Written by Guest on 12.12.2014 at 12:09

Written by Ganondox on 12.12.2014 at 07:09

They do that on purpose, it's not because stars are bad actors, it's because they want them to be instantly recognizable so they draw people in. That's how the star phenomenon works. Anyway, there are many different types of actors, just because one isn't a realistic article who can play any part doesn't make them a bad actor.

I didn't say it makes them a bad actor, just that it involves very little acting on their part. There are plenty of actors with little or no range, and some that have the ability to portray, in many different ways, a variety of characters. I wouldn't say they "do it on purpose" either. I think that's giving too much credit where it isn't due. They do it because it's easy and expected or because they are unable or unwilling to pursue roles that would be considered more challenging. If you compared the range of Samuel L. Jackson films to someone like Christian Bale or Ralph Fiennes the differences are clear. It doesn't make Sam Jackson a bad actor, just one that observably has less range than others. From that we can accrue a sense of quality and ability that doesn't involve calling him "bad" at acting.

Let's phrase it this way: it's not necessarily the actor who is doing it on purpose, but the director choses the actor for that reason. They DON'T do it because they are unwilling or unable to pursue roles that would be more challenging, not saying that all stars are capable of doing other roles, but that's simply not how it works. They don't just pick and choose what roles they want to play, they are type casted and then accept the offer. Unless you see the actor fail to perform in another type of role, you can't make judgements about their range in that area. The star effect can be played in the other way as well: sometimes actors are cast in roles different from what they are known for in order to play with the expectation. Speaking of Samuel Jackson, this example was used in our film class:

Sure, it's pretty typical characters for the actors, but the outcome is even more shocking because of our expectation for the actors, which in turn adds to the humor once we get over the shock. Also, you can't say they aren't doing much acting because 1. you don't know what they are like in real life, for a lot of actor's it's very different from their persona, eg. Johnny Depp and 2. even if they are basically playing themselves, they still need to memorize lines, blocking and whatnot, and improvise where needed. They are still playing a character in a script.

Jack Black's role in Bernie was also used as the example of something, but I think it was demonstrating something else, can't remember exactly what. Think it might have been related to setting.

On a side note, most modern films emphasize realistic acting, but that doesn't mean actors who play a more dramatized style are worse actors, it just means they act in a different style. Early film uses more dramatized acting as the actors where from theatre and that's how theatrical actors were taught to act at the time.

"From that we can accrue a sense of quality and ability that doesn't involve calling him "bad" at acting." What I thought before I actually studied film criticism academically. All you can actually say is they portray a wider range of characters, and then you can try to theorize on what that is. One thing that people who've never studied criticism think is that criticism is about applying quality judgements to works of art, when it actually isn't. Popular critics are criticized by other critics for masking entertainment and marketing as legitimate criticism when there is very little actual analysis in popular criticism, and also for not treating art with respect.

Written by Ganondox on 13.12.2014 at 06:48

Let's phrase it this way: it's not necessarily the actor who is doing it on purpose, but the director choses the actor for that reason. They DON'T do it because they are unwilling or unable to pursue roles that would be more challenging, not saying that all stars are capable of doing other roles, but that's simply not how it works. They don't just pick and choose what roles they want to play, they are type casted and then accept the offer. Unless you see the actor fail to perform in another type of role, you can't make judgements about their range in that area.

This is as much assumption as anything I suggested. The actors can pick and choose films to be in that they are offered as much as directors can request certain stars. Actors are not compelled to take roles they are offered. Samuel Jackson has publicly said that he wants to do "cool" roles; films with explosions, lots of action etc. This would be in clear opposition to someone like Christian Bale who is known, through example, to take roles in a more serious manner (the soundman incident for example). This idea of "failing" is not something that can be measured either way, but when an actor is constantly seen to be undertaking the same type of role for similar types of film a judgement can of course be applied. Especially when said films are of huge budgets and similar styles. An actor with power could accept smaller roles for less money and play a wider range of characters. This is rarely seen. I think a judgement from this is reasonable. Because I've never seen X seasoned actor take up a variety of roles it doesn't mean that I should automatically believe that he or she may be able to, and that he or she is on even grounds with an actor that has demonstrated range. If I see a guitarist play in a punk band a number times and nothing else I don't assume they have the ability to play in a tech-death band. People determine, and judge, through observations of example. I'm not sure how anyone can magically think otherwise because that goes against intelligent thought and understanding from my perspective.

Quote:
The star effect can be played in the other way as well: sometimes actors are cast in roles different from what they are known for in order to play with the expectation. Speaking of Samuel Jackson, this example was used in our film class:
Sure, it's pretty typical characters for the actors, but the outcome is even more shocking because of our expectation for the actors, which in turn adds to the humor once we get over the shock. Also, you can't say they aren't doing much acting because 1. you don't know what they are like in real life, for a lot of actor's it's very different from their persona, eg. Johnny Depp and 2. even if they are basically playing themselves, they still need to memorize lines, blocking and whatnot, and improvise where needed. They are still playing a character in a script.

Playing with expectations is more of a directorial / casting choice than an actor's one, but it's not necessarily that they are playing themselves, but rather they are known for falling into a set of recognisable idiosyncrasies which are almost codified into their roles. Of course actors are cast into unusual roles but more often than not its something superficial (or just a cameo) and requires little alteration on the actor's method and style. Interestingly the very fact that some directors intentionally cast actors as odd or "humorous" choices goes to show that there is a public perception toward that actor as someone known for a certain, and ostensibly limited, kind of role (which in turn is proof that they may have limited range). As a director or producer that put millions of dollars into a film I probably wouldn't select Jack Black to play a cancer victim whose family just got murdered by a psychopath because it would be "funny" or played on expectations. It's more likely that I don't personally believe he has the acting chops to carry such a role based on his acting past. This judgement does not stem from any tropes of film theory, rather it comes right from personal opinion and judgement. I wouldn't throw that out the window and take a risk just because of something Roland Barthes wrote in an academic paper decades ago. I also wouldn't confuse professionalism with acting ability; learning lines etc. That's not the topic here, and whether or not someone improvises is speculation (unless stated somewhere explicitly such as interviews).

Quote:
"From that we can accrue a sense of quality and ability that doesn't involve calling him "bad" at acting." What I thought before I actually studied film criticism academically. All you can actually say is they portray a wider range of characters, and then you can try to theorize on what that is. One thing that people who've never studied criticism think is that criticism is about applying quality judgements to works of art, when it actually isn't. Popular critics are criticized by other critics for masking entertainment and marketing as legitimate criticism when there is very little actual analysis in popular criticism, and also for not treating art with respect.

I studied 3 years of film theory myself and we were actively discouraged from making judgements based on quality in the respect of "entertainment" and that would include ideas of treating "art with respect" and other such notions (something entirely personal that has no place in film theory). That is an entirely different discourse to the one being discussed here. This is merely opining on ideas of actor's observable quality or abilities. Don't confuse film criticism in an academic sense with journalistic entertainment critiquing in the media. They are not one and the same. Whether or not someone is a good or bad actor, or if there is such a thing, is something I would never expect to be included in the syllabus of a film theory course to be honest. Your argument is effectively saying you can't have a personal opinion, educated or otherwise, on elements in film. You might as well say "You can't say if an album is good or bad, you can only theorise on the choices the musicians made" which would of course be a silly thing to say. Don't take your course so seriously that you believe that understanding some of the dry academic elements of film criticism somehow overrides personal thought and opinion in the manner we are (or at least I am) discussing here. They aren't the same thing as far as I'm concerned. Having an understanding of star effect theory doesn't excuse lazy actors by default. I don't know about you but I know that Robert De Niro is a better, more versatile actor than Rob Schneider. There is no analytical paper anywhere in the world that will make me think otherwise Doesn't mean that Schneider is a bad actor, just one that has a very limited range and tends to appear in poorly received films and that, apparently, has less likeable / appealing features, character, movements, looks, voice and so. Make what you will of that but I would swing that thought right round to my original point about how much "acting" actors actually employ in their roles. I would say De Niro "acts" a lot more than Schneider which would account for his extremely broad spectrum of roles, compared to Schneider's limited pool of sophomoric comedy characters.

This is pretty offtopic now, btw.

Written by Guest on 13.12.2014 at 14:05

Written by Ganondox on 13.12.2014 at 06:48

Let's phrase it this way: it's not necessarily the actor who is doing it on purpose, but the director choses the actor for that reason. They DON'T do it because they are unwilling or unable to pursue roles that would be more challenging, not saying that all stars are capable of doing other roles, but that's simply not how it works. They don't just pick and choose what roles they want to play, they are type casted and then accept the offer. Unless you see the actor fail to perform in another type of role, you can't make judgements about their range in that area.

This is as much assumption as anything I suggested. The actors can pick and choose films to be in that they are offered as much as directors can request certain stars. Actors are not compelled to take roles they are offered. Samuel Jackson has publicly said that he wants to do "cool" roles; films with explosions, lots of action etc. This would be in clear opposition to someone like Christian Bale who is known, through example, to take roles in a more serious manner (the soundman incident for example). This idea of "failing" is not something that can be measured either way, but when an actor is constantly seen to be undertaking the same type of role for similar types of film a judgement can of course be applied. Especially when said films are of huge budgets and similar styles. An actor with power could accept smaller roles for less money and play a wider range of characters. This is rarely seen. I think a judgement from this is reasonable. Because I've never seen X seasoned actor take up a variety of roles it doesn't mean that I should automatically believe that he or she may be able to, and that he or she is on even grounds with an actor that has demonstrated range. If I see a guitarist play in a punk band a number times and nothing else I don't assume they have the ability to play in a tech-death band. People determine, and judge, through observations of example. I'm not sure how anyone can magically think otherwise because that goes against intelligent thought and understanding from my perspective.

Quote:
The star effect can be played in the other way as well: sometimes actors are cast in roles different from what they are known for in order to play with the expectation. Speaking of Samuel Jackson, this example was used in our film class:
Sure, it's pretty typical characters for the actors, but the outcome is even more shocking because of our expectation for the actors, which in turn adds to the humor once we get over the shock. Also, you can't say they aren't doing much acting because 1. you don't know what they are like in real life, for a lot of actor's it's very different from their persona, eg. Johnny Depp and 2. even if they are basically playing themselves, they still need to memorize lines, blocking and whatnot, and improvise where needed. They are still playing a character in a script.

Playing with expectations is more of a directorial / casting choice than an actor's one, but it's not necessarily that they are playing themselves, but rather they are known for falling into a set of recognisable idiosyncrasies which are almost codified into their roles. Of course actors are cast into unusual roles but more often than not its something superficial (or just a cameo) and requires little alteration on the actor's method and style. Interestingly the very fact that some directors intentionally cast actors as odd or "humorous" choices goes to show that there is a public perception toward that actor as someone known for a certain, and ostensibly limited, kind of role (which in turn is proof that they may have limited range). As a director or producer that put millions of dollars into a film I probably wouldn't select Jack Black to play a cancer victim whose family just got murdered by a psychopath because it would be "funny" or played on expectations. It's more likely that I don't personally believe he has the acting chops to carry such a role based on his acting past. This judgement does not stem from any tropes of film theory, rather it comes right from personal opinion and judgement. I wouldn't throw that out the window and take a risk just because of something Roland Barthes wrote in an academic paper decades ago. I also wouldn't confuse professionalism with acting ability; learning lines etc. That's not the topic here, and whether or not someone improvises is speculation (unless stated somewhere explicitly such as interviews).

Quote:
"From that we can accrue a sense of quality and ability that doesn't involve calling him "bad" at acting." What I thought before I actually studied film criticism academically. All you can actually say is they portray a wider range of characters, and then you can try to theorize on what that is. One thing that people who've never studied criticism think is that criticism is about applying quality judgements to works of art, when it actually isn't. Popular critics are criticized by other critics for masking entertainment and marketing as legitimate criticism when there is very little actual analysis in popular criticism, and also for not treating art with respect.

I studied 3 years of film theory myself and we were actively discouraged from making judgements based on quality in the respect of "entertainment" and that would include ideas of treating "art with respect" and other such notions (something entirely personal that has no place in film theory). That is an entirely different discourse to the one being discussed here. This is merely opining on ideas of actor's observable quality or abilities. Don't confuse film criticism in an academic sense with journalistic entertainment critiquing in the media. They are not one and the same. Whether or not someone is a good or bad actor, or if there is such a thing, is something I would never expect to be included in the syllabus of a film theory course to be honest. Your argument is effectively saying you can't have a personal opinion, educated or otherwise, on elements in film. You might as well say "You can't say if an album is good or bad, you can only theorise on the choices the musicians made" which would of course be a silly thing to say. Don't take your course so seriously that you believe that understanding some of the dry academic elements of film criticism somehow overrides personal thought and opinion in the manner we are (or at least I am) discussing here. They aren't the same thing as far as I'm concerned. Having an understanding of star effect theory doesn't excuse lazy actors by default. I don't know about you but I know that Robert De Niro is a better, more versatile actor than Rob Schneider. There is no analytical paper anywhere in the world that will make me think otherwise Doesn't mean that Schneider is a bad actor, just one that has a very limited range and tends to appear in poorly received films and that, apparently, has less likeable / appealing features, character, movements, looks, voice and so. Make what you will of that but I would swing that thought right round to my original point about how much "acting" actors actually employ in their roles. I would say De Niro "acts" a lot more than Schneider which would account for his extremely broad spectrum of roles, compared to Schneider's limited pool of sophomoric comedy characters.

This is pretty offtopic now, btw.

Okay, you're talking about opinionated things and you've got more cred then me, so you win. Can't disagree here.

As Jooe acknowledged, off topic. way so. keep it on track.

I love SoR (and Tenacious D's movie as well), but Spinal Tap is a classic.

This Is Spinal Tap is true classic. Plus it was directed by Rob Reiner (not the Anvil drummer)!