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

Introduce yourself to the community or chat with other users about whatever is on your mind
ehk2
Posts: 117
8467 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:00 pm

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

Post by ehk2 »

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.

MaxVonSydow
Posts: 1
2763 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:15 am

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

Post by MaxVonSydow »

Interesting topic :)

Often when a performer is right for the role and understand the direction and mood of the written script, i can forget i am watching a movie. I would consider that good acting, because the film is able to maintain the illusion of watching something real on the screen (real within the films built universe)

It is more obvious to me when there is bad acting or overracting going on. It is almost a physical reaction when the illusion breaks, and you remember you are just sitting in front of a TV, watching a paid perfomer saying some words out loud.

This moment will be different for different people, and hard to objectivly pinpoint.

Being able to fake extreme emotions is often a trap, and a lot of american oscar bait dramas are filled with overracting.
Still, it's likely the fault of the directors instructions, the actor is just giving him what he wants.

A lot of american indie and european art house have dramas with a very minimalistic approach to acting.
Being able to signal strong or complex emotions to the audience through glances and body language.
Personally i find this style of acting more impressive and more naturalistic.

Another thing to keep in mind is cultural differences when it comes to the performances.

As an example, i find a lot of mainstream asian film to be unwatchable, for me it's all yelling and overracting.
Still i realize that their acting tradition comes from a theatre background which emphasizes overexpressive gestures.

(Pardon my english, it's my second language)

paulofilmo
Posts: 2586
2428 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:40 pm

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

Post by paulofilmo »

Sorry if this seems glib, off the cuff. It's friday.


I think of Edith Evans as lady bracknell from Wilde's Earnest. A Handbag ?!. Prolly helps that I haven't seen lots of her performances, but I forgot she was an actress acting, and assumed as good as instantly that this was just how this person is.

And, there are 'good actors' that don't suspend disbelief. But i'll save that thought for another day.

chmul_cr0n
Posts: 27
4271 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:46 pm

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

Post by chmul_cr0n »

To me it's about whether or not my intuition/cognitive empathy tells me they're sincere about it.
There are some performances that are absolutely unconvincing in a technical sense(as in it's obvious you're watching an actor act, because you can see them doing moves), but still convincing in a sense that the actor is doing it sincerely and actually believes it. That there's some actual "being the character" behind all the moves and all the overacting. They don't have the technical skills, but the attitude is there. In their head, they're doing. They're in the moment, in the scene, they're feeling what they think the character would feel.
For me Tanya Roberts in "Sheena" is a very good example. It's totally cheesy and broad and tacky, but for whatever reason I'm buying that she means it. And I know must people couldn't agree with or relate to that sentiment. You could call it a "good bad performance". :D

A lot of people have problems with the typical pre-Brando type of acting, which also included some standard movies I associate with daily soaps and such. There's that scene in Ben-Hur, where Charlton Heston is hiding behind that big rock, listening to his mother and his sister, and he's doing this silly pose, biting on his fist (which is always a hilarious move), but I can still see the pain in him, which he carries through that whole performance and that scene. To me, silly moves and sincerity aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Some people can sincerely emote through dance and make me feel something and empathize. Sofia Boutella for example really impressed me in StreetDance 2 or whatever movie that was.

There are, on the other hand, revered actors that don't do anything for me, because all I can see is an actor showcasing their chops. And its fun, 'cause they have a lot of 'em. But most performances of Di Caprio or Christian Bale feel like that to me. Whereas I can buy much more easily even into let's say Arnold Schwarzenegger in Last Action Hero or even Total Recall (it's almost post-dramatic how he blurs the line between him and his character by looking confused and in over his head half the time :D). 'cause to me, in that situation I see a weird Austrian dude managing to make himself feel like he's a gun-slinging movie hero coming to terms with being in an alternate reality. Or a guy who'se life is turned upside down and he doesn't know what's happening and he has to go to Mars. Now, that might not be true for every scene. But it has to not look controlled to me to be effective. Either that or a sincere effort beyond showing off chops.

It probably comes down to whether or not the person seems trustworthy on-screen. And not so much whether or not they screw up a line or look into the camera.


Because, when it comes to all the other stuff, it's usually really hard to differentiate what is what. What you're seeing is an edit consisting of many different bits of many different performances cur together to create the illusion of one. The voice has been tampered with, pauses have been created or changed. Looks or glances can seem out of place, when you cut them into the wrong moment...what you see is seldom the performance of an actor at a certain amount of time, but that director and editor made ouf it and out of all the other things that go into making a movie. And when something feels off in a moment of dialogue, most people refer to it as "bad acting". I've seen a couple of movies, where are was really taken aback as to how about some of my favorite actors were acting in it. Sometimes I know why, sometimes it's a mystery.
To me very little things are better than close-ups of Denzel Washington's face in Jonathan Demme movies. I don't know why, but it does something for me. Profoundly. That scene in Philadelphia where he just watches Tom Hanks' character sing an aria. He's not doing anything. Just looking at him. Godlike.
Whereas when I watch a movie where Ryan Gosling is staring into space, all I can see is "D'UUUUUUUUUUUUH" or something. In Drive for example. There is a scene, in which he an Carey Mulligan look at each other. I can read so much into her face. Or in Oscar Isaac's at the dinner table. Not with him. To me he has the charisma of a loaf of bread. At least whenever he's trying to be cool and stoic.
The human subconscious has a lot of tells for when someone is being insincere, and the way our face moves and how we perceive facial expressions is very delicate and complex. Sometimes people don't trust others because of the ways their eyebrows look or their mouths are shaped. Without noticing it.
Same with being funny. Some people are just funny to you. Some aren't. Danny McBride for example. I've never not disliked him in anything I've seen him in. And I can't tell you why. There's plenty of other people with equally dry delivery. A similar sense of humor. The same demeanor. But to me he's just a wannabe douche, who can't act. I'm pretty sure it's about whether or not your subconscious radar goes "careful!" or not.


That's my main theory, at least. :)
My second one is a little shorter and is about script interpretation. It's what makes Anthony Hopkins so great.
If you understand the line and what the character means, you can say it with an attitude that makes the line believable. Instead of just repeating a sentence from memory and underlining it with clichés and chops. Maybe that's why even Arnie can do more for me than Christian Bale. Because he says the line like he would. And not like he thinks an actor should.


But in the end, the Matrix can't tell you who you are. :>
Noone can tell you what a good performance is. Because you have to see it and like it for you to consider it good. And sometimes most people are gonna agree with you and sometimes they won't.

INDYATMN
Posts: 2
1967 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:42 am

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

Post by INDYATMN »

Great topic. I think it comes down to whether or not the specific viewer (it's subjective but there also tends to be agreement in general) believes the role and feelings the actor is trying to convey feels genuine.

Having recently sat through a bunch of slasher movies from the 80's, there is a noticeable difference between bad actors (who don't convince me they are feeling what they are supposed to be feeling as they say whatever lines they say) and good actors (who do). If you can sit through Maniac which is kind of repulsive and dumb but Joe Spinell seems really "committed" to what he is playing on the screen. When he has to look troubled, I believe that the person on the screen is troubled, not just pretending to be troubled.


I think some emotions are also much easier to play for certain people. I think "great" actors are known for pulling off feelings most of us could not (extreme sadness or looking troubled or torn without saying a word). Good and great actors don't have to speak and can still convey an emotion to you. (Perhaps because they are really feeling that emotion or are just great pretenders).

gabba2k7
Posts: 78
1068 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:43 am

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

Post by gabba2k7 »

yeah...sometimes i thought about that issue. i dont think i can recall many oh-that-was-a-bad-acting situations...but sometimes you feel that actor is not that believable / dont fit into the character / have to say some ridiculous things due to bad writing...

Luna6ix
Posts: 501
4609 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 3:26 pm

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

Post by Luna6ix »

It's far easier to see bad acting. If actors are in the business of pretending to be someone or express something convincingly enough that you can't tell that it's not true, then I would propose that every time I can tell someone is using a fake accent, or that their real accent is noticable when they're performing a fake accent, then that's bad acting. A great example would be Sam Worthington, for some reason he frequently plays roles that have American accents, but he's terrible at it. Often enough, his nationality isn't even relevant. That's just one example.

Great acting often comes from conveying complex emotions or motivations convincingly. I'd say it's easier to slap a smile on your face and make me believe it's real than to express ambivalence.

coffee
Posts: 321
2376 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:45 pm

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

Post by coffee »

Because we are not living in the 40's.

This sentence alone doesn't mean much but as a matter of fact this is 21st century. So in technical properties, forget about big budget movies, even weekly TV shows are almost perfect. The industry could produce hi-def films in days and you can't find a glitch, synchronization problem, editing issue or else. There are no dark spots, costumes are not borrowed from the crew, sound is not mono and the list goes on.

There is also no shortage on actors. Thousands of people are studying acting, doing independent work, youtube videos etc. They want to do films. They are in the business. Acting is not a side job now. So of course most of the time we can't find bad acting even in direct to dvd films. Ed Wood days are over.

I believe nowadays, most of the bad acting are results of star thickness. Johnny Depp is bad in the last PotC films. Why? He doesn't care anymore. Or Nic Cage is terrible at some films because of the IRS. An actress doesn't feel right there because she actually wants to leave the franchise and her acting becomes dull... etc.

Other acting problems are actually problems of the movie. "The Martha Abomination" is not an acting problem. It's Zack Snyder's fault, not Ben Affleck or Henry Cavill's. Even a young De Niro couldn't have saved that.

ehk2
Posts: 117
8467 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:00 pm

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

Post by ehk2 »

Yes, pointing to bad acting is sometimes easy. Recently I watched Thunder Road (1958), starring R. Mitchum. The film was his idea and his son plays the role of his brother in the movie. But it was a low quality. Mitchum's son was acting like a robot and all other players were trying to be tough guys as if out of a comics book. Some of them were looking directly into camera for a few seconds. I feel certain that, when Mitchum was together with his lovers under the moonlight or in bed, he was waiting for the prompter for speaking. The way in which they talk was totally unbelievable with big silences in between and big drama as they talk. Sometimes big actors, for some reasons, really don't care much. But sometimes they act great.

Again another recent watching, M. Brando and E. Taylor were great in Reflections in a Golden Eye (1967). You immediatedly feel the sexual ambivalence and tension in Brando's acting. I guess, he was caring for the role. Now, that is what can be called as making roles on complex situations.

I would write about Japanese acting in the original post, but I deleted because I didn't want to be sounded as a racist asshole. I agree about this issue. In some movies I don't understand the exaggeration, especially if the role involves drunkedness! I am aware that even behaviours like drunkedness is a learned cultural habit. But I cannot relate with them. In many Japanese movies we don't see such weird acts. I'm superficially aware of the social issues about the clash between Westernalisation and traditionalism in Japan. But in some movies it is too much. That may be about some sorts of trditional acting.?!

Post Reply