black coat, glasses and gun

daniel day lewis.

i thought that was you! :thumbsup

You
Me
Justin
Reality show
Let's go

bruce willis

I was reading through this thread and wanted to add that an actor often does more than just stand in one spot and recite their lines. They need to be able to move and hit the designated marks for the camera.

The shot calls for you to enter a room walk over to a desk and pick up something, pause, then walk to another spot in the room then walk to another spot. Getting it just right for the cameras and lighting is one thing but add dialogue and interaction with another actor and it can get pretty complex.

I think for a few gifted people acting comes easy and it's also something that can be taught. However some will just never get it. One thing to remember is the casting agents are always looking for the right person for the job so if you have the right stuff the door is often open.

If it comes down to you and a few other actors for the job then that " X " factor comes into play and that sets that person apart from the others. It really helps to have something that makes you stand out in the room.

How hard is acting. For some it's easy for some it's hard and for some it's impossible. You'll never know what it is for you until you give it a try :thumbsup

i'm in! fixed the cast list for ya!1:winkwink:
good info, ty!

I'd say maybe 90-95% of the roles in movies if not more should be easy to act, even amongst leading roles. When it's playing relatively straightforward characters, even if they're not the kind of person you are, you can draw upon movies you've seen, people you know, etc. in order to act the part.

It's the more bizarre roles I think that can be harder to do, because there's a fine line between being realistically bizarre and overacting or seeming fake. Additionally I could see how roles in movies that are plain weird, even if they are kind of straightforward roles, would be tough too. With that said, a couple of roles off the top of my head that I'd think were difficult were Christian Bale in American Psycho and Guy Pierce in Memento (his character has a lot of straightforward traits but in the bizarre context of the movie, there's a lot that needs to be kept in mind with every scene...or in his case kept OUT of mind :P).

That said, there's also roles that may not have been THAT difficult, but there's a difference between doing it well and doing it damn near perfectly. Like I'm not really sure I'd consider Edward Norton's role in Primal Fear THAT hard even though many others would...he essentially plays 2 characters in 1 and they're pretty straightforward. However, I think he fucking nailed it better than most actors could have IMO.

So it's a combo of difficulty of role and good vs. great vs. perfect acting of it, plus the variety of roles people choose (lack of variety of roles makes some otherwise good actors kind of overrated IMO...almost like you know they're pretty much acting as themselves or a part of themselves in every movie, which is easier than branching out).

Good point...the physical stuff beyond manneurisms does often get overlooked.

Give yourself a little try. Pick some lines from a movie you like, memorize them then stand in the mirror and say them.

It is one thing to repeat them, it is another all together to say them and sound natural as you do it.

Chances are you will sound fake as you say the lines. Getting to a place where you can say the lines and sound sincere and natural is the hardest part.

good info, ty. i was actually thinking of this along different lines, for instance, javier bardem in no country- a weird role that he played to perfection just standing there delivering the lines. any thoughts?

you talking to me?
http://rohanmanoharlovetobe.files.wo...me-5000052.jpg

:1orglaugh (i've done this!lolz)

Wow...you brought up the other role I was going to bring up, and a point I was ironically going to post about on the NCFOM board on IMDb. Javier won the oscar for that role, and I think that role was an example of an oscar-worthy ROLE...i.e. there'd be a good chance that a significant # of actors who played that role could have at least been nominated if not won simply because it was an awesome character and the standout role in an awesome movie.

That said, he did play it to perfection and was very believable so HE was certainly deserving of the oscar as much as the role itself helped him get it. I honestly haven't seen him in anything else but I would guess that he doesn't NORMALLY play those kinds of roles either which made it that much better.

That's another thing with actors. Like to me, Julia Roberts picks pretty standard roles all the time...her characters may as well be named "Woman" in all her movies because that's her role. On the other hand, a Reese Witherspoon, Natalie Portman, Brittany Murphy (RIP) or other actress that chooses a variety of good roles will lead me to believe they're better actresses. I can't fault Julia...she has defined that role for herself and gets paid absolute gobs of money so I'm sure she thinks naysayers can suck it, but I'm just not going to respect her that much.

I'll probably get some flack for this, but Brad Pitt to be is an underrated actor...people keep seeing him for his looks and for some roles that he does that are similar to each other, but the fact is the guy picks GREAT movies to be in and generally gets the memorable roles and doesn't generally suck in them. Keanu Reeves is similar and while I think he has had some droll performances, I wouldn't doubt some of that was due to poor direction or script (it's not like he'd have adlibbed "I know kung fu" and I don't think there's any way to believably say that shitty line in that context, lol). He acts respectably in a lot of his more dramatic performances but they just happen to be in the lesser popular movies he's done.

right on, a well-written role makes the difference in this case. i meant to add earlier, bale in american psycho was xcllnt and that was not a well-written role or well-done movie for that matter. he pulled it off. even the voice-over, which usually drives me crazy :thumbsup

That movie was pretty damn odd, but he made it not only watchable but actually entertaining, and I agree...the voice-over was actually spot on for it.

Another good acting performance IMO was Adam Sandler in Punch-Drunk Love. I not only had some of the tendencies his character did in the movie in my early adulthood but know at least a couple people similar to that, and while he's obviously a bit of a quirky guy anyways, I doubt he's endured the same issues his character did in that movie and I thought he pulled it off spot-on. I encourage people who are tired of his other kinds of movies to watch that because I think they'd be surprised. In general I think it's a pretty underrated movie...probably doesn't outshine Magnolia (hard to since that's epic and PDL is literally about half the length) but still pretty good.

Along the same lines was Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine...kind of similar to Guy Pierce in Memento in that the oddity of the movie makes the role more difficult but I think in addition to that he pulled off the shyness of the character pretty well given he's Jim Carrey, lol. Just because he generally does only funny slapstick roles doesn't mean he can't act when he's had the chance to. Kate Winslet did just about as well and was another actress I was trying to think of in my last post in terms of someone branching out in roles vs. picking the same standard role over and over.

i will have to queue up punch drunk love, i'm not really a sandler fan but would be interested to see how he pulls off a role that's not adam sandler. :thumbsup

For me it is the difference between an actor and a movie star. Julia Roberts is a movie star. People go see her movies because they like her and want to see her basically play the same role over and over again. Others that come to mind that are like this are Harrison Ford, Bruce Willis, Cameron Diaz to some extent and people like that. I like some of these people and like some of the movies they have done but basically they play the same role over and over again and their charm and charisma have made them stars. Whereas someone like Pitt, DiCaprio, Streep, Foster and Nicholson tend to try to pick good movies and good roles and there work has made them a star.

johny depp

Agreed. Deep has pulled something off that only a select few ever have. He has always walked to the beat of his own drum and taken roles he liked in movies he wanted to make and eventually the mainstream came to him where most actors do it just the opposite. They get popular then try to branch out into other types of roles.

Either way, Deep is one of the greats.

That's a good way to put it.

Bruce Willis is a good example...I do think he can be good in the less mainstream roles he does, but have to admit in my all-time fave movie The 5th Element (guilty pleasure x 1000...just love the shit out of that movie for whatever reason :P), he pretty much plays Bruce Willis. It's the broad spectrum of roles and elements of that movie that make his role in it actually work quite well compared to usual action flicks of his.

I guess like women sometimes just feeling in the mood for a Julia Roberts flick (why I have no clue...I'd rather hear nails on a chalkboard), guys sometimes feel in the mood for a Bruce Willis, Sly Stallone etc. kind of flick, which is why despite the Expendables probably being a shitty movie/obvious moneygrab for all involved, it still made over $30 mil opening weekend.

Actors are just pricks stuck up their own egos who think they are gods own son's. Actors should all be made to do a days real work on a building site/hospital/barracks/(insert just about any job going except resurant work) before being allowed an Equity card and once a year they have to do another real days work to keep their card.



This will become law when i'm finally made emperor.

I'll be honest...I miss "normal" Depp. He was perfectly fine in the Nick of Time kind of roles or even Secret Window and now it seems like he's always (insert quirky character) in the next (insert probably cool family flick based off of something not new). Granted I never did see the Wonka remake or Alice remake, but I figured I already saw them when I saw the couple of Pirates movies I saw. I guess I'm just worried that while it was a unique and cool side of him that he was capable of interesting roles like a Jack Sparrow, it's now become a gimmick (albeit a huge moneymaking one) and I think he's better and more artistic than that.

I think being good looking has a lot to do with it, and not just for the obvious reasons.

When you are attractive, it seems your face can transmit a much more varied number of subtle cues that come through without any confusion as to what they mean. This may be a bit hard to explain. But think of a really attractive woman, she can do a little look with her eyes that says so much. Average or ugly girls can't do that. Same with guys. An attractive guy can easily pull of a quick, sly smile. An ugly guy may not even be capable of producing that look without looking weird. Think about it.

There is something about an attractive face that makes it easier to read for the audience. I'm not sure if this has ever been studied before, but I'm pretty sure it's true.

Maybe it's not always an attractive face, but a face that can pull off those tiny cues that the audience reacts to almost subconsciously.

hmm, i've never thought about this. i wonder if this is something they teach in acting classes.

I disagree.

Simply put a good looking person is " attractive " even before they make any facial gesture. A bad looking person is " unattractive " and we are already turned off by their looks. They are already prejudged by their looks and that's how we first react to them.

We look at the pretty girls face because we are attracted to her beauty first not her mannerisms.

There are many great character actors with average looks like John C. Reily that do a fine job. The only time looks are important in acting is when the character requires them to be like playing a beauty queen.

any thoughts on the mico-facial expressions mentioned?

Probably my all time favorite Deep movie is Edward Scissorhands. He maybe had 10 line in the whole movie, but was flat out amazing with his movements, expressions etc.

I liked the first Pirates movie, thought the second one sucked and turned the third on off about 1/3 of the way through it.

I do agree that maybe he now takes on odd roles because he might think it is expected of him, but in a way these odd roles are now big things. Before he might not have been able to be in a big budget movie where he gets to be quirky and strange, but now that he has the star power he has earned he can.

It is interesting to me when he does play a normal role like Nick of Time. It is almost like you forget that the guy can play a regular person as well as strange person. I wish he would do more of this. I would love to see him in more things like Donnie Brasco

being attractive and 'photographing attractively' are two very different things. very many actors are not attractive in person and usually will not allow really beautiful people near the set, especially the women.

My feeling is people look because she is pretty and will accept any expression at first. It's not her subtle expression that draws them in. It's her beauty.

My point is you don't need to be pretty or handsome to make meaningful, subtle expressions. However, your looks will have a bearing on your acceptance.

I wouldn't call Chevy Chase a handsome man but he was a master of subtle expressions in movies like " Fletch "

Just don't get botox. You wont' be able to make any expressions.