Archive for May, 2010

I’ve been putting off writing about this, because I’m not sure my thoughts are fully formed, but I’ve decided to go ahead and broach the subject.  This is pretty drastic thing to declare for a former theatre major like myself, but the longer I spend immersed in film studies, the more inescapable this feeling becomes.  So, to get right to the point: I’m pretty much sick of acting, as it relates to film.

Now don’t get me wrong, acting is a serious craft, and I’ve known people who were extremely good at it (and others who were quantifiably bad).  Even in film, there are some truly great actors (most of whom came out of theatre).  Phillip Seymour Hoffman comes to mind, and of course Meryl Streep, William H. Macy, Cate Blanchett, etc.  So I’m not saying there’s no such thing as good acting, or that I don’t have respect for it when it occurs.  I think acting has its place… and that place is the theatre.

Great acting in the theatrical tradition can happen in the movies, but it’s not what the movies are about.  It’s often sort of beside the point.  When movies are centered around it, they run the risk of becoming “plays on film” (oh, hello there, Doubt).  A great film needs to balance acting (if it contains any, which it doesn’t need to) with its other concerns: cinematography, mise-en-scene, editing- all that Bordwell/Thompson stuff.  If it becomes all about the acting, it ceases to be much of a film.

It’s important to understand that I’m drawing a distinction between acting and performance.  Nobody in Gold Diggers of 1933 is much of an actor, for example, and the film doesn’t suffer for it.  But if they couldn’t sing and dance, on the other hand, the movie would have been forgotten by 1934.  What it comes down to, I guess, is that a performer needs to be able to do what a particular film requires of them.  That could be crying real tears over the death of a child, or speaking like a famous dead person with a very distinctive way of speaking, or doing a flawless tap dance up and down a massive staircase.  Sometimes it might just be seeming really, really cool.

The actors who I enjoy most, I’ve realized, the ones I get excited about seeing, are those who bring something compelling to their roles just by being who they are (or who they present themselves as, anyway).  Robert Altman was a master at finding and casting these people: Elliott Gould, Shelley Duvall, Henry Gibson, René Auberjonois, Ronee Blakley and so forth.  Some of them are “great actors” and some of them aren’t, but it doesn’t matter, because they’re perfect for the roles he gives them.  This is how John Ford made John Wayne into the Great American Movie Star: you find someone that the camera loves, and you give them roles that play to their strengths.

I definitely plan to write more about this, and focus a bit more on what I like about specific performers (if it’s not acting, it must be something).  I just wanted to go ahead and get my thoughts out there, though, half-formed as they are.  I’m curious about my readers’ opinions as well.  What’s the role of acting in film, as opposed to theatre?  Who are your favorite actors, and what makes you like them?

Credit where it’s due: I’m currently reading Richard Dyer’s Stars.  Its focus is a bit different that this entry, and I was having these thoughts already, but Dyer is definitely an influence.

I was sad to hear about Lena Horne this morning, although if anybody had a good long run, it was her.  Here she is with Bill “Bojangles” Robinson, from Stormy Weather.  I figured the title song would be everywhere today, so I went with “I Can’t Give You Anything But Love.” If I mention she was easily one of the most beautiful women of the 20th Century, I don’t mean to minimize the fact that she also had one of the most beautiful voices of the 20th Century.

This week’s number finds a gorgeous jumpsuit-clad Jane Russell on an ill-advised quest for romance in a gay gym.  This ought to run off any lingering masculinists brought here by the Heavy Metal takedown…

I regard this blog as still being pretty young. Most of the people who comment are people I know in real life, although I’m hoping that if I keep it up long enough that will change.  Occasionally I do get comments from strangers– mostly Betty Boop otaku (or Booptaku, if you will) who like to make unsourced arguments about who did which voice in what cartoon.  It seems, however, that as I become more and more visible (despite still not being all that visible) on Google and the like, trolls are starting to show up.

So here’s what I’d like to say for the record:  Please, argue with me.  Nothing makes me happier than getting a comment from a stranger who disagrees with me.  But if you want to disagree with what I have to say about movies and pop culture, let’s talk about movies and pop culture.  Because if the best you can do is make ignorant, personal attacks on me and the other commenters (who, as I mentioned before, are usually my friends and family), I’m just going to delete your comment.

I debated whether or not deletion was the way to go, but Amanda’s response was, “Hilarious as the troll is, the comment doesn’t do anything but make for a hostile environment. There’s no actual attempt at a conversation, so why keep it?” and I think she’s right.  Conversation is what I would like it to be all about.  So please, if you want to comment here, learn to have one.