It's no different from calling recording TV "timeshifting". I just can't do it.

[Guest Downhome]

If you loved film, and knew anything about the process, you would not underscore actors, directors, or any of the others involved in the creative and execution process.

 

May I ask what your favorite films are, just out of curriosity?

[Guest Lethargic]

If you loved film, and knew anything about the process, you would not underscore actors, directors, or any of the others involved in the creative and execution process.

 

May I ask what your favorite films are, just out of curriosity?

So in order to be classified as a film lover I must be blind to what I consider the truth and only follow along with what other people think? If I disagree with you on one point to a very slight degree that means I don't love movies? Well, let me shed a tear because some guy on a message board doesn't think I meet his own made up requirements of being a movie lover just because I don't think actors are the most important part of every single movie ever made.

 

What does my favorite movies have to do with anything? What, so you can evaluate my taste and see if I meet those made up requirements too? Make sure my list is high brow enough to be a movie lover? There won't be anything high brow about my list. And do you honestly want that answer? Can you handle it? It'll be a big list. I used to keep a list of my top 100 movies until I could no longer narrow it down to 100 so I quit doing it. But if it matters to you, here's a list off the top of my head....

 

Basketball Diaries, Chasing Amy, Sherlock Jr, The Crow, Iron Monkey, Orgazmo, Almost Famous, The General, The Stoned Age, Cube, Citizen Kane, Dark City, Fresh, Swingers, A Midnight Clear, Best Laid Plans, Dogma, Glengarry Glen Ross, The Great Dictator, Vertigo, Evil Dead Trilogy, Dead Alive, Scarface, In the Company of Men, The Parallax View, Point Blank, Rear Window, Run Lola Run, Shallow Grave, Jackie Brown, Man of the Century, Lady in a Cage, The Living Dead movies, Sneakers, Sorry Wrong Number, Unbreakable, The Bank Dick, Big Lebowski, Malcolm X, Gremlins, Two Thousand Maniacs, Touch of Evil, Star Wars, The Collinswood Story, Gosh Darned Mortgage, People vs Larry Flynt, Natural Born Killers, American History X, Bugged, And God Spoke, Fear of a Black Hat, The Last Supper, Steamboat Bill Jr, The Birds, Cabinet of Dr Caligari, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, The Craft, The Kingdom, Naked Lunch, Elm Street, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Head, Time Code, Zero Effect, Bamboozled, Modern Times, Lifeboat, From Dusk till Dawn, Rope, The Perfect Storm, The Messenger, 12 Angry Men, Two Lane Blacktop, Amelie, The Lady Vanishes, The Trial, Manchurian Candidate, Strangers on a Train, Goodfellas, North by Northwest, The Last Broadcast, Vanishing Point, The Howling, The Pledge, The Blue Dahlia, Halloween, The Misfits, Moulin Rouge, Dolemite, This Gun For Hire, Bucktown USA, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Maltese Falcon, The Glass Key, The Rocketeer, LA Confidential, Red Dawn, Slingblade, Reservoir Dogs, Tombstone, Do the Right Thing, Requiem for a Dream, The Spitfire Grill, Chinatown, The Conversation, Dial M for Murder, The Thin Man movies, Blair Witch 2, The Entity, Eve's Bayou, American Psycho, Friday the 13th movies, Fail Safe, Detour, Manhunter, Fight Club, Memento, Miracle Mile, Run Lola Run, The Invisible Man, Pulp Fiction, Fresh, Ghost World, The Vanishing, Naked Lunch, Suicide Kings. Sneakers, Higher Learning, The Fifth Element, Dirty Work, Freddy got Fingered, Nekromantik, Freeway, Nosferatu (silent), Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, The Virgin Suicides, Boogie Nights, City of Lost Children, Wait Until Dark. Most anything that is silent, classic horror or film noir. 99% of everything made in the 40s and before is good in my book. Any 70's blaxploitation. Hundreds of cheap horror movies and kung fu movies. All I can think of at the moment. If I remember any more I'll post another list. haha

[Guest godthedog]

i don't mean to pull a lance storm here, but ultimately i don't really think it's fair for us to judge what makes a great actor, because in a movie it's impossible to REALLY tell how great an actor is. the actor is just one factor in creating a character: the writing, the directing & the camera all help create that character. a director who knows what he's doing can make an actor appear to be a lot better than he really is. also, i think people tend to mistake great PARTS for great ACTORS. people talk about how great orson welles was in 'the third man', but he really didn't have to do a whole lot. the first hour of the film built him up like god, & all he had to do in his first scene was smile. and it creates this instinctive reaction of "oh, orson welles is so great" because the moment's been built up so well. i hate to pick on dames, but i think 'scarface' is another example. i don't find anything special about pacino in that movie at all, but the character is written strongly enough that people go "whoa, that's so cool, pacino is god."

 

so, yeah. there you go.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

As regards the Third Man, I disagree. It takes a great actor to live up to the build-up that Lime's character receives. besides, the ferris wheel speech and is delivery shows how Welles turns a good character into a cinematically iconic character. Its true that an actor can't take bad scripts and make them good, but a great actor can take a mediocre script and make it good, and can make a good script great. Besides, it depends on the type of film. Some films are clearly director-driven or actor-driven. Some are dialogue-driven. Anyways, for pure acting, the stage is where its at. Fantastic acting there. I've seen Brendan Fraser display about ten times more talent in one stage performance than you could gauge from his film career.

[The Dames 0]

i hate to pick on dames, but i think 'scarface' is another example. i don't find anything special about pacino in that movie at all, but the character is written strongly enough that people go "whoa, that's so cool, pacino is god."

Admit it, you love picking on me.

 

Actually, the way I see it, you don't get a feeling of "oh, Pacino is God", but "Damn...Tony Montana was the MAN". This will sound insane, but when I see Montana...I don't even SEE Pacino.

 

Dames

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

I'm with Dames there. Tony Montana is his own man. It doesn't happen in the movies that much, but the character truly takes a life of his own.

[Guest notJames]

Tyler Durden did that for me. Brad Pitt did such a great job with such a great character that I forgot it was him. Really opened my eyes to how talented he really is.

[Guest Lethargic]

i don't mean to pull a lance storm here, but ultimately i don't really think it's fair for us to judge what makes a great actor, because in a movie it's impossible to REALLY tell how great an actor is. the actor is just one factor in creating a character: the writing, the directing & the camera all help create that character. a director who knows what he's doing can make an actor appear to be a lot better than he really is. also, i think people tend to mistake great PARTS for great ACTORS. people talk about how great orson welles was in 'the third man', but he really didn't have to do a whole lot. the first hour of the film built him up like god, & all he had to do in his first scene was smile. and it creates this instinctive reaction of "oh, orson welles is so great" because the moment's been built up so well. i hate to pick on dames, but i think 'scarface' is another example. i don't find anything special about pacino in that movie at all, but the character is written strongly enough that people go "whoa, that's so cool, pacino is god."

 

so, yeah. there you go.

See, this is pretty much what I've been saying. I just have a more sarcastic and assholeish tongue on me. haha

 

By the way, I never really actually answered the question that started this whole thread. There are two things that factor into who I like and don't like it. Personality and choices.

 

Personality because with most actors that is what you're getting. Most every big name actor simply plays a different variation of himself in every movie. I use DeNiro and Pacino as an example since they've been discussed a lot lately. When I watch those guys, I don't see any character, I just see them. And since they're both cool guys with cool personalities in real life, they're cool on screen and fun to watch. And those personalities being molded by a great director can give you something special. Like I've said, I believe there are many, many, many good actors out there that could play many parts. A lot of actors could play Scarface and read the lines. Anybody can say "All I have in this world is balls and my word and I don't break 'em for no one. You understand?" and it'll still be a cool line. The difference is that they don't have Pacino's personality. They don't have that voice to say the line with the same attitude. A lot of people out there are born with a natural acting ability and a lot can be taught how to act, but nobody can learn how to have a personality or charisma. Face it, pretty much anybody in a Hollywood movie has talent. What seperates one talent from the other is their personality. Is it a personality that is fun to watch for 2 hours? Is he a person that you'd like to hang out with for 2 hours?

 

Choices are probably the most important thing that makes me like somebody. There's a lot of good people out there that could've been considered good actors but made a lot of bad choices. Remember when Mira Sorvino came out and won the Oscar for Mighty Aphrodite? People thought she was gonna go on to be a big star. But she made some horrible movie choices after that. She started making movies like Mimic, Romy and Michelle, Replacement Killers and At First Sight so now she's down to making a movie with Mariah Carey that came out so awful that the studio refused to release it. With a different set of choices she could've been the biggest star around right now.

 

George Clooney is probably my favorite actor out there right now. His personality is hilarious to me. He seems like he's cool as shit. What other big star has not only gone on Jimmy Kimmel's show, but also went on there and gave out alcohol to the crowd? The guy is hilarious. But the thing that makes me enjoy him are his choices. After going through that Batman and Robin fiasco he made a decision and effort to never do anything like that again. He only wanted to work with good people and to make movies that he thought would be good. Making a big profit didn't matter, quality mattered. It hasn't always worked out that way, it never does, but at least he keeps trying to do interesting things instead of just taking every single job that comes along and promises him an easy payday.

 

Christian Bale is another example. I've said many times here that I want to see Bale as Batman. But I like Bale because of the movies he's been a a part of. From Empire of the Sun to Velvet Goldmine to American Psycho to Equilbrium. He's always tried to get good work, not just any work that he could get. So if I see him sign on to play Batman, my hope in the movie will skyrocket because I have trust in his judgement. That would make me think that the script is actually good.

 

But all that said, directors and writers still generally have a much bigger impact on me. The most important thing to me is that Christopher Nolan is going to direct Batman. So even if somebody I hate gets cast as Batman, I'm still there. But on the other hand if Bale signed up to play Batman directed by Joel Schumacher and written by Akiva Goldsman, no matter how I've liked Bale in the past, I have no interest in seeing it at all because it's being made by idiots.

[Guest Banky]

John C. Reilly is the best out there right now.

 

Jason Lee is my personal favorite because I can relate to the majority of his character, plus he is 10x cooler than anyone else in this world.

 

DeNiro is the best ever.

[Guest Downhome]

So in order to be classified as a film lover I must be blind to what I consider the truth and only follow along with what other people think? If I disagree with you on one point to a very slight degree that means I don't love movies? Well, let me shed a tear because some guy on a message board doesn't think I meet his own made up requirements of being a movie lover just because I don't think actors are the most important part of every single movie ever made.

 

What does my favorite movies have to do with anything? What, so you can evaluate my taste and see if I meet those made up requirements too? Make sure my list is high brow enough to be a movie lover? There won't be anything high brow about my list. And do you honestly want that answer? Can you handle it? It'll be a big list. I used to keep a list of my top 100 movies until I could no longer narrow it down to 100 so I quit doing it. But if it matters to you, here's a list off the top of my head....

 

Basketball Diaries, Chasing Amy, Sherlock Jr, The Crow, Iron Monkey, Orgazmo, Almost Famous, The General, The Stoned Age, Cube, Citizen Kane, Dark City, Fresh, Swingers, A Midnight Clear, Best Laid Plans, Dogma, Glengarry Glen Ross, The Great Dictator, Vertigo, Evil Dead Trilogy, Dead Alive, Scarface, In the Company of Men, The Parallax View, Point Blank, Rear Window, Run Lola Run, Shallow Grave, Jackie Brown, Man of the Century, Lady in a Cage, The Living Dead movies, Sneakers, Sorry Wrong Number, Unbreakable, The Bank Dick, Big Lebowski, Malcolm X, Gremlins, Two Thousand Maniacs, Touch of Evil, Star Wars, The Collinswood Story, Gosh Darned Mortgage, People vs Larry Flynt, Natural Born Killers, American History X, Bugged, And God Spoke, Fear of a Black Hat, The Last Supper, Steamboat Bill Jr, The Birds, Cabinet of Dr Caligari, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, The Craft, The Kingdom, Naked Lunch, Elm Street, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Head, Time Code, Zero Effect, Bamboozled, Modern Times, Lifeboat, From Dusk till Dawn, Rope, The Perfect Storm, The Messenger, 12 Angry Men, Two Lane Blacktop, Amelie, The Lady Vanishes, The Trial, Manchurian Candidate, Strangers on a Train, Goodfellas, North by Northwest, The Last Broadcast, Vanishing Point, The Howling, The Pledge, The Blue Dahlia, Halloween, The Misfits, Moulin Rouge, Dolemite, This Gun For Hire, Bucktown USA, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Maltese Falcon, The Glass Key, The Rocketeer, LA Confidential, Red Dawn, Slingblade, Reservoir Dogs, Tombstone, Do the Right Thing, Requiem for a Dream, The Spitfire Grill, Chinatown, The Conversation, Dial M for Murder, The Thin Man movies, Blair Witch 2, The Entity, Eve's Bayou, American Psycho, Friday the 13th movies, Fail Safe, Detour, Manhunter, Fight Club, Memento, Miracle Mile, Run Lola Run, The Invisible Man, Pulp Fiction, Fresh, Ghost World, The Vanishing, Naked Lunch, Suicide Kings. Sneakers, Higher Learning, The Fifth Element, Dirty Work, Freddy got Fingered, Nekromantik, Freeway, Nosferatu (silent), Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, The Virgin Suicides, Boogie Nights, City of Lost Children, Wait Until Dark. Most anything that is silent, classic horror or film noir. 99% of everything made in the 40s and before is good in my book. Any 70's blaxploitation. Hundreds of cheap horror movies and kung fu movies. All I can think of at the moment. If I remember any more I'll post another list. haha

Oh boy, here we go, you obviously thought way too much of what I've said thus are saying way too much about this. I didn't say you had to think as I do, but you should understand structure. You said that actors are nothing more than people who read lines, and that's that. It is not true, and is totally disregarding the entire industry if you truly feel that way. It isn't an opinion, it's fact that you are wrong and to say otherwise shows you have no idea what you are saying.

 

As for your favorite movie, no it wasn't so I could evluate your taste, I'm not some total ass hole. Whever I really get into a discussion with someone I like to know what movies they are into, just for the hell of it. Ask anyone who has talked with me about film, and they'll say that's the truth. No need to list a huge fucking list of movies man, it's almost like you are trying to win something here by listing so many, trying to make it seem you know more than what you are making yourself out to know.

 

The point here is the statements you made about actors, and it pissed me off. If you truly think that and have that opinion, that's great and fine. Just remember, not all opinions are right, they can be wrong when it comes to the truths of the world. This just happens to be one of those times. Acting is a hell of a lot more than just reading what someone else wrote. That is why I say you obviously do not understand the structure of film, and that is all.

 

By the way, kudo's to you for mentioning Naked Lunch. It is a select few that truly respect that film, in the way it deserves.

[Guest Lethargic]

Oh boy, here we go, you obviously thought way too much of what I've said thus are saying way too much about this. I didn't say you had to think as I do, but you should understand structure. You said that actors are nothing more than people who read lines, and that's that. It is not true, and is totally disregarding the entire industry if you truly feel that way. It isn't an opinion, it's fact that you are wrong and to say otherwise shows you have no idea what you are saying.

 

As for your favorite movie, no it wasn't so I could evluate your taste, I'm not some total ass hole. Whever I really get into a discussion with someone I like to know what movies they are into, just for the hell of it. Ask anyone who has talked with me about film, and they'll say that's the truth. No need to list a huge fucking list of movies man, it's almost like you are trying to win something here by listing so many, trying to make it seem you know more than what you are making yourself out to know.

 

The point here is the statements you made about actors, and it pissed me off. If you truly think that and have that opinion, that's great and fine. Just remember, not all opinions are right, they can be wrong when it comes to the truths of the world. This just happens to be one of those times. Acting is a hell of a lot more than just reading what someone else wrote. That is why I say you obviously do not understand the structure of film, and that is all.

 

By the way, kudo's to you for mentioning Naked Lunch. It is a select few that truly respect that film, in the way it deserves.

If you're not a total asshole that's news to me. Only a total asshole would try to say somebody else doesn't understand the entire structure of a movie over one disagreement. I never went out of my way to try to put you down for disagreeing with me on the matter. You did. I've made sure to go out of my way to keep my responses more civil than usual because I know a lot of people won't agree with it. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong and that's the end of it to me. Actually I don't even think that. I haven't even disagreed with any of the points you made about what actors do. I've said a thousand times that they are important to it, but to ME they're not as important as others. So all we disagree on is the LEVEL of importance. I put more importance on directing, writing, editing...you seem to think it's all entirely equal. That's the entire disagreement as far as I know. But yet that very slight difference makes me a total idiot that doesn't understand anything and makes you Pope of Cookietown. Yeah, that sounds like an asshole to me.

 

And no I'm not making a list to prove anything. I can't make a short list. I can't narrow it down that much. I thought I explained that. That's why I never post in any of those things where people are asking what is your favorite _____ movie or whatever. I'm longwinded, believe me this response would be longer if I wasn't getting bitched at to get off the computer right now. haha

[Guest Downhome]

Ugh, this is cut and dry. You said, and I quote...

 

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.

 

...while that may be how you FEEL, it is not correct. You can feel like that, but it does not make you right, that's all I'm saying. Believe it if you want, I really don't care, but just understand that you are wrong. As I said, one can have an opinion, but that doesn't make it right. Some things "just are", and this is one of those things.

 

The FACT, is that there is a lot more to the art of portraying a character than you believe, and that is the end of this as far as I'm concerned.

[Guest red_file]

The FACT, is that there is a lot more to the art of portraying a character than you believe, and that is the end of this as far as I'm concerned.

Having worked as an actor, I'd say that there's actually only a little more to portraying a character than knowing the lines. Delivery, little nuances, perhaps some identification help to better create the illusion of a character, but the character is in the lines. It seems only the method actors I worked with did much more in creating their characters, and there seemed to be little difference.

 

But, hey, maybe I was just a terrible actor.

[Guest Lethargic]

Ugh, this is cut and dry. You said, and I quote...

 

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.

 

...while that may be how you FEEL, it is not correct. You can feel like that, but it does not make you right, that's all I'm saying. Believe it if you want, I really don't care, but just understand that you are wrong. As I said, one can have an opinion, but that doesn't make it right. Some things "just are", and this is one of those things.

 

The FACT, is that there is a lot more to the art of portraying a character than you believe, and that is the end of this as far as I'm concerned.

And as I've said, most of that original post was mostly me being sarcastic. I've explained my true feelings in later posts none of which you address. Yes, I know there is more to it. I've said that repeatedly. I've even made examples of what actors do that are more than just reading lines. I love the logic that you say people can have an opinion but that doesn't mean it's true. But for some reason that logic only applies to me and not to you. Cause as far as I'm concerned, if you don't understand that an actor's perfomance can seriously be improved or ruined through the directing and editing process, you're the only one here that doesn't understand the process.

 

The actors being so important thing reminds me of a kid forced to go to one church from birth. He's raise by parents to follow their religion. He's not allowed to explore and find his own religion so that he can have his own original thoughts. His only thoughts are the thoughts are the ones forced on him by his parents. When he grows up and meets people that have other beliefs he thinks they're stupid and thinks that they just don't understand how the "real" God works and that other's opinions don't matter. People have been through years of living in a society where actors are treated like Gods, like the whole world revolves around them, like they're the most important thing in the world of movies and even the world in general. So if somebody else questions that and doesn't think the movie business ends and begins with actors, well that person just doesn't get it. If I was a gambler I'd be willing to bet that you attended some sort of film school.

 

Honestly, having this opinion, do you think this is my first go around with this? Not by a long shot. But this is the first time EVER where the person on the other end would completely not get what I was saying at all and not at least understand my point. The only time the other person has been stupid enough to question my passion for movies and to say that I don't get how movies are made. If I wasn't a movie lover, I wouldn't be HAVING this argument. I wouldn't care! I think the way actors are handled today is a big problem with the quality of what we see on the screen in a lot of cases. Actors are given too much power. Look at how Ed Norton nearly single handedly ruined American History X. Because of his meddling we came very close to never even seeing that movie. And it's a great movie and Norton is great in it. But because the studio gave the actor more power than it did the director, it was almost destroyed. My love for movies is the reason I'm willing to point out something I think is a fault and take all this flack for it.

 

If you want to go ahead and end it that's fine with me, though it has been a fun argument. I know how opinionated I am and I know nobody in the world is going to agree with me on half of it. I know I should've just kept my mouth shut as soon as I said it, I just don't have that ability in me. haha That's why I've always wrote for opinion and review sites. If nothing else I'll get people pissed off enough to respond to it. I can agree to disagree and move on to jerking off about Naked Lunch or something.

[Guest Lethargic]

Having worked as an actor, I'd say that there's actually only a little more to portraying a character than knowing the lines. Delivery, little nuances, perhaps some identification help to better create the illusion of a character, but the character is in the lines. It seems only the method actors I worked with did much more in creating their characters, and there seemed to be little difference.

 

But, hey, maybe I was just a terrible actor.

Please don't get me started on method acting. This would NEVER end then until my head exploded. haha

[Guest godthedog]

lethargic, this isn't an insult or anything, but why is it that almost all of your list is traditional hollywood movies? i know you hate the french, but no 'cries and whispers'? no 'rashomon'? no 'ran'? no 'belle du jour'? no 'exterminating angel'? no 'seven samurai' even? i'd imagine you have access to these movies, since none of them are any harder to find than 'detour'. did you forget them, or do you have something against foreign movies in general (excluding 'run lola run', etc)?

[The Dames 0]

Look at how Ed Norton nearly single handedly ruined American History X. Because of his meddling we came very close to never even seeing that movie. And it's a great movie and Norton is great in it. But because the studio gave the actor more power than it did the director, it was almost destroyed.

What are you talking about, Lethargic?

 

Dames

[Guest Lethargic]

lethargic, this isn't an insult or anything, but why is it that almost all of your list is traditional hollywood movies? i know you hate the french, but no 'cries and whispers'? no 'rashomon'? no 'ran'? no 'belle du jour'? no 'exterminating angel'? no 'seven samurai' even? i'd imagine you have access to these movies, since none of them are any harder to find than 'detour'. did you forget them, or do you have something against foreign movies in general (excluding 'run lola run', etc)?

There's 4 or 5 foreign movies on there isn't there? Lola, City of Lost Children and the Vanishing are on there. Amelie and Calagari were on there I think. Kurasawa is alright but I can't really say that his movies are favorites. The kind I can watch over and over. The problem is watching two movies a night nearly every night for years, I can't remember them all. So if I'm making a list like that I usually have my full movie list with me to make sure I remember stuff instead of just whatever pops into my mind. I should've remembered Brotherhood of the Wolf at least. El Samurai should be on there. Bride Wore Black should be on there. M too. There was this Japanese movie, I think it was called Angeldust. I know I just watched some friggin 50's French movie recently that kicked ass but I can't remember what the hell it was. I used to be VERY into foreign/French movies but in the last couple of years I've gotten out of them for some reason.

[Guest Lethargic]

Look at how Ed Norton nearly single handedly ruined American History X.  Because of his meddling we came very close to never even seeing that movie.  And it's a great movie and Norton is great in it.  But because the studio gave the actor more power than it did the director, it was almost destroyed.

What are you talking about, Lethargic?

 

Dames

There was a huge power struggle on that movie. Basically Tony Kaye and Ed Norton had two completely different ideas of what the movie should be. Tony Kaye did several different cuts of the movie but could never get it to what he wanted due to meddling from the studio and Norton. Eventually the studio let Norton cut the movie himself which is basically the biggest slap in the face to any director and Norton of course made the movie all about himself. Kaye went off the deep end then and just about murdered everybody. He put an ad in Variety denouncing New Line, Norton and the movie. I'm not sure which edit was eventually used, I think they might have used one that neither of those guys did. Kaye still says the movie now is nothing at all like the movie he filmed. He wants to be able to do a director's cut DVD but it looks like that will never happen. He tried to get a Alan Smithee credit on the movie but you're not allowed to say publicly why you ask for one. Since he put those ads in Variety he violated the DGA's rules which meant his name had to stay on the movie. So then he filed a 200 million dollar suit against New Line and the Director's Guild.

 

That's what I remember. There's gotta be a site that explains it in more detail somewhere.

[The Dames 0]

Damn....even so, AM X was a damn good film. Now I'm wondering what Kaye would have changed.

 

Thanks, Lethargic.

 

Dames