The secrets of great acting

Interesting ones.

Attending the Lynda Day George school of acting, of course.

Good actors BECOME the character - forgetting who they really are in the process.

Shitty actors TRY to become the character, but can't let themselves go completely.

A lot of actors are naturally big personalities that "make for good tv and movies", unfortunately they aren't acting but playing a more dramatic version of themselves. They do the same thing over and over, they get typecast, stay within their comfort range of portraying emotions. A truely good actor, few and far between, can do a character divorced from their personal experiences.. they way they talk, walk, cry, or outburst on camera looks nothing like how they'd do it in real life. I think an actor can only really give one top performance as themselves, you can win an award as a bigger version of yourself (that's called great casting).. you just can't do it again as a different. Quitting while you are ahead is a smart actor. Doing the same thing over again is to make money, not be a good actor.

I agree with the saying, "There are no small parts, only small actors." We've all seen movies and plays where someone in a secondary role steals the show from the stars. A great actor can bring a small role to life and make it seem like a real person. A great actor makes you forget that what you're watching is just a story. You feel what he feels, you might hate him, you might love him, all because of what he says and does for a brief period of time.

I don't think a great actor can be great in every role. That would be like expecting an athlete to give a record breaking performance in every competition.

"Shitty actors TRY to become the character, but can't let themselves go completely."

Why is everyone looking at me...???

The actor has to believe the character they’re playing; believe the words coming out of their mouth, believe their gestures, believe their Corp d’esprit....until that belief becomes a tangible reality.

Let the expert show you.

Flexible eyebrows!

Yes, R9 gets it!

A good actor looks like they're coming up with the words coming out of their mouths. A bad actor looks like they're tying to remember the words from their script.

Reacting.

Point your big finger for emphasis.

Anal warts

There's no way to answer that question in a paragraph. Actors need to understand how to be believable, but there's so much more. They need to know their character's arc in the story that's being told. And of course once they have to create a character in its entirety with a full understanding of the author's purpose and creation. It's a difficult task which is why so many are unable to do it. Daniel Day Louis is good at it, as is Meryl Streep. Others are less consistent but still can do it. Charlize Theron where she played the serial killer is a good example, or Hoffman in Tootsie. Also Hillary Swank in Boys Don't Cry.

Probably psychopathy, narcissism, and inner emptiness.

Total vulnerability.

Crying on cue.

Accents and wigs. Works every time.

I remember when I took an acting class several years ago, I was always afraid of doing a really dramatic scene for fear of coming off as corny and melodramatic as opposed to heartfelt and genuine. It's an important element to master if one is serious about the craft.

emphaSHIS in da RIGHT plaYSHes.

It doesn't matter if it is good. I just matters if you get nominated.

OP - Michael Stuhlbarg in CMBYN easily demonstrates a brilliant example of R7 and R15's points.

Would someone who was an excellent actor be someone you'd want in your life? It would seem the qualities making someone a good actor would be anethema to interpersonal relations.

It’s a mixture of tight control and emotional nudity

Dear OP. You need to specify whether you're talking about movies, stage or cheap TV.

They are three different crafts.

A moviemaker can use amateurs and it looks perfectly OK on screen. Most movie actors are helpless babies on stage.

There's an element of a conscious unconscious that comes with truly inhabiting a character. A truly good actor loses himself in a character while consciously knowing the character's goals and motivations along with bringing an essence of backstory to who there character is and their past experiences.

Good point R26, all of these situations require different skillsets, some very technical. Ever notice how stage actors manage to say their lines mostly when facing the audience even if it’s not obvious? How film actors redo scenes time and time again, manipulating the props the same way at roughly the same time, manage to stop walking on the same line, etc...

Great acting is rare. The one TV show I witnessed being filmed was just drugged up actors basically being propped up and photographed and then the "performances" being created in editing I guess.

HINT: The initials of the show are the same as a famous sexually transmitted disease.

Great actors have to be devoid of vanity and self-consciousness but no profession attracts people who are vainer and more self-conscious than actors. Which is why there are so few great actors and so many mediocre ones.

I'm trying to figure out the 'famous sexually transmitted disease', R2.

NSE? HIV? STD?

[quote]Would someone who was an excellent actor be someone you'd want in your life? It would seem the qualities making someone a good actor would be anethema to interpersonal relations.

Someone on DL once commented that all male actors are self-absorbed and all female actors are neurotic. I haven’t met or known that many actors but the statement seems true.

Stage actors are more likely to truly be dedicated to their craft than film/TV actors but stage actors are hooked on applause.

I think it's interesting that it was mentioned that a great actor needs to know their character's place in the story. That's why I always hate when actors say "I know the character seems like a monster, but to me, they're not at all." Well, they ARE the monster in the context of the story, so stop shying away from that. I feel like those are self-conscious actors who want to be liked and won't commit to playing a truly awful character.

To me, a great actor is hard to define. I tend to like the ones who at least make an effort to disappear into a character and change their appearance, voice, and mannerisms. They usually tend to win me over more than the ones who have coasted by due to charm or by playing themselves. Still, every now and then, those actors also hit home runs with just the right role at the right time.

It's also interesting to note that, sometimes, we think a certain role and a certain actor should be a perfect fit, but once you see them play the role, it just doesn't work. I always think of Jessica Lange as Blanche in Streetcar. That role seemed like the perfect fit for her and, for one reason or another, she wasn't very good. Same with Bette Midler in Gypsy. That seems like a match made in heaven, but it didn't quite work. I've always wondered why that happens.

r31 ok bigger hint: Venereal Disease

[quote]seems like a match made in heaven, but it didn't quite work. I've always wondered why that happens.

Could be the director?

Vampire Diaries!

Jessica Lange did the nervous giggle thing too much as Blanche. It annoyed me. Plus, she was overshadowed by the ghost of her idol Vivien Leigh.

With Bette Midler, she was TOO on the nose as pushy Mama Rose, no shading of the character whatsoever. Plus she really doesn't have the range like Merman did. Vocally it was too much of a stretch for her.

R23 , I was going to talk about Michael Stuhlbarg, too, because I have talked to him about his acting method. He does as much research as possible (like when he played Edward G. Robinson in Trumbo), and through that process finds a strong identity with the character so that the audience will have a fuller and richer understanding of the person he is playing.

I asked him if Woody Allen gave him any instructions in Blue Jasmine when he played the creepy dentist lurching at Cate Blanchett, and he said Woody told him to just really go for it, which he definitely did in that scene.

When he played Andy Hertzfeld in the Steve Jobs' movie (the only time he had played a real living person), he met with him several times and observed any physical tics or behaviors and integrated that into his performance.

I think a lot of what good acting is begins with preparation. Figuring out the backstory of your character and the relationships she/he has with other characters. For most good actors it is a bit like detective work to narrow it down to who you are. If the script is vague and the director doesn't let you fill in the blanks, it is difficult for most actors to embody a character.

Then it's make-up, clothing, a lot of concentration to stay in character and blocking out the camera and whatever goes on at the set.

Agree completely on the eyebrows.

I love this Funny or Die "Acting with James Franco" where he teaches his brother how to emote by pretending to sniff a jacket.

Lots of useless generality in in this thread.

First of all, a great actor has to be empathetic. Without it, the actor cannot connect to the story, the character and its circumstances, the script, the other actors in the screen. A great actor will be stimulated emotionally by all these things.

Secondly, the actor has to be emotionally responsive to whatever happens in his character's life. Without it, there is nothing for the audience to observe, to see, to hear.

The third thing an actor needs is technique. NO ONE thinks they can strap on toe shoes and dance the black swan. A great number of people think that because they can talk, they can act. No. Technique is crucial to making a great actor. (Not a great performance, which can be coached, especially in film.)

If a novice actor has these things, then to become great, there has to be a lot of work, so that these talents can grow. Practice, practice, practice. In the UK, if an actor is any good at all, there are jobs and talents can be honed. In the US, the business is split between NY and LA. It's tough for young actors. Intelligence helps, especially when rehearsing a play that will be performed again and again. Discipline is essential. Unless the actor is playing himself, which he never does, then there is a lot to learn about that character he's going to play.

Depends. Theater or film?

Actually, especially in film, the most indelible performances are the perfect merge of actor and character. Hoffman in Tootsie would be a perfect example of this. Yes you need to find that character and inhabit it, but the best actors are also able to bring aspects of themselves into the character and meld the two. That's why , the best film performances, can't imagine any other actor playing the character.

Most important quality: GOOD AGENT!!!! After that: a great control of facial muscles. The less one uses them to emote to better actor. Also, being a narcissist as an occupational requirement, so I never ever understood how anyone can date them.

Mark Rylance

Wolf Hall

'nuff said

R30 is a scholar.

R42 has the most informative post so far.

AW= Another World, Anal Warts?

Great actors, you don’t catch them acting: spencer Tracy, Jeff Bridges, Debra Winger, Jack Lemmon, Barbara Stanwyck, Frances McDormand.

Magic Time!

Intuitive voice dynamics with a natural talent for poetic rhythm, finding the "music" in natural speech. Words spoken honestly, from the heart, have their own natural dynamics of tenderness, passion and vulnerability. A good actor hears these dynamic subtleties and instinctively includes them in their speech composition in an unaffected way.

M, did you write that bullshit at R52?

R53 Apologies if I've offended any whores of The French Lieutenant.

Oh hi Glenn. Are you done transitioning yet?

Truman Capote was adamant that intelligent people make shitty actors.

I think that was Truman Capote's self-exculpatory explanation for his performance in MURDER BY DEATH.

Stage, stage, stage. Legitimate theater is the criterion.

Fatsuit, accent, and lotsa lotsa makeup.

It comes naturally if you fuck a Geffen

[quote]Oh hi Glenn. Are you done transitioning yet? —M

Into what? A second-rate hack who accepts shitty scripts out of the deluded belief that my name on the marquee will somehow make them high art? That's not gonna happen, M. That's not gonna happen.

Keep telling yourself that, Glenn dear. In the meantime, do enjoy your latest project. It's television, again, I hear. So adorable!

[quote]Keep telling yourself that, Glenn dear. In the meantime, do enjoy your latest project. It's television, again, I hear. So adorable! —M

What, is [italic]The Simpsons[/italic] that desperate to relive its 1990s glory days?

I think it's a lot about finding the backstory. Even if the audience never knows, the actor will and that will show in their eyes and face when they react to something. For example, if they decide a character was abused as a child, they might have a very different response to being touched by someone than if they decided that they'd had a perfect childhood. It's all about the little choices. The audience might not know why the character reacted that way, but it's fascinating and gets your mind racing.

Subtext is just an anagram for buttsex.

I can't stand Meryl Streep or Daniel Day Lewis. They're mimics, not actors. I never for one second believe in their characters. It's always 'oh, did you hear that accent?'.

Michael Caine (who is one of the most underrated film actors there is because he did so much paycheck work) said one problem with film acting is theatre actors who think they have to play to the back row and film acting is all about knowing how to express emotion with your eyes.

Didn't Michael Caine also say that you shouldn't blink on film or something and that's the big "secret?" I don't know if I believe that at all. I've seen lots of great actors who blink up a storm. I started paying attention after I heard that.

R66 Cillian Murphy, a great talent, has said something along those lines -that ‘acting’ for screen is all in the facial expression and the blocking. Stage is more kinetic.

Actually, Streep gave some of the best advice I ever heard (no big surprise, of course): "In the end, you just gotta roll out of bed and do it."

All that overthinking, all that backstory bullshit, all that arc stuff -- but, in the end, you can only prepare a certain amount and then you have to see what the other actor in the scene is doing and make it a dance. "Making it ALL about the other person" is the best theory I ever heard. The answer is always there instead of all that self-absorbed "What do I want in the scene" stuff.

That other great Streep quote to Cher, of course: "Do your best work in the other person's close-up." That's the dance.

What happened to Timothy Spall, he's lost like 6 stone!

R69, that 'theory' is horse shit. It may have some currency if you play a person who is just like you in every way and is having problems just like yours, but making it all about the other person isn't going to take you far into building a character of your own to play.

This man knows how it's done.

Is it best to actually convince yourself to feel what you think that the character should be feeling in the moment, or can one do it purely "technically" because they are really good at making their faces look a certain way or putting a certain inflection in their voice artificially?

Are there different schools of thought about this?

R73 I am not a professional nor an expert (far from it), but I am always fascinated by great acting. It happens that two years ago I met one of my favourite actresses by chance on the train. So I asked about her trade. What she told me (I was commenting on how difficult it must be to go through some harrowing moments, as she has done in her work) is yes, you go through the emotions. You go through them as a human being, but you are not actually going through the experience in your life, so it is relatively safe.

This is more or less what she told me. I was very surprised as those were emotions I would try to avoid, as she was saying it it sounded like it was way safer to experience these within art. I see her point.

For example R73, if you are going through the emotions of losing a loved one, yes it is harrowing, but it will end once you leave the job. You have not really lost a loved one.

Or, if you have, it may help you express those emotions that are so difficult to express in your own actual experience.

Another comment: I recently went to see an adaptation of a (melo)drama that is very depressing. I usually only see it once every 5 or 7 years it is so depressing. And this time I saw it, I'd booked my ticket in advance and the day before I went I got unexpected news of the death of someone I will never see again, and who I appreciated very much. While I appreciated the performance that night, no matter how horrible what they were going through onstage, I couldn't help feeling: sure, it's very sad... for a play... but life is infinitely more horrible. I cried for whatever reason for two days and still cannot come to terms with the passing of my friend. Still, I believe art is a safe environment to explore experiences that are difficult.

Not sure this answered your question R73. It sounds like you were asking about going through the experience vs superficial/technical mimicry. It seems a fine performer will go through the experience while never losing sight of the technical elements - I believe even a good actor on a "bad" day will rely on technique only, just to get through the performance. I believe technique saves you when the "magic" just isn't there, which happens even to the best.

The other day I went to see a sort of cabaret show, the singer fumbled through the lyrics of a song I knew really well, so there was no mistaking she was singing jibberish, but it got her through the song and the show continued - it wasn't just her on stage, there were 5 of them and the show must go on. The music was flawless, the words were just all over the place - were no words at all. It happens.

R74 touches on the heart of the matter. The emotion is real, the facts propelling it all are not. That's why it is crucial that an actor be empathetic to the story, the character, the circumstances, the plot points that drive the play. It is also why it is essential for an actor to also be easily and readily responsive emotionally. If one takes in everything about the character and the play, but can do no more than think about it and level it all out with reasoning, then there will not be an exciting or truthful performance from that actor.

Getting to that point where one experiences the emotions is where lies the great schism in modern acting. Ironically, both techniques claim to be derived from Stanislavsky, both techniques are commonly called "The Method," both were developed in the 1930's by members of famous Group Theater, both were created to serve the style of realism, and the two techniques couldn't be farther apart in their core principles.

Lee Strasberg taught the actor to look inward to personal experience that is similar to that of the character being played and there you will find truthful emotion on which to build your scene. He called it the Affective Memory. Stella Adler counters that if you look inward, you will not play the character, you will superimpose yourself, in all your limitation and particularity, on the playwright and the character. Adler would warn that you risk not playing the character at all, while you are up there trying to relive your own experiences. Her technique is built on the actor carefully and in detail, knowing and imagining the character, his life, his personal and social circumstances. If the imagination is rich and creative, then the actor's empathy and emotional availability will have respond to what has been carefully imagined. And, importantly, you can play anything you can imagine. Adler frees the good, imaginative, creative actor, to play someone other than himself in job after job.

If you have never been a king, using Strasberg's method, you risk being unable to play one, too. You will draw on your own working class experience and show us someone does not walk, talk, or act like the absolute monarch of a country. If you have never lived a life of contemplative religious devotion, Strasberg might not help you play a nun. How could you, if you haven't been these things and you are looking inward for your character?

Adler would point out that you cannot relive your mother's death eight times a week without making yourself sick. Inevitably, it will crush you, or you will distance yourself from it for protection and the character will be diminished, as will the audience's experience of the performance. Use your imagination. Be affected by the crown and throne or the wimple and the veil. If you put on a crown and sit on a throne and you are not affected by that... get out of the theater. If you can don a habit and wimple and veil and sit thoughtlessly with your legs splayed and crack gum and tug at your bra strap, find another calling. The costumes, the social circumstances, the props, the settings, the relationships the character maintains, are the tools of your trade and you should be responsive to all of it.

That response... that's acting.

Strasberg's method has been invaluable in film. Short or no rehearsal. Get the scene on film and never revisit it. Extreme close-ups. If he hadn't developed it, it probably would have been developed by the necessities of film making.

Adler's method will serve a stage actor every day of his life. If a performance has been thoroughly prepared with rich, creative, and smart imagination, it will be there for the actor every time the curtain goes up and he can leave it there when he goes home. Or, being an actor, to the bar.

All the research and backstory in the world will do you no good if you can't/don't Connect with the other actor/s. Even in the audition with the reader (and I only speak of film, not center stage at the Des Moines Dinner Theatre).

Um...Talent helps.

R75 Why not use both methods when the end result is pretty much the same? Strasberg's for what you can imagine and have experienced in your own life, and Adler's for the rest? Seems like these strict distinctions are just marketing talk.

Or you can go for the Harrison Ford "Let's pretend" method. I like that one (yes, when combined with actual Talent).

Thanks for your post R75. Indeed Strasberg's method sounds very dangerous. It seems many film actors use it, even to this day, and IMO it ruins lives. It doesn't help that this particular method attracts people who are already damaged and probably seeking some form of therapy through acting.

It seems to me an actor has to use their imagination, combined with emotions they are able to feel (although a fine actor will be able to connect to any emotion, I believe). Adler's method sounds much more "professional" while Strasberg's method seems like "playing with fire" or "sorcerer's apprentice". I'm not an actress and don't think I ever could be, although I've been told I read very well (which is not the same as acting) - that said, a text has to resonate with me for me to be able to read it and feel something. Although, my niece makes me read whatever she wants read to her and I always find something to put in the words. But I guess the personal element there is wanting to communicate to my niece, and also the fact that children's book are all written in some form of poetry - every single word is important, and one here and there will have a special ring to it - you want to communicate the language as well as the story to the young child. Anyway if you're not a professional my point is you need to have a personal connection to the text. A professional will have enough technique to help them get through material they don't necessarily connect with, I imagine. Also, if they're really good, they will always find a connection, wherever it might be. After all, it was written by another human being.

A great actor is unnoticed as an actor and receives no awards. He/she is so great actor that the audience is only paying attention to the story. On a side note, you can still be a great actor playing a version of yourself. Even if you play the same character every time, you still need the skill of taking a screenwriter's words and make them sound believable.

And yes, anyone can research a role and develop a backstory. Anyone. It's take a skilled actor to make the character's lines sound believable.

And fills in the gaps with his or her IDEAS. Pro screenwriters are taught to write spare skeletal scripts, not overwrite, not direct on paper. The actor has to take that base and embellish it and bring it to life. (A good writer knows how to plant the clues without too much yack). The actor's job is not to just read my lines back to me but to make them come to life beyond what is on the page.

Yes, when I was a teen I was only impressed with the "stars" who could basically be "seen" acting - the others I believed were just being themselves in everyday situations... That's how good they were, I didn't really notice what they were doing. Don't know what happened one day that made me see it was the other way around, of course there was no turning back.

IMO a good actor will be a pretty decent, even good, singer as well. And a good singer is often able to act, or at least react within versions of themselves.

I studied acting for several years and my instructor was a student of Strasberg for many years. I have always admired how effective the techniques are. There's so many and it takes some time to learn them. I clearly remember how much better my performances became. It's hard to describe but for me it was like being outside of yourself and being able to live moment to moment at the same time, reacting to everything you encounter. It's bizarre because most moments in a script are experiences I'd never had or was likely to have, but watching the takes it was how much more believable the scenes were.

I think Daniel Day Lewis was amazing in There Will Be Blood, mainly because he could connect with such a nasty character like Plainview. He never impressed me in other movies. The Left Foot performance was just making faces and in Lincoln Sally Field stole the movie from him. He also can't do comedy, which is much harder to do than drama, so he isn't very versatile.

Streep is just an audience darling, she doesn't have much range as an actress.

Not overthinking or overanalyzing it. That's what makes guys like Spencer Tracy, Paul Muni, Van Heflin and others from the Golden Age so believable.

Their performances hold up MUCH better in terms of timelessness, naturalness and verisimilitude than those of the ticky, histrionic, Actors Studio and Method people.

Streep is the personification of modern American middlebrow culture and its veneration of white mediocrity.

Stop using your fucking hands so much.....the best acting is done with the EYES.

Watch Kim Stanley devour Jessica Lange in this scene and she barely moves.

R87 and THAT gif is why I don't like watching vintage films.

What changed between then and now, so that schlocky overacting was replaced by much more nuanced and realistic performances?

If by "nuanced and realistic" you mean "wooden and uninteresting," then yes.

R74 and R75. Thank you. That was seriously informative.

R91 Are you saying you prefer ole Jimmy Dean at R87?

IMO, if an actor behaves in a way that bares no resemblance to real life, it's a fail.

I agree with both R90 AND R91.

Can't we find somewhere in the middle? Early 70s, pre-Shining Jack Nicholson perhaps?

[quote]IMO, if an actor behaves in a way that bares no resemblance to real life, it's a fail.

If an actor is capable of behaving that way on screen, then he or she is capable of behaving that way in real life.

[quote]and THAT gif is why I don't like watching vintage films.

Try not to base your perception of vintage films on the Elia Kazan, Method school of acting.

Watch James Stewart fillibuster in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" if you want to see powerfully timeless emotion on screen.

Some people just have charisma. When you're at a cocktail party or class or some such, you'll like some of the people more than others -- some of it is looks -- studies show that people just "like" attractive people more, they're more likely to hire them or promote them at work, they assign higher intelligence to them, etc. There are other qualities like that - it's hard to define. But looks is the main one - thus, most actors are attractive.

There's skill of course - an attractive moron couldn't learn the lines to deliver them effectively; they wouldn't be able to mimic emotion as well. And acting also takes pretty high reserves of energy - it's exhausting to be "on", at least when you're on stage.

As for singing/acting, that's probably a mostly inborn talent that you either have or don't.

* last sentence should have been "As for singing/dancing..."

R96 Not saying it ALL sucked, but there was an inordinate amount of suckage back then.

Charlton Heston in Ben-Hur is another example that comes to mind. And he won an award for that one. I'm sure the old movie buffs out there will want to disembowel me for this, but his performance was way overdone.

listening to the other characters, reacting appropriately with your lines... and not jus waiting to spit them out.

r99, but Charlton was very attractive which overcomes a WHOLE lot, when it comes to the audience liking your performance or not.

R95 I guess one should draw a distinction between "can" and "should". Lol.

R101 True. Sadly true. At least Chris Hemsworth hasn't won an Oscar yet.

A lot of it depends on the role you are playing. Mannerisms that are appropriate for playing a British dowager are not necessarily appropriate for playing a Baltimore vagrant and vice versa.

[quote]Charlton Heston in Ben-Hur is another example that comes to mind. And he won an award for that one.

I think that has something to do with how stylized, formal and refined the writing was then.....and the acting reflected that. It may sound artificial and dated to our ears but it wasn't easy to do and still sound serious and effortless.

Just listen to the awful line readings in Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake.

It's not easy to say dialogue like "They cluck their thick tongues and shake their heads and they suggest oh, so very delicately" without sounding embarrassingly awkward .

Anthony Perkins was FLAWLESS.

Vince Vaughn was well, embarrassingly awkward.

Compare.

Contrast.

Learn.

I always thought the Psycho remake was interesting to watch to see how Julianne Moore somehow managed to make her part work while the others around her were struggling.

Plus she also managed to use the same dialogue and shots as Vera Miles yet made the character different and unique.

R99, even at the young age at which I saw Heston as Ben-Hur, I felt very "acted" at. Not a natural performance at all.

You need a certain degree of intelligence to be a great actor. But there are obviously more heavily cerebral great actors (think Isabelle Huppert) and ones that are a little more emotionally open, but they are all fairly intelligent.

I disagree that you have to be intelligent. There are lots of stupid great actors who put out great performances on instinct.

There are no great actors. A great performance is a rare combination of different factors that happens only occasionally, like a rainbow.

[R110] One good performance is not the same as being a 'great actor'

[quote][R91] Are you saying you prefer ole Jimmy Dean at [R87]?

To an over-preened total stiff like Taylor Lautner. With all the exercises he does on his abs and biceps, you'd think he'd give his face muscles a workout on screen every now and then.

R107 Julianne Moore would be the only reason for me to watch that ill-advised remake... And she's an actress, the others "stumbled" into acting. Anthony Perkins was perfect in PSYCHO, and he's pretty damn good in the only other film I've seen of his, GOODBYE, AGAIN.

Acting, singing, dancing all take different talents. I'm a pretty good singer and with work, could probably do it for pay. Acting and dancing would be a struggle. There are the rare birds who can do all three, but this isn't a Judy Garland thread.

[quote]We've all seen movies and plays where someone in a secondary role steals the show from the stars.

This almost happened to me with an extra on set. Wisely, I had her fired immediately. I refuse to be upstaged!

(I will confess, though, that she really was good, and very funny. Her name was Davida something.)

R96 I love how Jimmy Stewart could make you really believe in the goodness of a character. Not judgmental and unlikable, just truly decent.

Even in his role as the hokey "Elmer" in "Small Town Girl" (1936), there's a tenderness to his character's goofy, fuddy-duddiness that makes you feel something for his character.

Knowing how to be still without posing is another quality/skill that makes a great actor. I think this has to do with grace, developed or innate.

...and no matter how gorgeous you are, you have to find the comedy in your existence. If you can laugh at yourself, if you can find the humor in being human, you're halfway to being a great actor.

R118 There is nothing more charming than a dazzlingly beautiful, brilliant soul who can sincerely laugh at his or herself. Not humble-brag but really find the humor in who they are.

R110 I often say this of stage performers NOT in theater, especially frontmen in rock bands or popstars. You need confidence, presence, physical intuition and an ‘IT’ to play well to a crowd, but no intellect is required. In fact, ‘thinking about it’ too hard or falling into a rictus of self-awareness & deep contemplation of what you’re doing and why will result in stilted performance and tangible awkwardness at best.

My favorite acting teacher said that you can see if an actor is good not when they are speaking, but when they are listening. It is how they are affected by what they are hearing. And that is being present in the moment but also knowing the character and the situation well enough to know how that character would react. The trap is how it is conveyed. Overacting can happen by manufacturing emotional responses. It's a fine art. Film requires subtlety. Stage often requires physical indications. Both are completely different art forms and skill sets.

The Great Marion Davies: Beauty and comedy. There is nothing that can hit you harder in the heart, than an hour of goofy self-deprecation that suddenly turns into a quiet moment of total, vulnerability. It can be totally heartbreaking when a clown's "mask" finally comes off. She perfected that emotional one-two punch.

One must have the ability to adapt oneself to any surrounding and situation.

Painting lugging.

[quote] Taylor Lautner.With all the exercises he does on his abs and biceps, you'd think he'd give his face muscles a workout on screen every now and then.

He does all his face muscle exercises OFF screen.

Living room ballet.

Vomiting on cue.

One must communicate a believable sense of relatability.

Back to the topic at hand, I don't really care for the story of the film LULU, yet will watch it because Louise Brooks is so watchable. Indeed, I find her presence magical. Don't know how she does it. She truly was one of a kind, in what was captured on screen.

R130 Agreed, 100%. The story line in "Pandora's Box" is classically Teutonic melodrama delivered with Brechtian like flair (did anyone else catch the suspiciously placed menorah in Lulu's apartment? Was that an act of symbolic demonization or meant to convey a sense of pity for a character who unfairly had evils projected upon her, just because of the inadequacies of the male protagonist in love with her?)

But Louise Brooks is a screen presence phenomenon. She IS film. The screen melts into her.

I don't know if this adds to the thread, but Josh Gad is one of my favourite actors today. And he can sing. Jack Black can sing too.

Just being real in the person you're portraying. Be aware of your eyes.

I'm an actor. Not famous. Not successful. But I work. Sometimes for free. I've worked with and known alot of people who have the right look, the right voice and inflections and they're good. But they're not memorable nor interesting to watch or work with. I love working with someone who's a little odd and quirky but not in an annoying way. They surprise you. Maybe they don't 'look' like actors and have their own technique but I can't take my eyes off them. Some people just have 'it' and some people just don't.

R121, And that is why, in"Godfather II," at the Havana sex show, the scene when Michael realizes it was Fredo who betrayed him is such sublime great acting by Pacino.

Great acting is where you don't sense the actor. All you sense is the character

I actually like Jack Black's passionate rendition more than Seal's recording and I wish they had let him finish.

Thanks R134. I've noticed this with singers. There are pleasant voices, and most of the time we believe we want to listen to those. But I've started listening out for some singers (in opera) who usually take on secondary roles - most of them have a very unusual, distinctive voice that is usually not pleasing to the ears (some even have a lisp! in opera!!), yet it means we recognise them instantly, they have personality. And for those types of roles, I believe that is key. No-one wants a bland production. We need those spices. Some actors provide that.

R138 yes!!! I call this The ‘Judas’ Effect, referring of course to the antagonist role in JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR. The singer for this role must always have a distinctive voice, moreso than powerful or technical. Strong enough to do the shows back to back, yes, but not perfect nor athletic. This role is a deeply flawed character and the voice must convey this at all costs, like any other big dramatic part.

French actor Jerome Pradon took the Judas role in the 2000 film production, and exemplifies this idea. He is actually a weaker singer than several of his castmates in lesser roles, but his ability to ‘act’ with his voice and tell the wrenching emotional story of Judas in such a framework makes him the perfect choice. At this point he didn’t have any training in musical theatre and didn’t even speak fluent English. To render a great performance believable &compelling, one must be an emotional conduit and surrender.

As long as we're talking about acting AND singing, I think Angie Lansbury has a lousy singing voice yet she conveys all the emotions and nuances of whoever she's playing. I'd rather hear her sing Sweeney Todd than a singer who's polished yet bland.

Yes, it's true R140. It's all about expression. I'll take an expressive singer any day. Many do, as a matter of fact they have long-standing careers.

LOL R116!

When an actor is interviewed and I realize that they sound just like their character in a movie, e.g., Jessica Lange, Jennifer Aniston, I realize they're not great actors but they have an attractive persona, or star power, and can memorize lines. Tom Hanks ALWAYS plays himself. Truly great actors disappear into their character. But this doesn't mean that others aren't entertaining or even interesting to watch, too. Except for Tom Hanks. He's a bad actor with an uninteresting persona.

Who wants to critique the work of Anthony Hopkins? I think he's amazing and am curious what others think.

Hanks must know where the bodies are hidden.

Secret of great acting = Great casting.

Whenever I want to deliver at the highest level, I have a perv destroying me/my chidren mentally and physically. It always work

...s

IT's mostly about the writing aligning with the personality of a performer -- at least when it comes to film acting. Film acting is personality acting. Do you really think Frances McDormand was doing anything other than playing herself in 3 Billboards? She was charismatic and bold but we're just watching her go through the motions of that character.

Good try Meryl...busted

I love Hugo and Maxwell.

Great acting is where all you see is the character, you don't see the

The best acting doesn't look like acting at all.

You know you're watching a good actor/actress when they're in character even when someone else is talking.

Who dredged this up!

Truth.

Same person that is obsessed with Garaffalo's wig

It's actors like Cynthia Nixon who--in role after role--impress me the most. Their technique is invisible, you see no gears clicking, yet the performances are always spontaneous, real, immediate.

Speaking of Louise Brooks and Marion Davies, this is the third in that triumvirate. Remarkably fresh and natural even now.