Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212 
Likes: 1,593
|
Post by Nikan on Jul 29, 2023 14:58:08 GMT
Or, to which degrees these factors matter in your estimation of an actor/actress? rank them if you want... a) their talent (which is subjective... right? that's why not all of us agree on some people all the time... I think, personally, I can watch Laurence Olivier all day, in anything... though I get it if someone finds him too "theatrical" or showy or something else...) b) their presence / their "it" factor, the unexplainable part of their appeal to you (like I consider Jake G. a super-solid actor, but I'm not sure why I like watching him this much. Is it their "likability"? what if they often play unlikeable characters? like Michael Rooker) c) their filmography (you see them in enough great things, you're convince they're great... or really - meaning less subjectively - good... Idk if I consider Leo the most talented/convincing actor of his generation, I know he did enough things right though, to have a real claim) d) their character outside of their work (not to get into the separation of art and artist here: but knowing what you know now of Spacey, do you look at his work differently? does he vanish from your line-ups?) e) Their awards record (like DDL technically should shut any critic up no?) f) the more external evaluations - their box office performance, their popularity in the culture, online and offline (Who else has their roles - in meme format! - showing up in our Instagram field so much as Bale or Gosling do? that has to count for something) g) a cooler version of e: external positive talk inside the industry (I don't think Murphy is RDJ's greatest co-star like he himself claimed, but that compliment carries weight)... Did I leave out any other possibly-important factor? isn't this whole topic an indistinguishable mess?  |
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,645
Likes: 1,808
|
Post by dazed on Jul 29, 2023 15:19:31 GMT
i’ll just rank those from most to least important:
A/C
B
D
G
F
E
ultimately, i just care if they’re able to give great performances as well as if they’re in movies that i like/enjoy, maybe even moreso the latter. i tend to not watch movies that i don’t think i’ll enjoy, so if an actor picks a lot of projects that interest me, i’ll usually just cater to them. rarely do i ever watch a movie just for an actor.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jul 29, 2023 15:25:23 GMT
Mainly just the first two (talent, it factor) and whichever one matters more depends on a case-by-case basis - i.e. how off-the-charts is their talent/it factor, whether they're held back by their limitations in one or the other. Filmography certainly matters in terms of how much of an actor's work I end up (re)watching and it does matter to me if an actor can enhance great material, probably more than if they can just make hack writing passable.
All the external stuff doesn't really play a factor in their talent. The character outside their work if it's egregiously bad might color my attitude of how often I feel like engaging in discussion or viewings of their work, but that's mainly just in the extreme cases (like Spacey). For actors long passed, it plays even less of a factor since I know it's not like they're going to benefit at all from me saying they gave one of the best performances of the 50s.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 29, 2023 16:20:30 GMT
Of the many things MAR is clueless about - acting is our great shame along with the Tennis threads and what not - I rarely read anything on here about why a great actor IS a great actor (also our Politics is unimpressive  ) .......it's adjective parties all the time: "powerful"! "great!"....... UGH....... but I'll take a flying fnck at a rolling donut......... TylerDeneuve who is quite perceptive about acting will have a field day with this if he chooses to play: a) their talent - well all of it is subjective actually.....this is the big one. If you call an actor the "most talented" of their generation it implicitly can cover a lot of other holes (filmography, awards gaps, low box office). The main thing about judging a performance is the vividness of the work - the more vivid an actor, the greater the actor is as a general role which is why "disappearing into a role" is kind of a lie.....I diss Matt Damon for this all the tme - fine actor, "talented" - he can play a lot of roles.....but who cares? How GREAT is he? How vivid is he? b) their presence / their "it" factor- Yeah, not so much imo.......if anything I argue that the greatest actors should be able to turn their presence OFF..... c) their filmography - Crucial.......Essential to be a GOAT for males - females a little less but it does matter - but you can be great without it just not at the highest level because others will be. This is the truest thing I ever said:
"The Greatest actors, are in the greatest scenes, often opposite other great actors, often for the greatest directors ........in the greatest films."
Jessica Lange, Denzel Washington, Geraldine Page, Cage, O'Toole after the 60s etc. are all wonderful but are hurt by this one criteria.......Washington has 50 films and at best TWO of them are an 8 / 10 - AT BEST......I mean.......come on.......there are tiers.....this a tier marker criteria and Cage has far more than 50 films.........d) their character outside of their work - ZERO..........Art / Artist always separate, all the time....e) Their awards record - Matters a small bit actually.....at the highest level.......I mean if nobody thinks you're THAT great, you probably aren't......there are some weird things......De Niro never won a BAFTA........I always say you don't have to win 3 Oscars but you have to win 1......there's exceptions here too - Clift, Close, Finney but it matters a bit unfortunately
f) the more external evaluations - their box office performance, their popularity in the culture, online and offline - The stupidest criteria - see video below........g) a cooler version of external positive talk inside the industry - Not worth much - actors lie, for a living
h) Consistency - People love this shit......."He's always good!" ....... I don't want an actor to always be good, I want a plumber to always be good....not meaningless.......but within reason it kind of is...... |
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jul 29, 2023 16:51:52 GMT
Do they have a nice butt.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,593
|
Post by Nikan on Jul 29, 2023 16:59:11 GMT
Do they have a nice butt.  |
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Jul 29, 2023 17:06:59 GMT
That he/she can fucking act . Period.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,702 
Likes: 2,126
|
Post by cherry68 on Jul 29, 2023 18:18:15 GMT
Their performance in the movie I see them in.
|
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jul 31, 2023 2:18:48 GMT
Nothing in particular. I revere Leo because he has the whole package. Great filmography, great range of performances, doesn't fuck around too much doing weird garbage that makes you wonder how many brain cells he has...
|
|
speeders
Based
Posts: 4,094
Likes: 2,212
|
Post by speeders on Jul 31, 2023 12:55:59 GMT
Hotness.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 2, 2023 10:25:57 GMT
Another (pacinoyes) "metric" - a personal thing of mine - and you see this talked about all the time in Sports - where people talk "Boxing IQ" or "Football IQ" - knowing how to accomplish certain things within your sport or craft that can communicate things both explicitly and subconsciously to an audience (or to a sporting result). "Acting IQ" - that's slightly different from just being a "smart actor" which is fairly common actually - but usually translates to the actor playing "smart people roles"(Kevin Spacey, a lot) or playing a role in the most obvious or to be more kind "more efficient" way ........people usually say "smart actor" the wrong way - they often mean smart about their "brand" (gag) or career. "Acting IQ" is kind of different to me - and subjective - and the more you have it, the better you are........it's the difference between actors who are never bad (who cares?) and actors who are unquely great (and can be rewatched too). Michelle Williams who came up yesterday has a very high Acting IQ, etc. Chris Nolan director of a film called "Oppenheimer" - um - said this about Al Pacino - he's saying it wasn't perceptible to HIS eye directing the film - and he's Chris Nolan ffs: “I had gone up to Pacino after a series of takes and given him a note on what I wanted,” Nolan tells the outlet. “He told me, ‘I’ve already done that. You can’t see it to the eye, but I’ve done it on the dailies.’ I looked for it and I was like, ‘Oh, my God,’ because there it was.”
There’s a reason Nolan is telling this story while promoting Oppenheimer: Cillian Murphy shares Pacino’s prowess. His performance of the father of the atom bomb “became all-enveloping, when I realized Cillian had so much more going on than I saw on set,” Nolan reports. “Great film actors can do that, and that’s what I had with Cillian.” www.avclub.com/al-pacino-acting-subtle-cameras-christopher-nolan-1850640387 |
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,593
|
Post by Nikan on Aug 2, 2023 13:56:50 GMT
... and it took you 20 years to realize this and finally give him a proper role. They ain't wrong when they say he's not the greatest actor's director in town  EDIT: on a second thought, maybe he wasn't that great 20 years ago?...  |
|
) .......it's adjective parties all the time: "powerful"! "great!"....... UGH....... but I'll take a flying fnck at a rolling donut.........
