1 edit
-Removed-I don't think a TV or film actor needs to be able to portray a wide range of characters. I think one is enough, although I take my hat off to those who can and have portrayed many more.
I think acting on the screen is a highly specialized thing that involves being able to do certain things consistently - and possibly repetitively - with your voice and face and body while a camera is rolling, whether it be for 2-3 seconds or some number of minutes, in such a way that it can then all be spliced together and give the impression that it is a believable character [on some level of storytelling or genre] and that everything you are seeing actually occurred in sequence and seamlessly.
Probably 99% of the world's population would not be able to do this well enough to be convincing or to be paid well for it.
Given all this, I don't really think it matters all that much how many distinct characters an actor is able to portray believably [in an environment that, seeing as it isn't news or documentary footage, is literally make-believe.
@FMF
Some actors stand out. Gary Cooper, for example: you could read his thoughts in his face. "High Noon" is a masterpiece of acting talent, and justly won an Oscar.
I agree that John Wayne just played himself.
Bogey was a fine actor, but did poorly in comedy (in "We're No Angels," for example, Bogart was mis-cast -- Peter Ustinov stole the show).
Robin Williams was a fine and versatile actor.
Wm. Shatner is a ham. Patrick Stewart, on the other hand, is real actor.
@moonbus saidIt's a mere matter of terminology. Anyone that plays a role in a film, on TV, or on the stage professionally is a real actor. As for who is a good or versatile actor, that's another thing. If the actor gets a paycheque for pretending to be a character in [say] a film, even if they "play themselves" ~ even if they do it over and over again ~ then he or she is "real" even if they are a "ham".
@FMF
Some actors stand out. Gary Cooper, for example: you could read his thoughts in his face. "High Noon" is a masterpiece of acting talent, and justly won an Oscar.
I agree that John Wayne just played himself.
Bogey was a fine actor, but did poorly in comedy (in "We're No Angels," for example, Bogart was mis-cast -- Peter Ustinov stole the show).
Robin Williams ...[text shortened]... ine and versatile actor.
Wm. Shatner is a ham. Patrick Stewart, on the other hand, is real actor.
1 edit
@fmf saidSure, anyone who gets paid to do it is a real actor, but some are definitely better at it than others, regardless how much or little they are paid. Keanu Reeves, for example, is wooden; just says his lines and manages not to bump into the furniture, but shows little or no emotion or even interest in his characters. If that's what his character calls for, fine, but I've never seen him play anything else, so it makes me wonder whether he can play a character with emotions.
It's a mere matter of terminology. Anyone that plays a role in a film, on TV, or on the stage professionally is a real actor. As for who is a good or versatile actor, that's another thing. If the actor gets a paycheque for pretending to be a character in [say] a film, even if they "play themselves" ~ even if they do it over and over again ~ then he or she is "real" even if they are a "ham".
Diane Keaton and Meryl Streep, on the other hand, are fine actresses, there is credible fire and passion in their performances.
@moonbus saidClint Eastwood is a real actor. So is Cillian Murphy, although I'd say Murphy is a better actor than Eastwood.
Sure, anyone who gets paid to do it is a real actor, but some are definitely better at it than others, regardless how much or little they are paid. Keanu Reeves, for example, is wooden; just says his lines and manages not to bump into the furniture, but shows little or no emotion or even interest in his characters. If that's what his character calls for, fine, but I've never ...[text shortened]... p, on the other hand, are fine actresses, there is credible fire and passion in their performances.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 22233
@a-unique-nickname saidI went on Saturday... Didn't watch mission impossible, instead had an enjoyable 3 hours watching a movie about the making of a boom that killed thousands.
Haven't been to the cinema in over a year but thanks for the info.
