What makes a good actor?

I think many good actors are shy introverts who are able to use acting as an outlet. They are easily able to channel other personas and be a vessel.

I don’t think you have to be confident. It can get in the way of the work. The ability to be vulnerable and unsure is most important.

A willingness to bare yourself.

A good imagination. Unself-conscious.

A little bit of stupidity and naïveté may help. One shouldn’t be too jaded and world weary or it will show.

Being able to memorise your lines so you're not tripping over them when you're being that other person.

I don't think it's any one particular element. I think it's an overall sense of how well do you 'believe the illusion' presented to you. And that's almost entirely subjective.

The ability to be a chameleon.

To me, if an actor is really good, I can't recognize who they are (as a person) across roles. Bad or mediocre actors usually play versions of themselves and I can locate a strong through line.

Trauma. Seriously.

A willingness to put out.

I don’t agree with the chameleon or introverts or anything because the biggest and longest enduring beloved actors were all one character playing different characters.

I would rather be an actor like Marlene Dietrich than Daniel Day Lewis if that makes sense to anyone.

The question was "What makes one a good actor?", r11, not "What makes one one of the biggest and longest enduring beloved actors?"

It’s a mixture of unselfconsciousness and complete control.

[quote]What makes a good actor?

Round, smooth buttocks.

[quote] To me, if an actor is really good, I can't recognize who they are (as a person) across roles. Bad or mediocre actors usually play versions of themselves and I can locate a strong through line.

I've never really bought into this line of thinking at all. All actors are essentially playing some version of themselves through all their characters. Many of the greatest have said in interviews that's exactly what they're doing. I think this idea became sort of glorified after the "New Hollywood" of the 70s, but even then most of those actors, even the one's thought of as "chameleons", are still bringing a great deal of themselves to every role to the point where you can certainly recognize it. And that's why many buy a ticket, and that's why they get cast.

[quote] I don’t agree with the chameleon or introverts or anything because the biggest and longest enduring beloved actors were all one character playing different characters.

Bingo. In fact, that's what most of the greatest did - you built a signature look, sound, image, etc. and that's what grabbed the public, and that's why you were cast. Even post-1970s, there's still quite an element of that running through most of the big names.

A good actor erases himself and adopts the characteristics of, immerses himself in, the role he's performing. If all an actor does is repeat various elements of his own personality, as R15 stated "built a signature look, sound, image, etc. and that's what grabbed the public, and that's why you were cast", that's not acting, that's performing. In recent years, American actors are by and large performers, not actors, the principle reason producers seek actors offshore for their films.

A theatre actor needs professional skills.

A screen performer needs no skills because the director and editor do all the hard work.

[quote] A good actor erases himself and adopts the characteristics of, immerses himself in, the role he's performing.

To a certain degree, yes, but no actor, no matter how good or trained, completely erases themselves entirely. There's always some little element(s) of the actual person there. I think the point is whether they can take those elements of themselves and work them into a character to the point of believability. You have to start with some foundation - what is on the page, and what you bring to it...hence, why you are cast. This has been said by so many actors in multiple interviews.

[quote] If all an actor does is repeat various elements of his own personality, as [R15] stated "built a signature look, sound, image, etc. and that's what grabbed the public, and that's why you were cast", that's not acting, that's performing.

Uh, have you seen a film before 1970? Do you know anything about the history of Hollywood, the MGM star-making department, Vaudeville, etc.?

In the end, it's a subjective artform. No one person gets to decide for everyone what is "acting" vs. what is "performing". The idea that either word is being used against the other is outright silly, as it all overlaps. You could argue all actors are performing (by definition), and all performers (regardless the type) are engaging in some form of acting.

[quote] American actors are by and large performers, not actors, the principle reason producers seek actors offshore for their films.

Now that's just silly, and not even true.

I was told many years ago by an actor friend that to be a good actor you must have no problem making yourself look silly in front of other people.

R18

[quote] Do you know anything about the history of Hollywood, the MGM star-making department, Vaudeville, etc.?

Robert Redford versus Charles Laughton. Or Jack Nicholson versus Robert Donat. Performers who rehash themselves over and over again versus actors who immerse themselves in character.

[quote]No one person gets to decide for everyone what is "acting" vs. what is "performing".

That decision is made every time anyone views a memorable job of acting. Those actors who bring their characters to the pinnacle of life that remains engraved in memory long after the credits have rolled. Hopkins bravura acting job in The Father is one example of an actor and the genius of his craft. Guinness in The Bridge on the River Kwai. Fishburne in Othello. I'm sure you have plenty of your own examples of actors who moved far beyond performance to acting greatness.

[quote] Now that's just silly, and not even true.

According to reports about American actors complaining that their jobs are being taken by Brits and Aussies it is.

1. Be able to present hole on demand;

2. To work on the cock sucking abilities.

Acting seems to be one of the only artistic professions where a child can “inherit” the craft from their parents and grandparents and in some cases surpass them. I just do not really buy it. I think it’s simply a game of luck, being in the right place at the right time, and having the right look (fitting a certain type) having a little common sense and ability to mimic, imitate and study behaviours.

[quote] Robert Redford versus Charles Laughton. Or Jack Nicholson versus Robert Donat.

You're comparing actors from totally different eras in the industry, where the idea or measure or approach of acting had totally changed. Which is why I asked do you understand how Hollywood, and public perception, worked before the 70s.

[quote] Performers who rehash themselves over and over again versus actors who immerse themselves in character.

Again, subjective.

[quote] That decision is made every time anyone views a memorable job of acting.

And again, subjective. Sorry, but I don't buy into your whole "acting" vs "performing" thing.

[quote] According to reports about American actors complaining that their jobs are being taken by Brits and Aussies it is.

And yet plenty, if not most, American actors are working just fine. But the idea that they go overseas to get "real actors" and not just "performers" is just silly nonsense.

Sometimes I think an actor intently “listening” isn’t real, or natural. People usually talk while looking away.

It just comes to me naturally.

[quote]You're comparing actors from totally different eras in the industry, where the idea or measure or approach of acting had totally changed.

But that's exactly the point. Performing - memorize line, hit mark, deliver line - versus acting - imbuing yourself in the character and making it uniquely your own. Liv Ullmann described how she "borrowed" the character of Anne Frank when she played her on the stage as a young woman. Fucked if I can find the quote. But it perfectly illustrates the prep an actor undergoes in the practice of his craft.

[quote]But the idea that they go overseas to get "real actors" and not just "performers" is just silly nonsense.

"Silly nonsense" is subjective. They do. Especially producers/directors who attempt serious craft rather than another mindless franchise/remake.

[quote] Performing - memorize line, hit mark, deliver line -

LOL!!! Uh, "real actors" have to do all of that.

[quote] "Silly nonsense" is subjective. They do. Especially producers/directors who attempt serious craft rather than another mindless franchise/remake.

No, that's not actually subjective. It's just not true. You really think there are no "serious" American actors?

I’m just gonna leave this here

I think of Sally Field in "Places in the Heart" or Daniel Day Lewis in "There Will Be Blood" or Lou Gossett Jr. in "Officer and a Gentleman" or Vivian Leigh in " Gone with the Wind.

Great acting makes the viewer totally lose themselves in the story. It's almost a mystical thing blend of art and science from the actor during a performance. But for the viewer, it's a quantifiable thing. Thank God there are movies.

R27

[quote]No, that's not actually subjective

"Silly nonsense" is a value judgement. Subjective.

[quote]You really think there are no "serious" American actors.

Sure. You can count them on the fingers of one hand. The rest are as described in R20. Performers who rehash themselves over and over again. When has Jack Nicholson NOT played himself. Or Redford. Or Gosling. Or Pitt. In that, the Hollywood "system" remains alive and well. Sell the masses looks and charisma to get the asses in the seats. Acting ability/talent plays no part.

[quote] Uh, "real actors" have to do all of that.

R27 Except with performers, it's so obvious, it's cringeworthy. It's their entire acting repetoire.

Listen to a master explain it, OP.

R28 every time I see or hear Frank Langella I’m just like “oh he’s tired again”

R13 yes

The ability to respond impulsively. That is the one thing they need.

Insight also helps.

[quote] And yet plenty, if not most, American actors are working just fine.

If I'm reading that right I have to say that is just not so. Studies have shown that the percentage of actors who are actually making a living at it is just 2%.

R36 No, you didn't read it right.

Most actors are damaged and have identity issues. They get into acting as a form of therapy.

Violence.

To be forever young.

Even if I were the best actor in the world, I could never be successful because I cannot memorize lines.

R29. Please check your spelling.

Having the right "look" is more than half the battle.

The willingness and ability to lie on a couch and either suck a cock or get your hole(s) fucked endlessly.

If you've had a lot of trauma. You can tap.into anything after that. You become a chameleon.

Being able to pull this off......

[quote] Having the right "look" is more than half the battle.

You're talking about screen performers, not genuine actors.

[quote] You also have to be a good listener.

OP, this man agrees with you.

Nominations.

R46 That looks very familiar.....

I heard some of the most unlikely successful actors/actresses are due to them being masters at auditioning.

R35, your right about the impulsive aspect in performing. That's why most of us are crazy as fuck.

R48 and Meryl Streep said that too.

I think listening is a big part of it because a lot of actors “wait” to say their lines. Just like that scene from Pulp Fiction when they said some people listen to you speak, some people are just waiting for you to finish.

But I think it was Tom Hanks who said when he’s giving his lines to Meryl, she listens to them and pretends that it’s a real conversation as opposed to getting her lines out.

Money and narcissism

Narcissism.

Oh piffle, r28–

For you and r24 and r32, et al.

“Two takes. If you can’t nail the thing in two, then you’re pissing in the wind, I think...”

“REACH THE MAN at the back of the hall, and at the same time keep the intimacy for the first row...”

“Now it’s all down to timing. I could read the same line to you two or three different ways, and I pretty much guarantee you’d only remember one of the actual performances.[...]...the words, I think, are pretty much—I wouldn’t say, ‘immaterial’, but it is all about speech patterns, gaps that you leave, air that you take, that kind of thing.”

The best actors/actresses are not afraid to make fools of themselves.

They have to be good at micro expressions.

Hungry holes and family connections

You have to want to be the center of attention and have your physical appearance and voice scrutinized and criticized by people who don't care about you

There haven't been any good actors for the last 30 years.

100% commitment to the character, ability to inspire 100% belief within the viewer.