Mattie Ross, 14, of Yell County Arkansas, riding out with Hollywood Actors Matt Damon and Jeff Bridges
Comes a time a script may call for a gruff, uncomplicated character and it may call too for a stereotype or a pastiche. It may call for an empty and vain man to rub up against him. But it does not call for those characters to be as two-dimensional and vivid as a standee in a cinema foyer, easy enough for anyone to nudge over.
[Although I haven't seen all of True Grit (not as yet released in the UK), from the full scenes and copious clips I have seen from various sources I have got more than the gist and more than a flavour of the film. Crucially it's also more than sufficient to see where its strengths and weaknesses lie and to decide whether to watch it, or buy, it.]
A character can be a caricature but still be filled with life and charisma, downright convincing in its crudeness and simplicity. John Wayne couldn't help but do it in the original True Grit. Wayne himself wasn't totally believable but the character of Rooster Cogburn had some life to it; it had a personality and a presence. Jeff Bridges brings nothing to Cogburn besides a shell, a costume, a voice, and a single, not singular, demeanour. It is artificial, an attitude. It lacks colour. Bridges never makes it across the river between he and Cogburn.
One gets the impression that acting nominations are sometimes handed to the acting personage, to the aura of Jeff Bridges the man regardless of the performance. To Jeff Bridges the imposing and cool guy, who rides onto the screen to be himself with gusto. Other actors are themselves (and that is an awfully difficult thing to be) but those selves, as I have mentioned, would then step up to another level and another realm on "Action!".
Should acting be noticed? No. The character should be. There are characters, as there are real people, who demand to be looked at. That is something altogether different. Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon made me judge their acting because it was not invisible. Matt Damon's Texas ranger can be a (passingly amusing) comic character but he does not need to be one-note or self-conscious of his own creation to the point of self-annihilation. He is flimsy not in backbone but in flesh, in not being anchored to the place and the people around him. He is more real than Cogburn but not nearly enough to occupy the same reality as Mattie Ross.
I liked Mattie Ross. I liked her determination, how she plays little games with her elders, using her age and her predicament (her father has been killed) to get her way. There is an iron will and a liquid mischief in her. I like how she makes little noises, a small sigh, a dismissive harrumph, almost inaudible, in response to those who try to make her do what she does not want to do. I like her body language, defensive and confident all at once, the inflections and modulations in her words. She seems tough at first, and she is, but she is also tender and bright.
True Grit is a film with one person in it and two actors.
Great acting is in subtlety, no matter whether the character is subtle or not. The voice should be used to convey emotion not merely in volume or accent but in emphasis and tone. Acting is persuasive body language, intonation, and facial expressions. Two without the third isn't good enough. It's about creating something in 360 degrees, not just bawling or looking permanently miserable for an Oscar. It isn't playing it up without taking your character with you. It isn't hitting notes without paying attention to melody.
The trap represented by acting is that it, in some ways, necessitates inauthenticity, by which I mean that, in the real world, there are emotions and thoughts that do not register in any obvious or appreciable way. This perceivable 'acting' is what is expected, even by film audiences (as opposed to the Theatre, which needs to 'project' and which often embraces a deliberately less superficially 'real'* representation).
Hailee Steinfeld is excellent because she passed into the background (helped, admittedly, by the fact I wasn't familiar with her) and Mattie came into the foreground. Actually, because I believed every second she was on screen, Miss Steinfeld was perfect. She thoroughly deserves her Oscar Nomination for Best Supporting Actress.
*It is possible that something could feel real without being 'realistic' in the way it looks, much as many impressionist paintings do.
Comes a time a script may call for a gruff, uncomplicated character and it may call too for a stereotype or a pastiche. It may call for an empty and vain man to rub up against him. But it does not call for those characters to be as two-dimensional and vivid as a standee in a cinema foyer, easy enough for anyone to nudge over.
[Although I haven't seen all of True Grit (not as yet released in the UK), from the full scenes and copious clips I have seen from various sources I have got more than the gist and more than a flavour of the film. Crucially it's also more than sufficient to see where its strengths and weaknesses lie and to decide whether to watch it, or buy, it.]
A character can be a caricature but still be filled with life and charisma, downright convincing in its crudeness and simplicity. John Wayne couldn't help but do it in the original True Grit. Wayne himself wasn't totally believable but the character of Rooster Cogburn had some life to it; it had a personality and a presence. Jeff Bridges brings nothing to Cogburn besides a shell, a costume, a voice, and a single, not singular, demeanour. It is artificial, an attitude. It lacks colour. Bridges never makes it across the river between he and Cogburn.
One gets the impression that acting nominations are sometimes handed to the acting personage, to the aura of Jeff Bridges the man regardless of the performance. To Jeff Bridges the imposing and cool guy, who rides onto the screen to be himself with gusto. Other actors are themselves (and that is an awfully difficult thing to be) but those selves, as I have mentioned, would then step up to another level and another realm on "Action!".
Should acting be noticed? No. The character should be. There are characters, as there are real people, who demand to be looked at. That is something altogether different. Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon made me judge their acting because it was not invisible. Matt Damon's Texas ranger can be a (passingly amusing) comic character but he does not need to be one-note or self-conscious of his own creation to the point of self-annihilation. He is flimsy not in backbone but in flesh, in not being anchored to the place and the people around him. He is more real than Cogburn but not nearly enough to occupy the same reality as Mattie Ross.
I liked Mattie Ross. I liked her determination, how she plays little games with her elders, using her age and her predicament (her father has been killed) to get her way. There is an iron will and a liquid mischief in her. I like how she makes little noises, a small sigh, a dismissive harrumph, almost inaudible, in response to those who try to make her do what she does not want to do. I like her body language, defensive and confident all at once, the inflections and modulations in her words. She seems tough at first, and she is, but she is also tender and bright.
True Grit is a film with one person in it and two actors.
Great acting is in subtlety, no matter whether the character is subtle or not. The voice should be used to convey emotion not merely in volume or accent but in emphasis and tone. Acting is persuasive body language, intonation, and facial expressions. Two without the third isn't good enough. It's about creating something in 360 degrees, not just bawling or looking permanently miserable for an Oscar. It isn't playing it up without taking your character with you. It isn't hitting notes without paying attention to melody.
The trap represented by acting is that it, in some ways, necessitates inauthenticity, by which I mean that, in the real world, there are emotions and thoughts that do not register in any obvious or appreciable way. This perceivable 'acting' is what is expected, even by film audiences (as opposed to the Theatre, which needs to 'project' and which often embraces a deliberately less superficially 'real'* representation).
Hailee Steinfeld is excellent because she passed into the background (helped, admittedly, by the fact I wasn't familiar with her) and Mattie came into the foreground. Actually, because I believed every second she was on screen, Miss Steinfeld was perfect. She thoroughly deserves her Oscar Nomination for Best Supporting Actress.
*It is possible that something could feel real without being 'realistic' in the way it looks, much as many impressionist paintings do.
"Should acting be noticed? No. The character should be."
ReplyDeleteSo true. The more I look at my thoughts, the more I realise that when I praise acting, I actually praise my involvement with the character; there's so much more involved in that than just acting, and I know of no way to single it out.
About emotions that you can't show, there's a movie called "Speak" in which the heroine (Kristen Stewart, I'm guessing you've heard of her) barely shows any emotion (and since she's decided that she won't talk she doesn't even say much), but yet I feel like I'm emphatically in her world. I don't know whether it's because of the rest of the movie (script, direction etc.) or because I'm just particularly susceptible to Kristen Stewart's projection of herself.
Unrelated: Since casting is so important, I'm led to wonder, does an actor playing different roles and making us feel all of them in distinct ways mean that they are subtly changing himself or herself or that he is but projecting different parts of himself?
I suppose my pov is that, ultimately the only absolute is your feelings. Everything else you say is an attempt to rationalise/justify your feelings.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm nuts, but I usually watch a film in its entirety before forming an opinion of it. I won't say a whole lot about True Grit here since I'm currently finishing up a soon-to-be-published conversation with Jason Bellamy about this film and its 1969 predecessor, but suffice it to say that there are a few particular scenes in the Coens' film that deepen the characters of Rooster and LaBoeuf - they do often function as caricatures or archetypes, but they bring certain elements of vulnerability and emotional nuance that complicate and enrich what might seem two-dimensional in clips or isolated scenes.
ReplyDeleteRonak,
ReplyDelete"...there's a movie called "Speak" in which the heroine (Kristen Stewart, I'm guessing you've heard of her) barely shows any emotion (and since she's decided that she won't talk she doesn't even say much), but yet I feel like I'm emphatically in her world."
Yes, I've heard of her, but I think I've only seen her in one film. That kind of feeling of being drawn in is a rare and great one. There is a special bond (intimacy) formed with you when a performance makes you go towards the character as opposed to when it comes out at you.
The film sounds interesting. Thanks for the tip.
"...does an actor playing different roles and making us feel all of them in distinct ways mean that they are subtly changing himself or herself or that he is but projecting different parts of himself?"
A good question. I've wondered that myself. Different parts of himself I would say, but as a basis for some sort of 'creation' beyond.
"...the only absolute is your feelings. Everything else you say is an attempt to rationalise/justify your feelings."
Indeed it is. Sometimes I feel like I betray my imprecise feelings by trying to verbalise them or sum them up.
Ed,
ReplyDelete"Maybe I'm nuts, but I usually watch a film in its entirety before forming an opinion of it."
Yes. I accept what you say about what nuance may be brought to bear later and in totum.
I inserted the caveat to admit that there may well be that subtlety and complication elsewhere but that also one cannot take a break from imbuing a scene with life and subtlety just because you can show a different 'side' later.
I tend to form opinions while watching as well and it is hard for a convincing scene to make up for an unconvincing one.
I'm aware enough from the original and from what I have read of the context of what I have seen to pass judgement. Whether what I saw was officially released or not I saw a fair old chunk.
Of course, what are trailers and pre-released scenes for if not to elicit judgement?
Ed,
ReplyDeleteI forgot to say that I'll be tuning into that Conversations piece. They are always excellent.
I actually love it when I can see an actor acting. The greatest films tend to be those which are able to investigate the most intimate nuances and smallest failings of greater human tragedies or successes. What use have I for 'clinically perfect' acting when human imperfection is the subject? Give me a human for an actor. Now, you're talking about a film with experienced and well trained actors, so perhaps you're accustomed to seeing flawless acting from flawless looking people, but I will always prefer the rough-around-the-edges brilliance of someone truly striving for something at the edge of their potential as opposed to someone merely doing what comes easy without a wrinkle. Now, if someone does little and does it poorly, you must be watching a Coen Bros. film. Zing. No, but, really, they're alright. I watched The Temptation of St. Tony yesterday though and it was astounding and brilliant and it took my breath away and it may have been a little rough around the edges, and I couldn't love it more for it. It's always the same with acting. This is why I love the films of Andrzej Zulawski. They are striving for something that nobody else has ever done, and they always reach it, and it's never perfect.
ReplyDelete"What use have I for 'clinically perfect' acting when human imperfection is the subject? Give me a human for an actor."
ReplyDeleteWhether you enjoy watching an actor's wrestling with his subject is a slightly different matter. As you say about the films of Zulawski these performances at the edge of one's capabilities can change the atmosphere of a film. I don't enjoy being aware of actors however. I want to see the imperfection of the character rather than of the portrayal.
There is nothing that says perfection has to be clinical. It's also got nothing to do with 'perfect looking' people, though I do understand what you mean on both counts.
"They are striving for something that nobody else has ever done, and they always reach it, and it's never perfect."
Very well put, but for me solid believable acting, which grounds everything in its reality is a must. Lighting, editing, it can be more scrappy.
Thanks for the comment Jean.
I have a strange take on acting in movies. I simply don't care about it. Actually, that's not true. To put this more accurately, a good performance to me is a bonus, not a necessity. If ever I'm watching a film where the acting is mediocre to poor, it simply draws my attention to other aspects of the film; or, it is those other aspects that I heed first and foremost while acting quality is of secondary importance. I watch movies–I enjoys movies–primarily for the visual and aural storytelling experience, or even said experience without the storytelling. As long as the imagery and sound are captivating, I'm there. How a film affects me, how it expresses or conveys its ideas, tonal wise is how I judge it. Of course, it's more complicated than that because acting can as much be an instrumentation of tone, because it too is something you're merely seeing and hearing. When directors exercise their actors to this effect the results can be interesting and unique.
ReplyDeleteEveryone from Douglas Sirk to David Lynch to George Lucas and, I suspect, Paul Verhoeven have traded in conventional method acting styles for melodrama or heightened realities or something unidentifiably atonal--as part of a larger aesthetic. And I remain absolutely convinced that Shelly Duvall's wayward, spaced-out performance in THE SHINNING is precisely what Kubrick aimed for. Lucas himself made his case back in a 2002 interview stating that cinema merely as a means to translate the other mediums of theater and literature–taking what we see and desire on stage or from novels and boxing it into a frame–has become too much top priority, including the standards by which nearly all films are judged these days. And I agree (yep, I'm a Prequel fan. Suck it.) Even when a performance is unintentionally hammy or outright lousy it can still lend a certain serendipitous charm, depending on the kind of film.
Regarding the Coens, they definitely make charactercentric and, by virtue, actor-centric films and their visual style is rather idiosyncratic in a way that gives the fullest attention to the actors in all their “method” glory. It's not a style that I favor personally (nor the Coen's filmography overall), but I admire it all the same. It's hard for me to analyze the way you do the discrepancies between Bridge's and Damon's acting and that of young Hailee Steinfeld because, honestly, I simply lack your tuned insight to the microcosms of what I consider an impossibly abstract realm. But I do agree with your results: Steinfeld was TRUE GRIT's star attraction. I really couldn't take my eyes off of her. It's almost as if the whole movie was pouring into her and herself pouring out, with the rest of the cast as mere satellites. I think it enough that neither Bridges, Damon or Brolin ever got in the way.
"If ever I'm watching a film where the acting is mediocre to poor, it simply draws my attention to other aspects of the film; or, it is those other aspects that I heed first and foremost while acting quality is of secondary importance"
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting. I understand what you say about a certain quality or tone to the acting (that may not be considered 'convincing' or 'good') can create a certain effective atmosphere or fit in with the style of the rest of the film.
That is not the case in TRUE GRIT and it is very very rarely the case for me at all. If the characters and their emotions/motivations feel real and as if they truly exist in that world then everything else will follow.
I suppose it is a matter of personal perspective in terms of what we feel a film needs (and each film demands something different). In the same way, some may find a performance utterly convincing and compelling that I may find weak. Re Duvall, her "spaced out" performance feels right to me. That's the character.
I think the Prequels are excellent, in fact, Space Cadet(!)
I'm glad we agree on the quality of Hailee Steinfeld's acting.
WOw. I really haven't much to add to the discussion. But, as usual, lots to chew on here. I liked the film, although it didn't sweep me off ground. Good work Stephen! Hope you catch the film soon.
ReplyDeleteThanks JAFB!
ReplyDeleteIf/when I get to see the film, I'll be interested to see if my impressions change at all.
I was going to give a nice long response to this piece, Stephen, but Space Cadet appears to have summed up all my thoughts, including being a fan of the Prequels, rather perfectly. In fact, perhaps a bit TOO perfectly. Maybe it's just that I'm coming off of watching "Fringe", but I fear that our young Cadet may in fact be my doppelganger, come here from a parallel dimension for nefarious purposes. Obviously, I shall have no choice but to track him down and eliminate him, with extreme predjudice, before taking HIS place across the dimensional divide.
ReplyDeleteI hope you don't take it too personally, Cadet. I'm sure you're a perfectly nice person, in spite of being my evil twin.
Haha Bob/Space Cadet!
ReplyDelete'Very well put, but for me solid believable acting, which grounds everything in its reality is a must. Lighting, editing, it can be more scrappy.'
ReplyDeleteFor me, solid believable acting which grounds everything in its reality is almost never found in Hollywood films. In reality people flub lines (the Coens actually write flubbed lines into their scripts), so they attempt to mimick reality by processing flubbing, but it never really works.
I guess one question is: do you watch a lot of films with non-actors? When I watch a film with non-actors they tend to be much, much closer to what I am accustomed to seeing in reality. Growing up watching typical Hollywood stuff I had a conception of 'realistic acting', but comparing it against real people does nothing for its credibility. And that's fine - it's artifice, it's a 'heightened reality', which is to say it's not real at all except inside the film. I love it when people accept that condition, if they're trained actors, and actually use their skill to create something new as opposed to acting like a trained actor. It'll be grounded in the reality of the film, and the same gradient that you develop for each person's unique personality will be applied to the range that they exhibit, but it often creates an exciting new reality instead of recycling the old. Maybe I was just destined to drift that way, but I think watching films with a lot of non-actors definitely pushed me that way. Nowadays I look forward to seeing non-actors so that I can get a taste of realism, but I never expect it with the real deal.
Also, it would perhaps be helpful if you could name certain performances which best encapsulate your ideal outside of this film. Everybody's perception of this: 'Should acting be noticed? No. The character should be.' quality will differ, but maybe we can figure out what it doesn't look like by analyzing what you think best does.
ReplyDeleteJean,
ReplyDelete"Flubbed lines" or, say, people talking over each other is a writing (you mention the Coen brothers trying to replicate this) and directing problem (a retake would generally be asked for), not an acting one.
I have seen films with non-acting actors but, although you can sometimes tell (slightly less confidence, not the usual well-worn ways of expressing feelings) the difference isn't such that I see professional actors as more artificial. You'll only get that real real simulacrum if they don't know they're acting.
I'm sometimes surprised how close actors are to how people actually act (there's no set way, of course, and I've come across plenty of people who act 'unconvincingly' in real life or completely out of the 'norm') and, other times, how far away.
I'm not so much comparing their acting to real people, but my reactions to the characters to my reactions to real people. If they seem real where they are and in how I react to them then it doesn't matter if I can't say :"Ah..that's just like..."
"Also, it would perhaps be helpful if you could name certain performances which best encapsulate your ideal outside of this film."
There are many many but they're hard for me to think of straight off (because they tend not to shout out at me). I'll come back to you on that.
Stephen, I'm sorry I got to this late, but this has been a hectic few days. Well, I can see at least some validity in making a judgement based on some vital clips. It's not as if you are missing some serious character metmorphosis here.
ReplyDeleteWhat you say here of Bridges is not all off the mark:
"Rooster Cogburn had some life to it; it had a personality and a presence. Jeff Bridges brings nothing to Cogburn besides a shell, a costume, a voice, and a single, not singular, demeanour. It is artificial, an attitude. It lacks colour."
I like Bridges, but I preferred Wayne as Cogburn, for reasons outside the parameter being discussed here. I though Ms. Seinfeld was wonderful (much as you did.)
The real acting star of the film is Roger Deakins! Ha!
Another creative idea for a post. Seems you never run out of them my friend.
I won't judge a movie I haven't seen and don't intend to see. I don't doubt that Hallie Stanfield is great, as everyone seems to agree about that, but just want to point out that Kim Darby was great in this role in 1969, still criminally underrated as is that Hathaway movie, and that Darby also properly shared star billing. Mattie is the main character in TRUE GRIT, then and now, and it's absurd for Stanfield to be nominated for Best Supporting Actress just to improve her chances of winning.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you said about acting. One should see the character and not some actor's versatility and talent for doing a lot of things. Marlon Brando was the worst ever.
[Although I haven't seen all of True Grit (not as yet released in the UK), from the full scenes and copious clips I have seen from various sources I have got more than the gist and more than a flavour of the film.
ReplyDeleteYour comments regarding acting in general are interesting and valid, but to assume you're getting "more than the gist and more than a flavour" for a film and its performances from scenes and clips alone is extremely dubious. Effective acting is also about building a performance within the context of the narrative, something you're missing when those moments are lifted from their proper arrangement. Maybe your instincts will be proven correct and you still won't like Bridges and Damon's work here. But if the Coens are about anything, it's structure, and they've structured True Grit beautifully toward a climax that enhances everything that comes beforehand, including Bridges' performance.
Thanks Sam.
ReplyDeleteI don't think John Wayne was a particularly good actor but his 'star' presence made up for a lot.
"The real acting star of the film is Roger Deakins! Ha!"
Indeed. It is a good looking film.
Moon,
ReplyDelete"but just want to point out that Kim Darby was great in this role in 1969"
Yes. I think she's the best thing in the original too.
"Mattie is the main character in TRUE GRIT, then and now, and it's absurd for Stanfield to be nominated for Best Supporting Actress just to improve her chances of winning."
I couldn't agree more.
"I agree with everything you said about acting. One should see the character and not some actor's versatility and talent for doing a lot of things. Marlon Brando was the worst ever."
Marlon Brando never really made me feel a character, feel that there was something deep within it that animated it. He was a hulking force who occupied the screen physically but not often emotionally.
Thanks for the comment.
Craig,
ReplyDeleteYes, you're right that a character can change but I'm not sure it should "build" in terms of beginning flimsy (holding something back) and then adding to it bit by bit. As I said, you can judge the verisimilitude or the extent to which it is convincing in individual scenes, especially if you know the context. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to.
I'm sure I will end up seeing it at some point in the future.
This piece uses TRUE GRIT as a springboard to a wider discussion and I'm glad you thought the general points interesting. Thanks.
As I said, you can judge the verisimilitude or the extent to which it is convincing in individual scenes, especially if you know the context. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to.
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe, though knowing the context and seeing it play out are still two different things. I think it'd be more interesting to start with the limitations of such an exercise and see how they compare to viewing a film in its entirety.
"I think it'd be more interesting to start with the limitations of such an exercise and see how they compare to viewing a film in its entirety."
ReplyDeleteIf I get to watch the film, I will probably come back to it here.
Hi -- I agree completely with your assessment of the acting even though you haven't seen the entire film (gasp!). =) I even wrote the same thing on my blog the day after I saw TRUE GRIT:
ReplyDeleteFirst, at times, I can see Jeff Bridges and Hallie Steinfeld acting. I’m not 100% sure how to describe this, but what I mean is that the actors do not seem fully invested in certain scenes, most of which take place at the beginning of the film, e.g., when Cogburn is on the courtroom stand, when Mattie approaches Cogburn for the first time (face to face, not outside the out-house), and when Cogburn (drunk and in pajamas) finally agrees to take on Mattie’s request to find her father’s killer, Tom Chaney. In these scenes, Bridges’s and Steinfeld’s eyes do not seem truly focused on what’s or who’s before them, and their bodies appear tight and awkward when they speak and react; they’re not nearly as natural as they are in the middle and end of the film. In any event, all of this is distracting and takes me out of the diegesis.
Rest here if interested: http://kellimarshall.net/unmuzzledthoughts/popculture/film/true-grit/
To me, a crucial difference is whether a performer is acting to the camera, or acting to the rest of the cast. The latter is the more natural way to do it, the way taht people tend to interact with one another on a regular basis. The former is an artifice, and only works if you're dealing with the kind of person who would be inflating themselves for an imaginary audience all the time. Otherwise, you just have something that's very fake, even if it's "good".
ReplyDeleteKelli,
ReplyDelete"I’m not 100% sure how to describe this, but what I mean is that the actors do not seem fully invested in certain scenes, most of which take place at the beginning of the film..."
I see what you mean and I agree. The courtroom scene is flat and not 'fully invested' is a very good way of putting it. I think Hailee Steinfeld is fine in that scene (if not quite as present she might be). I've seen a bit of Mattie's hiring of Cogburn and when he agrees to take on the mission. In the former he didn't convince me (very caricatured, all reacting and nothing coming from within) and in the latter I thought he was even worse.
"In any event, all of this is distracting and takes me out of the diegesis."
Indeed. The acting, for me at least, is what grounds the film. It's these characters' world after all. If they don't seem invested in it, then why should I be?
Thank you for the link and the comment Kelli.
Bob,
ReplyDelete"To me, a crucial difference is whether a performer is acting to the camera, or acting to the rest of the cast."
That's a good point and a crucial distinction to make. I'm not entirely sure whether that's the problem here but it certainly is in other films I've seen.
"The former is an artifice, and only works if you're dealing with the kind of person who would be inflating themselves for an imaginary audience all the time"
Precisely. I hinted at this when I said that "there are characters, as there are real people, who demand to be looked at". Those characters can in truth be self-absorbed or in their own bubble. They still require a presence and a deep truthfulness.
There are of course stylised films in which crazed or self-conscious acting is required or helpful but that is not the case in TRUE GRIT.
Will be interesting to read your follow-up piece once you have seen the entire movie!
ReplyDeleteThank you Russ.
ReplyDeleteThough what I have seen hasn't whet my appetite too much, I am looking forward to seeing it not only to compare it to my initial impressions but to the comments left here.
I'm curious -- how many people here have actually studied acting?
ReplyDeleteSome commenters (e.g., Craig) have brushed against the truth of it.
At any given moment, in a moment taken out of context, an actor's performance should have the illusion of being real. Still, I question how anyone could offer up a summation of a film's worth, in terms of the performance, simply by having seen scenes or clips here and there.
I've seen True Grit (the Coens version) 3 times, each time (as a former actors) taking notice of the work that Bridges put into that excellent portrayal. Damon, on the other hand, is serviceable in his role but nothing to write home about. The true powerhouse, in my opinion, if of course Steinfeld.
It takes many actors years to really understand what acting actually is. Some of them -- even the most successful ones -- never do. Many critics and audience members recognize good acting by how much they notice the actor at work; in reality, they're not watching acting but, rather, watching the performer draw their attention to the performance -- and that's not acting, or at least that's no longer what we consider good acting. That style fell into disfavor decades ago.
"At any given moment, in a moment taken out of context, an actor's performance should have the illusion of being real. Still, I question how anyone could offer up a summation of a film's worth, in terms of the performance, simply by having seen scenes or clips here and there."
ReplyDeleteI do think that the illusion of being real should be there even if there is little context we take into our witness. I do agree, in part, that you (may) need the full film to get the full picture in terms of the acting but this lack of context did not seem to effect the veracity and presence of Hailee Steinfeld's performance.
In their first meeting I don't think I need any context to judge the characters' actions/reactions. I think you can tell if grumpy or confused or stubborn is well played without knowing the background.
I didn't use the clips to make conclusions on the film's worth (at least I don't think so) but to make observations (strongly held, yes, but with caveats) on the acting.
"Many critics and audience members recognize good acting by how much they notice the actor at work; in reality, they're not watching acting but, rather, watching the performer draw their attention to the performance -- and that's not acting, or at least that's no longer what we consider good acting. That style fell into disfavor decades ago."
I couldn't agree more, and I will come back to this when I see the film.
Thanks for the comment.
The girls acting was awful... worse than community children's theatre. Period. Though, she wasn't nearly as bad as Damon or Brolin. Bridges was the only reason this film was watchable--beside the incredible directing and set of every scene.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I saw it differently, I can't really argue. So much of it is subjective. I actually haven't come across someone criticising Hailee Steinfeld's so vehemently.
I do agree that the film looks good visually and that nothing about the compositions or editing jars.