Crime, Mysteries & Thrillers discussion
Archive - General
>
Who do you think is the worst actor?
date
newest »
newest »
I don't think that's necessarily true since there are many great actors on the stage. Movies and television have their share too although I agree that many "personalities" just scrape by.
Sheila wrote: "Tom Cruz"Sheila, you got my vote. Tom Cruz thought he could portray Jack Reacher. Really?
Feliks wrote: "That's my answer. All of em."Good one, Feliks. I was trying to think of the worst, but there are so many.
I laugh with a friend of mine because I think Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, and Kevin Costner are horrible actors. "Yes," he says, "but there's no one better for a Kevin Costner role than Kevin Costner."
"Unless it's Harrison Ford," I reply.
To be fair, where else was there for Ford to go with his career? The demographic of American movie-going audiences simply turned--with a vengeance--from adults to kids. Spielberg/Lucas aren't entirely to blame. They made the problem infinitely worse; but they were also just being 'shrewd businessmen'. Since adults no longer made up the primary movie-watching audience, what else was there for them (and all their stars like Ford) to really do?
There's enough blame to go around for everyone: Hollywood *could* have done the right thing and maintained a mixture of adult and kid films, all these years. But they didn't. They abandoned that noble role in society. They chose not to serve everyone fairly, once they saw the profits from 'Jaws' and 'Raiders'.
So the result is we have a movie industry now which is fine for entertaining frat-boys; lowbrow romps which keep middle-aged American adults in a state of perpetual immaturity. But its just abysmal, compared to what existed just a few years before. Movies used to help people grow; used to help us all understand life a little better. Used to help us deal with problems. Used to teach us valuable lessons.
I grew nauseated-- a long time ago-- with these endless, simplistic, Joseph Campbell-based, 'hero's journey' flicks.
Betsy wrote: "I don't think that's necessarily true since there are many great actors on the stage. Movies and television have their share too although I agree that many "personalities" just scrape by."There's something in what you say. The way the OP framed their post though, seemed to urge us to dwell only on the movie biz. That's where we all naturally turned our thoughts. But you're right, there must be good, honest acting left somewhere out there in the corners of this great country.
If there are, I tip my hat to them. Seems like the big profits in digital performances these days, turn everyone's head away from the more traditional pleasures of acting, itself, before a live crowd.
An ancient and once-honorable profession.
Whenever an actor becomes type-cast or his personality quirks become part of every role he plays, that's the pity. Is it the fault of the actor, or does he want a "sure thing" to carry to the bank? Don't know. How do you choose a good or bad actor today when plot, character, and dialogue are subverted by special visual and sound effects or fast almost maniacal cuts. Watch an old B&W film -- you'll see what I mean. Without the sound-mixing horror of today's films, you'll actually hear the dialogue. No, I'm not 92….just a fan of older films.
You have good taste if you like classics. Anyone who claims its 'just nostalgia' is unfortunately just not informed.They big studios were powerhouses of energy, like dynamos. They had 'factory-like' methods yes, but it was still overwhelmingly a very 'human-talent' industry. They overlooked no detail and spared no expense to make the best products possible. Even if it meant taking more time, or doing something the hard way--if thats what was called for, thats the way they did it. Its just no comparison at all to today.
Its true what you say about the cutting/editing. Hilarious! Just screams insecurity and trepidation on the part of directors and producers. They;re afraid to let the high-price 'stars' they sign on to their projects, do any real scenes. The camera isn't allowed to film them for more than a few seconds at a time.
They haven't got faith in their own products, nor the system that they rely on to make their products. Classic movies had cuts that went on for minutes! Minutes at a stretch! Camera locked in, without moving, right on the actor's faces from a few inches away. Those films were all about the acting. What else? What other way should it be?
Now, Harrison Ford at least is aware of what happened in his career. He was on the set of 'Raiders' and after a snazzy scene was pulled off--and he was getting compliments--he smirked cynically and asked what they were all so smug about; because he knew he hadnt done any 'acting'; he just stood there and cracked a bullwhip. So yeah, he knew.
Charles Bronson nailed it, years before (in his typical laconic way).. "not much call for 'acting' in an action film"
Feliks wrote: "There's enough blame to go around for everyone: Hollywood *could* have done the right thing and maintained a mixture of adult and kid films, all these years. But they didn't. They abandoned that noble role in society. They chose not to serve everyone fairly, once they saw the profits from 'Jaws' and 'Raiders'."M.A.R. wrote: "Whenever an actor becomes type-cast or his personality quirks become part of every role he plays, that's the pity. Is it the fault of the actor, or does he want a "sure thing" to carry to the bank? Don't know. How do you choose a good or bad actor today when plot, character, and dialogue are subverted by special visual and sound effects or fast almost maniacal cuts. Watch an old B&W film -- you'll see what I mean. Without the sound-mixing horror of today's films, you'll actually hear the dialogue."
So true. Studios cater to the lowest common denominator. That turns out to be low dialog (no need for subtitles or dubbing when sent overseas) and high action (no need to make the masses think beyond good and evil). I've always wanted a dialog and plot with my car chases. It started when studios started paying exorbitant amount of money to actors -- mostly for the publicity, but seemingly not caring whether they were any good in or for the role -- and deciding that special effects were more important than writing. The only way to recoup their investments are to add more money to the mix, making huge (what they hope to be) blockbusters. It's sad when more than half the budget of a film is going to pay three or four actors. Three-hundred million could fund 30+ good films, allowing for some diversity at the box office. But, would those films bring in crowds? I like a good (good being the operative word!) action film, too, but can't there be other things offered?
I find it funny when an independent or small-budget film makes it big and people ask why more movies like that aren't made. I'm left with art houses and foreign film to get not only good writing and stories, but good acting as well. I wonder if the actors care more when they don't have $300 million behind them.
My rule of thumb has always been that the earlier they advertise and the more they advertise a film, the worse it's going to be -- at least for me. That's held true for me at least 90% of the time. It was certainly true of Titanic, which I avoided seeing for months. Finally, I wanted out of the house and went to the theatre to see whatever was showing when I got there. I think my choices were Titanic and a Halloween flick. All my friends were saying I had to see Titanic, but I fell back on my rule and wouldn't go. That night I figured what the heck. I am not lying, 20 minutes into the movie I looked at my watch and wondered when the boat was going to sink. I could not believe it had only been 20 minutes. Just painful to sit though for the most part. Beautiful cinematography, but I hated how James Cameron tried to tug on the audience's heartstrings (and fell flat, for me). I can't even sit through the entire movie now when it's on TV.
What's worse... It won the best picture Oscar over LA Confidential, a far superior film.
Karen for Prez of the USA!clap clap clap-clap-clap
clap clap clap-clap-clap
Sundance: "All of em"
That's my answer. All of em. These days they frankly all suck. Of course, it may not entirely be their fault--its just not a good era for the movie industry across-the-board. Computer-generated cartoon figures dominate over live human beings. Still, I can't think of a single actor working today I'd invite to sit down at my table for dinner and conversation. I'd have to hunt down one of the older relics if I wanted to enjoy myself.