Are The Most Famous Actors Really Good Actors?

The thing I can't get past with Theron in Monster is that she has the sparkling attractive voice of a beautiful woman. No matter how good a makeup job, the sound of her voice never makes me think she's ever lived through a difficult moment much less smoked a cigarette or drank liquor or experienced any other aspect of hard living her character came from.

 

Speaking of diversity and a multi-dimensional acting ability in many different roles, Johnny Depp gets my vote. I know has a bad record for acting in a lot of movies that have "tanked" commercially, but he sure can be deceptive in a lot of his roles.

 

Perhaps not comparable but in a parallel move, even the sex symbol Farrah Fawcett attempted a similar effort, in some movie where she wore no makeup and was a rape victim showing her all battered and bruised, saying the same thing, "Hey look at me, I'm more than just a pin up blond, I'm a serious actress."

 

I find that after watching a lot of films (including a few by the same actor) you can be taken out of the story if the acting is bad. Keep in mind that even if the story is ridiculous, I want to believe it. Is the acting true to the world of the film? If so, I can enjoy Arnie. Other times, I want to see a great actor like Viggo go for it on screen. I don't want to see 'the craft' of acting. Most are not great actors - don't forget some stars have whole movies changed to fit their image to make them look good, especially if they're going for an Oscar. I always wonder if someone with power can buy themselves an acting Academy Award (not secondhand).

 

In 1983 she was in an Off-Bdwy play called Extremities, and got a Golden Globe nomination in '86 for her role in the movie version. It was about a woman who was a victim of attempted rape. There was much talk of an Oscar, but in the end she wasn't nominated. Also, in 1984 she was in a tv movie called The Burning Bed, in which she was a victim of domestic abuse. For that one, she got an Emmy Award nomination. It was the first to provide a nationwide 800 number at the end of it.

 

Keanu was good in "The Gift" (2000) which starred Cate Blanchett and Giovanni Ribisi. Granted he didn't have to have a ton of range for the character he played but he was convincing in his role. I've always liked Keanu and feel a little bad that he gets dogged on so much. He's not a terrible actor but there's almost a hesitation or a regisnation with his performances. I don't quite understand it.

 

Famous actors can ensure a certain amount of ticket sales for a period of time (even Aniston in the beginning). But Hoffman's last movie died quickly, even with a LaCarre book source, and he was just stunning in it. Fantastic performance.

 

Not necessarily the best, but they often know how to project a personna that counts for more than good acting. It's a kind of character shorthand. Clint Eastwood comes to mind. The commentary on the Chinatown dvd makes the point several times of how the script was written for Jack Nicholson. So, he's didn't have to (over)act as much as let some of his natural personality traits surface. That can be very effective on screen. There are scenes in Chinatown that play better - more humorously or more dramatically simply because of our perceptions of Jack Nicholson's. Tom Hanks is good at variations of the 'Every Man' guy, and that's a wide spectrum, from "Joe Vs the Volcano" to "Sully"

 

Yeah, he rarely gave a bad performance. Even in bit roles like in Lebowski, Magnolia and 25th Hour he was stand out awesome. And don't even get me started about Synecdoche, New York.

 

I was surfing around on IMDB and found a terrific actress that I should have mentioned in my original post; Tilda Swinton. I don't have just one movie in mind, because I have enjoyed her in several movies, several which are not big Hollywood types. And of course, how could I forget Cate Blanchett, or the early phase of Daniel Day Lewis' career?

 

With some actors like Jack Nicholson you get almost the feeling that he is himself, that he is not acting. But he's too cool to be true, and he is surely a good actor that gets you to like his character whatever film he plays in.

 

No.

 

Nicholson definitely has a screen persona, and his characters are invariably a variation of that. I've never seen the Jack persona be totally lost in a characterisation, ever... even in brilliant performances like in Chinatown, Cuckoo's Nest, The Shining or Batman. But as you say, his primary talent is that he's a compelling screen presence. He's very much a film actor.

 

I'd say The Gift is his best dramatic performance, but it's surprising how inconsistent he is, even so late in his career. Even in the one movie, he can have a really solid scene and perhaps you even think 'hey look, Keanu can act', and then in the next scene he's really bad (the wooden, nothing-happening-here look, or the really flat, monotone line readings that could but frequently don't work). It's really difficult to explain, because he seems dedicated to his craft, and he takes his roles seriously. The most recent film I saw him in was Knock Knock, which was admittedly a pretty bad film, but at times in that he was really terrible.

 

Elizabeth Taylor is exceptionally good in her earlier roles. Clooney is very much the leading man, he makes great choices in the projects he takes on. As a pure actor not much range at all. Just a kind of alpha presence.

 

I'm a big fan of a Clint Eastwood. But it's a bit like Jack Nicholson, I like the character. Clint is very manly and cool at the same time and you think that he is that way and it's not acting. But then you look around and you realize that men like that don't exist. He must be a good actor, it's so convincing.

 

As someone commented earlier, it may be that film companies, producers and directors aren't willing to allow big name actors take any risks. They are too valuable simply delivering what people have come to expect.

But I thought George Clooney got an opportunity and did an excellent job and indeed showed a lot of range as the character, "Ulysses Everett McGill" in the wonderful 2000 film, "O' Brother Where Art Thou?"

 

I liked him in this as well. Though maybe the overall quirkiness and quality of the film made the performance seem better than it was, the material was so good. He has adventurous taste in his choices. I always seem to enjoy his movies. I wonder if his real talent is behind the scenes as someone who produces good films.

 

Remember, the actors, don't write the parts, they just play the parts. Most of the time, an actor lands a hot role and they are in the spotlight and are making real paychecks. If the studios see a type of movie or a roll that works, they repeat it for all it's worth. Actors have learned to make hay will the sun shines. In the business, rolls dry up quickly.

 

There are movie stars and there are actors. Sometimes the two intersect, as with Clift and Brando, but some of the greatest actors would never have been stars. John Cazale comes to mind.

 

Gosh, it's a really good question, and tough to answer.

William H. Macy is probably one of the greats of our time. Is he extremely famous? I consider Nicholson great. It's hard to ignore the fact that he's Nicholson, but seeing him in A Few Good Men helped me realize that he's had quite a few different roles to play in his time, and he's been believable in so many of them. When I watch A Few Good Men I buy that he's a Marine Colonel. In contrast, I like The Contender an awful lot, but have a hard time buying Jeff Bridges as a President. He just doesn't act presidential in that film. Sam Elliott is amazing in it though.

Meryl Streep is good in just about everything she does. Some of her films haven't been the greatest, but she's always good in them. DeNiro did Taxi Driver, Midnight Run, and Jackie Brown. If he'd have done no more than those three films, he'd still be great IMO because I love those films and can't imagine them without him. I don't like Tom Cruise, but it's amazing how many films I have with him in it, that are favorites. Pacino usually plays Pacino, but he's perfect for The Insider, another favorite of mine.

William Friedkin liked to cast unknowns in his films, because he didn't want audiences to be distracted by remembering the actors from other films they'd done. He used William Peterson and John Pankow for To Live And Die In L.A., and they were perfect.

I guess what I'm saying is that I remember actors in certain roles and admire their work in those roles. And yes, I do believe that Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf had a Five Star Cast. It's a cinematic masterpiece, IMO.

So to answer the question, when a good or even great actor makes a lot of famous films, I guess they become famous and great. Paul Newman is a good example, as is Jimmy Stewart. Making a lot of famous films will make an actor famous, but I don't know if it will make them great. Making great films will make an actor great, but it might not make them famous.

A couple of years ago, I tried a little experiment. I'd liked a few films that George Clooney had done, and he's a pretty smart guy, so I thought I'd seek out more films he was in, thinking I wouldn't be disappointed because he's quality. The result was a mixed bag. I liked Ides Of March a lot, but didn't like The American. I still really like him in Good Night And Good Luck and Syriana though.

I think, following Friedkin's logic, it's useful to forget an actor's other work when watching any film, and judge the film on its merits alone. I tend to look at directors rather than actors when I'm looking for a great run of movies.

Is this any help?

 

Agreed. I don't think I've ever been interested in a movie solely because of an actor. A good actor can take a film to the next level, but the director is the real artist, IMHO.

 

Naomi Watts is amazing in 21 Grams and The Impossible, two films for which she received her only Academy Award nominations.

I agree that she hasn't lived up to her potential but it is probably due to a lack of great script offers coming her way. Although, her specialty is to play characters who are vulnerable and on the edge so there probably just aren't that many roles in her dramatic wheelhouse to begin with. You can only work with what you're cast in!

She is, however, my favorite modern-day actress, so I'm very interested in the upcoming Gypsy, a Netflix series where she plays a therapist.

 

I'd bet there are actors in the theater that can run circles around most of the most popular actors today.

The most famous actors are probably the best in their medium though. The best at what they do in the medium of film, meaning they've mastered how much to give for the camera and how to emit that character so it translates well onto the camera; the more technical stuff.

There is something to be said about the actor that relies only on his/her lines, the story and the person they're interacting with on stage instead of fancy lighting, expensive cameras and music dubbed in to help aid the performance.

 

The master of minimalism.
The Gary Cooper in the 21stC.