"...but is it interesting?"

HerzogisGod

HerzogisGod

Well-known member
Stanley Kubrick mentioned that while an actors performance may be emotionally perfect, if it isn't interesting, who cares.


This observation always stuck with me. It's a heavy statement and like most other things with Kubrick, is open to interpretation.

Just thought I'd throw it out there for some of you to comment on
 
That was my favorite part of that doc his daughter shot during The Shining, where Nicholson is talking about that same quote. Very much agree with the statement. I've tried to keep it in mind as part of my approach to directing.
 
Great quote. Kubrick was evidently a real actor-lover (in the best sense). The excellent bts/doc material on the "Eyes Wide Shut" DVD illustrated this as well, although mostly second-hand since he passed away before it was completed (the bts material anyway - not sure about the actual film).
 
All I know is...perception is reality when it comes to the performance. If the audience does not buy it...it don't matter. I think that is why there have to be directors in the first place. Someone has to say...nope...does not look real.
 
exactly...so what you're left with is the directors interpretation of "real". In Kubrick's case, he went for hyper-real, exaggerated performances.

In my opinion, it's always best to encourage actors to try something a little over the top. There's a certain "truth" and "interest" in over the top performances.

To clarify, over the top is not the same as over acting
 
To me, when I watch a performance (as a viewer) it begins with charisma, or I'd prefer to call stage presence.

For example, a performance from ZaZa Gabor vs. Arnold the Pig from Green Acres.
Okay, bad example. But you know those people, that are famous for being famous?
Not because of talent or ability?
Well, charisma or presense, whatever. Can't act though.

Now, the word charisma I don't like because it implies a genetic advantage, while true it's still not enough, or even definitive. Stage presence I'll stick with. Learned or bred, either way, one should have some.

Anyone can say a line. But when someone like Steve Buscemi sais the same line, looking the same way, with no facial emotion, what's the difference between him saying it and me saying it? His tone of voice? Delivery? Timing? Just the way he looks? The way the muscles move on his face when he speaks? Body movement (?), which we'll discount here. Maybe a combination of everything? His tone of voice. His register. His delivery. ect.

Michele above is really good. So she'd know more than me about that. But, I don't know, it's an interesting question anyways.
 
Last edited:
HerzogisGod said:
exactly...so what you're left with is the directors interpretation of "real". In Kubrick's case, he went for hyper-real, exaggerated performances.
Click to expand...

Well, I kind of hope the director has an idea of how he wants it to come across to the audience if it is over the top or not. I do see what you mean...

Raptor365 said:
To me, when I watch a performance (as a viewer) it begins with charisma, or I'd prefer to call stage presence.

Michele above is really good. So she'd know more than me about that. But, I don't know, it's an interesting question anyways.
Click to expand...

ok..I admit it...I like watching a funny movie with J-Lo in it...and because she has that charm but I would not call her a strong serious actress even though she has pulled off at least one good serious part.

as for the flat read...one actor makes me cringe with that but I don't mind when Busemi does it because i have seem him do some other stuff that was not all like that. and there are your 'flat' people out there that need prepresenting in film too and I am not talking 'no boobies' lol did i type that....
 
"Interesting" is a big, huge subjective word.

Paul Thomas Anderson takes the bull by the horns, creating characters that are so over the top and exaggerated they become mythic.

Danial Plainview from "There Will be Blood" comes to mind. Frank Mackey from "Magnolia"

Anderson is a student of Kubrick and this philosophy of "interesting" over "accurate" performances

Of course, these performances are accurate, just not in a common way
 
I was always taught that good acting, as well as screenwriting and filmmaking in general, are best fed by "extraordinary circumstances", or the like. While watching ordinary characters do ordinary things can on rare occasions be extraordinary, it's certainly not the stuff most good films are made of. Thus drama/conflict/great acting performances almost by definition exist within the framework of unusual situations. It's pretty hard to think of a widely acknowledged "great movie" that isn't this way, and Kubrick's films are certainly no exception. So it should start with an "interesting" script, but in any case better actors will bring something at least a little extraordinary to that particular character and situation and use it to make the scene more interesting.

As far as the brilliant (IMO) Steve Buscemi is concerned, he exemplifies all the above to near-perfection. He's one of those actors who could read a Chinese take-out menu and have you riveted. One of the very best character actors of recent times, for my money...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top