Acting Style For The Era

Very interesting. Wes Anderson also comes to mind when talking about repressed, traumatized acting styles.
 
While there are some interesting observations in the article, the author is confusing technique with style. All flavors of the American method (Strasberg, Meisner, Adler, Hagen etc.) which are based on Stanislavski's method, are techniques not styles. While it is true that certain techniques serve certain styles better than others, indeed Stanislavski developed his method to serve the plays of Anton Chekhov, and the Group Theater adopted Stanislavski's method to serve the plays of Clifford Odetts, they are not inherently stylistic.
 
Last edited:
rayortiz313 said:
Cool article but its been generally understood for a while that cinema favors subdued acting.

This is gold:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBzReBMU2s8
Click to expand...

Love that presentation - Michael Caine is such a thoughtful, smart, knowlegeable person! I also found it an interesting if somewhat depressing exercise. It reflects what I've generally gathered through the years, and had confirmed to me by a couple directors in personal converstion: most aspiring actors are just not very good, and no amount of training will make them acceptably good. Talent is rare, including acting talent. Odds that a single person out of an acting class will ever give a decent performance are pretty remote. The vast majority of such classes are wasted on the students. You either pay for a pro, or you are taking a huge chance on an unknown. Most microbudget indies have no money, so they are condemned to use marginal actors - and the result is that the biggest weakness of such productions is poor acting. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. A director can work with an actor and help their performance, but if the actor has no inherent ability, it's not going to work. Of course, there are talented unknowns, but it's a matter of statistics - they're rare. Which is why producers are willing to pay silly money for stars - they're a rare commodity.

This class by Michael Caine is on point. All the students are awful. And their perfomances don't improve much if at all, even though it is Michael Caine teaching them. I admire Michael Caine for picking random aspiring actors instead of doing a demonstration with seasoned actors - it's more real that way. It also unfortunately illustrates the reality that talent is rare.
 
"Most aspiring actors are just not very good, and no amount of training will make them acceptably good. Talent is rare, including acting talent. Odds that a single person out of an acting class will ever give a decent performance are pretty remote. The vast majority of such classes are wasted on the students. You either pay for a pro, or you are taking a huge chance on an unknown. Most microbudget indies have no money, so they are condemned to use marginal actors - and the result is that the biggest weakness of such productions is poor acting. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."

There is so much in here that I disagree with. I've made four indie feature films and have worked with plenty of amazing actors - 95% of them non-sag btw. I've studied acting for over a decade and saw great acting over and over in classes. I'm about to do a new feature with a guy playing the co-lead who only has two semesters of acting classes under his belt but has plenty of talent. And is right for the part. Sure - i also saw plenty of acting in classes that was not inspiring. "pay for a pro." Sure there are gonna be things that someone who works a lot is going to be better at - than someone without that experience under their belt - but as warhol said once - "success is what sells." The big shot producer wants the big shot actor as much for market forces as for talent. Anyway - Plenty of amazing actors out there - but as a director do you know how to work with them and let them shine?
 
kevin baggott said:
"Most aspiring actors are just not very good, and no amount of training will make them acceptably good. Talent is rare, including acting talent. Odds that a single person out of an acting class will ever give a decent performance are pretty remote. The vast majority of such classes are wasted on the students. You either pay for a pro, or you are taking a huge chance on an unknown. Most microbudget indies have no money, so they are condemned to use marginal actors - and the result is that the biggest weakness of such productions is poor acting. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."

There is so much in here that I disagree with. I've made four indie feature films and have worked with plenty of amazing actors - 95% of them non-sag btw. I've studied acting for over a decade and saw great acting over and over in classes. I'm about to do a new feature with a guy playing the co-lead who only has two semesters of acting classes under his belt but has plenty of talent. And is right for the part. Sure - i also saw plenty of acting in classes that was not inspiring. "pay for a pro." Sure there are gonna be things that someone who works a lot is going to be better at - than someone without that experience under their belt - but as warhol said once - "success is what sells." The big shot producer wants the big shot actor as much for market forces as for talent. Anyway - Plenty of amazing actors out there - but as a director do you know how to work with them and let them shine?
Click to expand...

I sincerely would love to agree with you. What's not to like? Great actors everywhere you turn - fantastic for low budget directors or folks just starting out. Where can I sign up to live in your world - it's absolutely lovely! Now, maybe you've worked with "amazing" non-sag actors, and have seen "great acting in classes over and over" - I wasn't there, so I can't contradict you. It certainly can happen. There have been movies made with non-pro actors who were just amazing. I've seen such movies. I've also read about folks who won the lottery. Never met one in my own life, but maybe I'm not lucky that way. Or maybe winning the lottery is just statistically rare, your experience notwithstanding.

I mean, why is it exactly that most tiny indie efforts feature dreadful acting - compared to professional productions using pro actors? What accounts for that, if talent is so thick on the ground that you throw a stick and hit ten "amazing actors". Or maybe I need new glasses and I should realize that all those performances I call "poor" are actually down to " "success is what sells." The big shot producer wants the big shot actor as much for market forces as for talent." I mean producers are pretty unsentimental on the whole - they pay big money for very concrete reasons - an actor who is able to carry a movie, open a movie, someone people are eager to watch. That's not something you can always control. Either you have that screen presence or you don't. Now, perhaps you see that kind of ability to open movies, carry movies and screen presence as dime a dozen, but then that would make producers pretty stupid if they obsessed over a particular few to pay huge money instead of grabbing one of those "amazing" actors who litter the floor of every acting class. Or maybe - such talent is... rare. And so - costly.

I don't know. One could say "Plenty of amazing actors out there - but as a director do you know how to work with them and let them shine?" - but if that were so, every director out there, no matter how tiny a production would work their fingers to the bone to allow his/her actors to shine on the level of stars - I mean, who wouldn't want such amazing talent in their movies. And yet - it very, very, very rarely happens. Perhaps then it is the directors who are rare - those directors who can unleash amazing performances out of any old actor. One or the other must be rare. My money - having witnessed many such attempts - is on it being the amazing actor who is rare. For that matter this very link to Michael Caine's class is an object lesson in the failure of instruction to create a passable - let alone amazing - performance from actors who just don't happen to be amazing talents. I'm sure a talent can be developed (f.ex. in acting classes) - but it must be there to begin with, and that is rare, IMHO.

Again, I don't know you or your films, so you may be 100% accurate in your experiences. If you are so lucky, I congratulate you. I just go by my own observations and the statistical truths I've been able to glean throughout the years. I rather think like the other poster said "most aspiring anything are not very good".
 
OldCorpse said:
I rather think like the other poster said "most aspiring anything are not very good".
Click to expand...
While I find this to be true, you're characterization of acting classes shows a great ignorance. Acting classes run the gamut from beginner technique classes to advanced scene study and advanced techniques such as animalizations. And most of the latter are a mix of non SAG members and working professionals. And the working professionals are not always the most talented. Getting work, ie: selling yourself, is a specialized talent that has little to do with your given talent at an art or craft. Sandford Meisner used to say "Take two actors of equal talent. One is successful, one isn't. Why is that." It's a question he left you to sort out on your own. You also don't seem to understand how actors make progress. It rarely comes in leaps and bounds but rather in realizations from fleeting moments. And usually it takes a trained eye to see the penny drop. The beginning actors in the Michael Caine video are learning technique not giving a performance.
 
I'm not sure where there's disagreement - after all, as I said "I'm sure acting talent can be developed (f.ex. in acting classes)". And the followup "but it must be there to begin with [talent], and that is rare IMHO". Or is the disagreement that talent is rare (in the words of Kevin "plenty of amazing actors")? Seems pretty uncontroversial. Classes in anything - or schools for that matter - will have the vast majority of students never developing a talent, because talent is rare: painting academies as much as writing classes - maybe one in 10K or fewer go on to display great talent. It's no different with acting classes.

"Take two actors of equal talent. One is successful, one isn't. Why is that." - seems to me a bit silly. I mean, it's a truism that in any field anywhere you don't have 100% of the people reach their full potential. There are surely people who don't reach success despite their talent. That's hardly a big insight, we all know that. We're talking about something different, which the Meisner quote elides - not about why a given actor does not become successful (Sanford Meisner's word). Rather, why is it so rare that we see good actors on screen, period. That's not the same thing. Because what Meisner is implying is what Kevin is stating outright - the ability to sell yourself is what sets these two apart. Yet, that is clearly not what I'm getting at. And it's very easy to prove: if the reason that we don't have more talented actors on screen is not because talent is rare, but because there are hords ("plenty") of actors who are talented but just don't know how to sell themselves... then we wouldn't see such heavily skewed talent numbers in the small indie movie world acting vs pro actors. If talent is not what distinguishes them, then you should see an equal number of talented actors in tiny productions as in pro production - because presumably the pro guys know how to sell themselves and the tiny production actors - equally talented, just aren't good at selling themselves. Those hopelessly bad peformances of actors in tiny productions are not due to lack of exposure - they got their chance... there they are on the screen!... they're just BAD performers with no talent. After all, many "successful" actors start in exactly the same tiny productions, shoulder to shoulder with the no-talents, except they are GOOD peformers with talent, and so are picked up and go on further to pro status. This is not about not getting through the casting process of a pro production, due to lack of self-promotion skills and poor audition skills. This is about doing the work on the screen in a tiny production, and blowing it right there on screen - they have had their moment to shine, but they didn't shine, which is really the deciding factor. If an actor shines in a tiny production, they very often go on to more roles and a career, but the question remains: why are the rest of the performers in those tiny production so often so bad - compared to pro productions? The big productions simply skim the cream from the top of the tiny films. That's how they end up with a concentration of scarce talent, while small productions can't afford that process. That's because talent is rare - or else you would see it regularly in tiny productions - which are notable for deficiencies in the acting department compared to pro productions. Same of course for everyone else - DPs, directors, special effects people etc. - the good/talented move on to pro status and bigger productions. It's not a perfect process - talented folks can disappear, and hacks can get careers, but we are talking about numbers. On the whole, tiny productions have a lower concentration of talent across the board - compared to pro productions. That's because of scarcity - talent is rare.

Again, this is not a knock on acting classes. Like piano lessons, they are critical. But just as millions of piano students the world over don't have what it takes to become concert pianists, so too here. And no amount of piano lessons or acting classes or painting instructors are going to turn the vast majority of average students into top performers, because the limiting factor is potential. Some have it, most don't.
 
I'm curious oldcorpse - Have you worked with actors before - in a rehearsal setting? Have you ever studied acting or directing - let's say more than a semester?
 
I've worked with actors extensively. I've produced small independent films, and I have directed shorts. I have worked with actors also on the business side (in a talent agency). I've been in many rehearsals, auditions, and I have even acted in 1 small feature and several shorts. I have huge respect for actors, and I have never underestimated what it takes to carry a movie. Furthermore, based on my experiences working in an agency as well as producing, I am convinced that actors are worth every penny they can get. That said, I have not studied acting in a formal setting (I've taken a couple of acting classes years and years ago, so I don't count that as "study"), and I don't count reading books, watching movies and going to theater for casting purposes (all of which I have done), as qualifying as "study" either. I am definitely not an actor.

My view of the acting talent distribution is based on having been through - many times - the casting process where actors are selected (both myself and with directors), having sat in on (many) auditions, working with directors and finding actors for productions. And my conviction is that talent is rare, and even when present it takes a variety of forms. There are excellent actors who can play bit parts, but who cannot carry a movie. There are actors whose technique is actually fairly poor, but who have a screen presence that is quite magnetic, and worth paying for to have in your movie. There are actors who have everything, but a fatal flaw prevents them from reaching their potential (I'm thinking specifically of one actor whom I've come across recently who was fantastic in every way, except he had a ridiculous voice). And so on. In short, actors and acting "are a land of contrasts" :)

Let me also make clear that I don't doubt your experiences - you find talented actors quite plentiful - and I can only congratulate you on your perspective.
 
OldCorpse said:
no amount of piano lessons or acting classes or painting instructors are going to turn the vast majority of average students into top performers, because the limiting factor is potential. Some have it, most don't.
Click to expand...
This is hardly a big insight. We all know that.
 
rsbush said:
This is hardly a big insight. We all know that.
Click to expand...

When y'all say "talent," are you talking about something inborn, that you can't change? If so, I actually disagree. I'm a big fan of Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000-hour rule.

Please note that to keep posts from looking like End User License Agreements, they should be interpreted for gist, for what is true 80% of the time. In this case, for example, yes, I agree that there is such a thing as talent, that some people seem to have more innate ability for certain specific things. But I think it is, to steal from Edison, 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.

Bad acting I tend to blame on the director. Most of the cringe-worthy scenes I've seen appear to me to be over-directed.

  • If you have a decent script, a director can end up with a passable scene by just getting out of the way. Run through the scene and let the actors find an interpretation that feels natural, maybe encouraging them in what is good. They might not take chances, they might not be brilliant, but I don't think they would be remarkably bad. You shoot it with straightforward, simple, non-fancy camera coverage, and edit it together in a simple, obvious way. The audience might think this movie is kind of boring, but I don't think they will say, "Ugh, that is bad acting." Two quotes come to mind: Howard Hawks defined a good director as "someone who doesn't annoy you," and then someone else who said something like, "This script is so good it could only be ruined by a 'talented' director."*

  • Again, the movies where the acting is so bad that the movie's not just kind of boring but that even nontechnical audience members say, "That was bad acting," I think are usually actually overwrought directing. Like the director has clearly told the actors to really ham it up, probably doing several takes to get them there, "No, I mean really, really, really be an annoying nerd. Okay, take 47...." Or where the director is highly visual, doing all these different, ornate shots, but he chopped it up so much that the actors act unnaturally. He had them say just a line or two per camera angle, so the acting doesn't flow together.

  • If you're talking about a brilliant movie with outstanding acting, then yes, I think that can only come when you have talented actors.

But I think most of the indie movies with bad acting you talk about are bad because: (a) chaotic sets, because one guy is doing everything; (b) bad production design [see (a)], (c) bad script with lines so bad that even Sir Laurence Olivier couldn't wrap his tongue around them, (d) bad directing, where the director is trying to be artistic and is forcing the actors to jump through hoops for some emotional or visual result in his mind, and (e) non-actors: there's a difference between a disciplined and experienced but unexceptional actor, and your mom (unless your mom is an experienced actor).

* That's not to say that you can't be a good director if you go for fancy camera moves or over-the-top acting. See the Coen Brothers, Robert Zemeckis, Peter Jackson, and others.

---

After reading the thread more closely, I wonder if the disagreement is partly from bisecting instead of trisecting. If, like OldCorpse, you're talking about "amazing" acting, then yes, this is the exclusive realm of talented talent. I think Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, and other international stars are rare, and that if they weren't actors they would still strike me in some way as exceptional personalities. Tom Cruise, at least, is very physically striking, no matter what you say about his acting.

And if you're talking about "bad" acting, then I stand by my assertion that if acting that is so bad that it catches the attention of general audiences, then the script and director are mostly to blame. However, I think there is a middle ground where everything is "fine." In fact if the script and director are both superb then audiences will love the movie, even if the actors are just average (but still professional, disciplined and have a decent amount of experience).

So, if we're talking about three levels --- bad, fine, and amazing --- then maybe we can find common ground. If we're only going to say an actor is "bad" or "amazing" then it's going to be hard.
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
When y'all say "talent," are you talking about something inborn, that you can't change? If so, I actually disagree. I'm a big fan of Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000-hour rule.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I believe we are born with innate abilities. If you don't have "it" (whatever it is) no amount of work will get "it" for you. That being said, I also believe you need to be a fanatic about the work to reach your potential. Gladwell's 10,000 hours is just scratching the surface. In the acting world there's the saying, "It takes 20 years to become a good actor."

But other than that, in spirit, I pretty much agree with everything you're saying. I would add that a lot of sub-par acting comes from actors trying too hard.

Like Kevin Baggott, I'm of the opinion that there is a lot of talent out there. You just need to know where and how to look for it. It seems to me that Old Corpse is only willing to call the exceptionally talented, talented.
 
Last edited:
'I'm of the opinion that there is a lot of talent out there. You just need to know where and how to look for it. It seems to me that Old Corpse is only willing to call the exceptionally talented, talented.'

aaahhhhhhhh - like water those three sentences. Applause!
 
There are two quotes that come to mind in regards to this discussion;
"Don't understand me too quickly." Andre Gide
"It's as hard to read a good book as it is to write one." Cocteau.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top