Search found 1 match: Common

Searched query: common

by ehk2
Fri Nov 23, 2018 12:00 pm
Forum: General Discussion
Topic: How do you distinguish between “bad acting” and “good acting”?
Replies: 8
Views: 7539

How do you distinguish between “bad acting” and “good acting”?

It happens to me that in nearly all major movies here and elsewhere, we can sight reviews complaining about “bad” acting or praising “good” acting. It’s one of the common ways of criticism. Usually the reasons for accusation or praise are not provided. The problem for me is: I come to the conclusion that I cannot distinguish them.

I believe that in some cases pointing at the failure in acting is relatively easy: movies in which non-professionals are employed, parodies, some artistic works deliberately trying to work against conventions or mainstream norms, low budget B or TV movies, etc.

I’m not talking about these above. Rather, I say, standard, professional movies where they have big names, big cast to select, big budgets with endless opportunities to retake the scenes until it’s done properly. Of course there’re lots of movies whose only purpose is to be a vehicle for some new actor, musician, comedian or just commercial... The quality of acting may not be on par with some serious attempts trying to create some genuine work. You can also somehow sort them out.

I mean the common, standart, realistic type production. I see myself to accept the face value of all what is done on screen. If acting does not interfere with my watching experience, I cannot argue against them (as some say about movie scores). To do that, I need to know the difference between the intended and the final result. For instance, if I had read the book of an adapted movie beforehand, I can evaluate actor’s performance according to my initial imagination. Again, if I have a good knowledge about the way in which a 19th century Irish farmer lives, behaves and talks, I can evaluate actor’s performance whether if it corresponds to my knowledge and expectations. But for the most cases, movies work on realistic/mimetic assumptions and the end result fits me OK and I’m available to accept them.

Anyway, what is good and even “great” acting? Actor’s ability to express some “extreme” emotions realistically and without artificiality? Method acting? Think about some movies of Brando. Mimics, facial, improvisation, looks, crying, laughter, behaving “manly”, dialects, intonation, walk, stature... Again you can detect some extraordinary moments on screen when you see them. Does it mean that roles that do not require such big performances cannot be considered for at least a ‘good’ acting? They don’t have to be downgraded.

Why are there so many reviews that attack “acting”? Are there any reliable grounds that we can all agree upon on judging? You know porn when you see it, but cannot define it. Is it the same case? For me, in most cases, what actors do on screen is passable unless you know the intention.And of course the rational that they could act better in that particular fictitious situation. And that every human conduct has to be more or less similar under such conditions...

Maybe, people complain about actors because these actors attach their previous career load behind them. Maybe, we are inclined to evaluate the acting performance of big names not just on that particular movie but on their previous roles.

I really don’t understand how so many people make points about acting so easily and confidently. It must be rarer. Or I should try to learn.