fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5211 ]

[ SECRET POST #5211 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5211 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 27 secrets from Secret Submission Post #746.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Flipside variant of the thread above!

And perhaps as a bonus question, which actors in particular do you think perform very well?

The way an actor shares the physical space between other actors; how and when they lean in towards or away from other characters of interest or disinterest. Even the slightest change in body language can drastically alter a scene. Hand gesturing and its power to emote and convey drama is critical too - as important as an actor's facial expressions are, we as an audience pick up both consciously and unconsciously the tension in the actor's hands as well.

Noel Fisher is great with both.

Exact flip side of what I said above. When I believe an actor is the character, when I can immerse in the media. When I don't see the actor, I see the character.

For me especially good actors are the ones who can do completely different roles that are shockingly different and yet you can completely believe they are that character every time.

I'm tired, so having trouble coming up with examples. Uh, Walter Koenig who played both Chekov on Star Trek and then Bester on Babylon 5, two completely different roles, and you entirely believe him. He's so chilling as Bester, at times you forget your watching the guy who played Chekov.

Tilda Swinton comes to mind. She does so many different, varied things, and she's amazing in everything she does. You believe her every time.

Charlize Theron is another. I mean, I usually think she's insanely hot, but she was totally unrecognizable in Monster. She just does so many different things so well.

And let's talk about Bryan Cranston. I don't think I need to explain why he's on this list.

Tilda Swinton is amazing. Like, people knock Constantine, but she was a fucking amazing Gabriel in it.

Tilda Swinton is one of the most visually engaging people I have ever laid eyes upon. Gabriel was an awakening.

Tilda Swinton as Gabriel was my sexual awakening as being bi lol.

Walter Koenig really knocked it out of the park with Bester on B5. There is not a single trace of Chekhov and he's so so chilling. Nice example!

+1 — but only if it’s compatible with good acting when it’s obvious the actor is having huge amounts of fun playing the role. (For me, it absolutely is.)

Robert Carlyle's range has always impressed me.

The ability to make everyone else in the scene just a bit better. I have a thing for Nicola Walker. Also Ian Holm. I'm touched by Fisher's stories about how Peter Cushing went out of his way to help out the younger performers, and I think it shows.

For comedy, there's something magical about Levy/O'Hara going well back before Schitt's Creek. There's a very fine-tuned sense of timing between them, along with a knack for knowing when to play it high-key vs. low-key.

I think the greatest actors are the ones where you can strongly recall the character in something you watched rather than the actor. Where the character left a deep impression.

It's the difference between Martin Freeman playing himself as Bilbo in the Hobbit films, and the character of Bilbo in LOTR as played by the great Ian Holm.

So I think there's the obvious kind of good acting where you inhabit the character and all of that, yes, very good acting, obviously

But I also think that something that doesn't get enough credit is acting that's not about inhabiting a character at all, that's just about being charismatic on screen, and I think it's really undervalued. I think the best example of this, maybe, is Patrick Swayze. Patrick Swayze doesn't really play a character - but he's still a great performer, because he's absolutely magnetic when he shows up on screen, and he's always great. The eye is simply drawn to him. It's such an important quality. Burt Reynolds is another guy like this. I would watch Burt Reynolds do anything in a movie. It's not about what character he plays - he is just fascinating to watch do things in movies.

I would argue that what you're describing here is screen presence, and that it is a completely different thing to being a good actor. Acting is a skill, screen presence is a happenstance.

NAYRT
I agree, although I wouldn't say it's exactly happenstance. I think there are some people who (through skill) learn to be charming and are therefore fun to watch, but can't/don't really act compellingly (in the sense of embodying varied characters and making them believable).

I guess you can probably learn it, but there are definitely people who are just born with 'it'.

Then there are the people with screen presence but a limited acting range, and the ability to choose roles that let them work within that range. I'm thinking Robin Williams, Ah-nold, Keanu Reeves (though I've heard some people say Reeves has a wide range. I haven't seen it myself).

Brian Blessed in Flash Gordon is the highest example possible for me.

GORDON'S ALIVE

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #5211 ]

What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?