Film actors, yes. Film acting, no.
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.
