My short essay on acting

Annabeth Gish once said in an interview that the fashion among casting directors these days is to try and find the actual person that was written about in the script.

Harrison Ford, by contrast, has said there are only two types of casting:
casting by type and casting against type.

What can we draw from these two seemingly contradictory statements?

That although someone can be gifted in playing a wide variety of characters, the actors are always limited by their own personalities, and we must content ourselves with what variation they can provide.

This is why Harrison Ford has never played a serial killer.

I remember Ellen Barkin once commenting on how Laurence Olivier was not such a great, because he couldn't anything beyond standard British theatrical.
And it occurred to me at the time that she had a point. Patrick Stewart is a "classy" actor, but can he play a street thug.

I think there is some confusion of acting "range" with acting "skill"

I've read accounts of Jack Nicholson on the set of Terms of Endearment or Winona Ryder on the set of Great Balls of Fire!, both describing how each gave a different line reading for each take. That is skill.

By contrast, Morgan Freeman has played a number of different characters, from pimp to President, from CIA agent to God, to a chauffeur driver at various ages.
That is range.

Freeman is a good example of the "best" actors, because he is able to transcend both class and age between all his roles.

The much-celebrated "character actors" like (the always smug) Kevin Spacey or (the always offbeat) Gary Oldman have not shown themselves capable of this range.

------------------

How much you like someone, and even whether you think them attractive, I think determines whether you consider them a good actor.

For example, Brad Pitt never did much for me as an actor until I saw Meet Joe Black, where he shows range by playing both Everyman *and* the Angel of Death.
But recently, after having (apparently) left his wife (whom I do not even like)
for Angelina Jolie (who I do like) I cannot help but kind of think of him as kind of a lout. And after the fiasco that was Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I am even less charitably disposed.

Tom Hanks used to be one of my favorites, when he was in films like The Money Pit, The Man with One Red Shoe, and Joe vs. the Volcano. Then came Forrest Gump, and Sleepless in Seattle, and, with the exception of Saving Private Ryan, which I like very much, I really haven't cared for any of his films since 1994.
So I think of Tom Hanks now and pull a face.

Sometimes one can overcome one's prejudices.

I've never liked Tom Cruise- everyone says he's such a nice guy in person, and that may be true, but in nearly all his films, he's a controlling, arrogant, aggressive prat. Could he ever play a passive person? Yet...I can respect his acting in Far and Away, Minority Report, Collateral, and The Last Samurai. They are still variations on his arrogant persona, but they are *effective* variations. And Mission Impossible is one of my favorite films, despite Tom Cruise being in it, or maybe yet *because* of it- he is very effective in the role.
-------------------

We have to make a distinction between "best", "most important", and "favorite".

People rarely make these distinctions when talking about films, even less when talking about actors.

For example, one might say Schindler's List is one of the most "important" films of the past 25 years. Does that mean it is also *necessarily* one of the most well-made? Does it mean it is one of your favorites, as in you'd want to watch it over and over? Does it mean it speaks to you personally, or defines for you some ideal or sense of style that you have? Some people are quite honest, and will tell you, say, maybe Roger Corman films are their favorites, but other people are just pretentious, or perhaps haven't though the matter through, and will spout out as their favorites what they think should be their favorites.

With actors, one have to make a distinction between who one likes, who one thinks is attractive, and who one thinks is a good actor, a distinction between "favorite" actors, "hot" actors, and "good" actors.

Several years ago, I once tried to rate my "favorite" actors and actresses this way:

1. Consider all the films the actor has made.
2. Rate the ones you've seen, from 1 to 4 stars.
3. Add the total of the films rated 3 stars or above.
4. Add the total of the films rated 2 and a half stars or below.
5. Subtract the total of no. 4 from no. 3, and then you have your "actors" score.

(Sequels do not count. For example, Mel Gibson only gets a rating for his original portrayal of Martin Riggs.)

Considering that few except perhaps film critics actually ever see all the films of any particular actor, one could argue that the results will inevitibly be distorted but here was my top ten result at the time-

1. Morgan Freeman
2. Mel Gibson
3. Steven Seagal
4. Denzel Washington
5. Samuel L. Jackson
6. Keanu Reeves
7. Harrison Ford
8. Bruce Willis
9. Wesley Snipes
10. Richard Gere, Ving Rhames (tied)

Actually, that's pretty accurate, because if I were to try to narrow it down to five, we'll get Bruce, Samuel, Morgan, Keanu, and Mel- and this is not necessarily because I like them (Bruce and Mel both have their annoying moments, and Samuel can over-do the angry black man schtick, so I guess Morgan and Keanu take top honors)

Of course, there are many other actors I like and/or respect, from the old stars like Cary Grant and James Stewart, British actors like Tom Conti or Colin Firth or Richard Harris, European actors like Jean Reno or Rutger Hauer, or American standbys like Gene Hackman. In most cases, these men have starred in at least one of favorite films, so that probably has something to do with it.

When it comes to who I think is most attractive male actors, the list is again different- Keanu Reeves, Kiefer Sutherland, Ewan MacGregor, Heath Ledger, River Phoenix, Freddie Prinze, Jr., Liam Neeson, Kevin Kline

Favorite female actresses? My scoring system came out like this-

1. Meg Ryan
2. Anne Heche
3. Tamlyn Tomita
4. Lauren Holly
5. Julia Ormond and Kate Winslet (tied)
6. Ally Sheedy
7. Sigourney Weaver
8. Mira Sorvino and Ashley Judd (tied)
9. Selma Hayek and Rene Russo (tied)
10. Neve Campbell and Laura Linney (tied)

This is where the scoring system is weaker, because with most of the actresses the high ratings on only based on mybe two films they did that I really liked, not the entire range of a career. This means either I tend to like male-oriented films, or Hollywood really does give short shrift to women in starring roles- perhaps both. Also, I did the survey in 1999. Doing it over now, I'd probably drop Holly, Sheedy, Weaver, Russo, Linney, Campbell, and add Angelina Jolie, Cate Blanchett, Catherine McCormack, and Rachel Weisz.

"Best" actresses, though? I'm hard-pressed. I don't think much of Meryl Streep. Cate Blanchett is pretty good in terms of range. Winona Ryder, as noted above, is reported to be good at skill but I don't see the evidence of range. Any thoughts on the subject? Should we start a new topic on the board?

Most attractive actresses (not most attractive female celebrities, in which case we'd have to add a few more and drop a few of these)- Jami Gertz, Navi Rawat, Shannon Elizabeth, Keira Knightley, Naomi Watts, Kate Beckinsdale, Evangeline Lilly, Claire Forlani, Rhona Mitra, Piper Perabo, Monica Belucci...

But sometimes there is a inverse relationship to the aesthetic quality and the quality of films. For example, I have never seen anyone with such a resume of crap films as Shannon Elizabeth- I cannot think of a single one which I have liked. But she is totally gorgeous. And Jami Gertz, you know, you could blame it on just having a bad agent, or being too young and not having well-informed tastes, but now that she is older, she should know better, yet still she stars in crap like that Still Standing sitcom.