Hi Aju
I think evaluating an actor’s performance is highly subjective, but the first thing that came to mind is that I would look at the context of the performance—specifically what type of performance is required in the film. For example, I don’t think The New World doesn’t depend heavily on the story or the characters. The physical qualities of the actors are almost more important than the acting, per se, imo because Malick uses them visually to convey ideas and explore themes. So having the right look is almost more important than acting ability. (I think Q’orianka Kilcher was an amateur, and she really didn’t act much in the film,imo, but she was effective nevertheless.) So my point is that I think we should evaluate a performance within the context of a film. (This might not be so helpful, but I’m going to throw this out there anyway.)
@ Jazz
Thank you very much for the response. And you are spot on with what you said abt The New World. But still, the question remains open- because, most actors imo do accomplish the required ‘performance to the context’, you said,
“Q’orianka Kilcher was an amateur, and she really didn’t act much in the film,imo, but she was effective nevertheless”
She did justice to her character (perfectly suiting the context), but what are the drawbacks that you found in her performance. (just to clarify)
I mean, what exactly do you count as the proper ingredients for acting?
An open question to all Mubians too.
Sorry if I’m bothering you. But these kind of questions have been pestering me for quite a long time.
@Aju
She did justice to her character (perfectly suiting the context), but what are the drawbacks that you found in her performance. (just to clarify)
I don’t think there were drawbacks as much as we didn’t get to see very much acting, imo. My feeling is that Malick limited what he wanted from her, so we don’t see really see her skill—but, at the same time, we don’t see her weaknesses, either. (This happened to some extent with the lead character in Soderbergh’s Haywire, too, imo.)
I mean, what exactly do you count as the proper ingredients for acting?
I don’t know about “proper ingredients,” but in the context of this discussion, I would say that some roles and films allow actors to demonstrate more of their abilities. Off the top of my head, I would say character driven films are like this, and when an actor does well, it can at least seem more impressive—i.e., it shows that they’re great actors. On the other hand, I think this can be quite misleading. Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman or Daniel Day Lewis have starred in character-driven films—ones that call for dramatic changes in their behavior and appearance and that by itself creates the sense that they’re great acting. A part of me feels like this type of transformation (e.g., De Niro losing and gaining a lot of weight) is a little superficial. Or if an actor willingly does something that requires courage (e.g. Monica Bellucci in Irreveresible).
In terms of great acting, I tend to think of words like “natural” and “subtle.” I also think about communicating feelings and thoughts imperceptibly. But again, the acting depends on the context.
Sorry if I’m bothering you. But these kind of questions have been pestering me for quite a long time.
Not at all. That’s what we’re here for. :)
So how is it that you evaluate a performance…
Since there are no standards for acting, I don’t. The performance either resonates or it doesn’t. I might be more interested in how the character factors into the narrative.
@Robert
Since there are no standards for acting, I don’t.
Perhaps there aren’t any standards for acting, but couldn’t we identify general qualities of good and bad acting? For example, if we looked at acting amateurs (say high school students) and compared them to professionals, you don’t think we would be able to point out differences that could serve as general criteria and principles for good acting?
Well, in that case it is generally a lack of experience – so it wouldn’t tell me much.
Was Michelle Williams’s acting in Meek’s Cutoff the performance of a lifetime?
“Rod” Steiger thought his performance in The Pawnbroker was the best of his career – can that be established?
There are too many other factors i.e. script, direction etc.
Well, in that case it is generally a lack of experience – so it wouldn’t tell me much.
Lack of experience is not something that manifests itself directly in a performance. We see qualities we associate with a bad performance and we associate that with inexperience; we don’t see “inexperience,” right? Plus, an inexperienced actor can deliver a good performance, just as an experienced actor can deliver a bad performance.
So I’m talking about these qualities we associate with good and bad performances. I’ll give the first example that comes to mind. A bad performance is characterized by underlying the emotions—as if the actor is almost telling the audience, “Look, the character is now sad.” The expression of emotions is too obvious and therefore unnatural and ineffective. (We’re speaking in general terms here, as some films may require an exaggerated performance.) Good acting isn’t like this—the expression of a character’s emotions are more reserved than what we see in amateurs. (Then again, I also think this acting in the theater is different from film—where expression of emotion in theater acting may be more exaggerated relative to film acting. For the purposes of this thread, I’m referring to film acting.) How about that for a start?
Was Michelle Williams’s acting in Meek’s Cutoff the performance of a lifetime?
“Rod” Steiger thought his performance in The Pawnbroker was the best of his career – can that be established?
It sounds like you’re talking about distinguishing a great performance from a good one. That can be tricky, so can we start with something easier—i.e., differentiating good from bad performances?
“differentiating good from bad performances?”
Since a performance in a film is a part of a whole (the film), wouldn’t this be a matter or the performance’s relationship to the totality of the film? Might there not be things that characterized a good performance in one film that might also characterize a bad performance in another?
Since a performance in a film is a part of a whole (the film), wouldn’t this be a matter or the performance’s relationship to the totality of the film? Might there not be things that characterized a good performance in one film that might also characterize a bad performance in another?
Yes. I think I mentioned the importance of context earlier. Still, I think we can speak in general terms—maybe specific to certain types of film. For example, what constitutes a good performance in a drama.
Elias, Aju
Hello Mubians!
I just wanted to have an open discussion on performances, and how you evaluate them. I don’t know if it is subjective, but sometimes it is puzzling. Here’s an instance. I watched one of Malick’s wonderful works-‘The New World’, a few weeks ago, and I really loved the whole film. But when I went into some forums, I saw a lot of hate comments, and criticism, saying that Colin Ferrell ruined the movie, (but which I still don’t take).
Another example that just came to my mind was the role performed by Lucy Dee in ‘American Gangster’ (Mama Lucas). Of course there’s nothing at all wrong with her acting, but honestly, her character was not so important or much ‘involved’, taking into consideration the whole film. But surprisingly or not, she got nominated for the oscars for ‘best supporting role’, that year, and I’m wondering….still wondering…..HOW?
So how is it that you evaluate a performance ( I wish that you would share your way of analysis) and please do share your valuable thoughts.