Immersion is one of the pillars of cinema, and from my perspective, of acting as well.
Developing and sustaining a degree of immersion in the audience requires all the multifaceted cogs behind the making of a movie to operate in perfect harmony.
If one circular peg falls into a square hole, the spell is broken, and our journey into the world of the film comes to a screeching halt.
As such, any aspect of the filmmaking process that severs the aforementioned absorption can be deemed ‘bad.’ Usually, it happens when something calls attention to itself, whether it is the editing, the cinematography or indeed, the acting.
Actors are the primary conduits of the vision of the film. They might not be the pilots of the film, but they are the flight attendants; the face of the operation, it is through them we are invited and shepherded along the journey.
Therefore, an acting misstep is far easier to spot than say an editing gaffe. It could be something as banal as inconsistent line reading, or the intonation of a particular word; if it breaks the spell, it’s bad.
For me, this isn’t limited to “bad” performances alone. Certain over-the-top performances that are largely agreed upon as being good also break the spell – Sean Penn’s “Is that my daughter in there?” sequence from Mystic River comes to mind.
However, I don’t subscribe to the notion that acting is good only when it’s invisible, i.e.; you can’t tell the person is acting.
It’s a tightrope, certainly, but certain actors have mastered it. They can maintain the spell, even intensify it, while enacting certain sequences that leave you in awe of their sheer grasp of their craft.
Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood, Al Pacino in The Godfather Part II, Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine (Or Cate Blanchett, period) and several others serve as prominent examples.
Acting isn’t boxing, chess or golf; it is football, baseball or basketball. That is my needlessly convoluted way of saying that acting is a team sport.
So much of what makes a performance “good” or “bad” depends on elements outside of the actor’s raw capability – the potency of the script, the capacity of the director, the decisions made by the editor, and a plethora of other considerations.
As for what constitutes “good” acting? Of course, that is profoundly subjective, but certain aspects of a performance do stand out to me.
Presence
This is as much about authenticity as it is about charisma. ‘Presence’ to me isn’t merely about magnetism.
Sure, certain performers shine brighter than a supernova and compel your eyes to be fixated on them at all times – Denzel Washington being perhaps the finest exponent of this quality. He is the most ‘watchable’ actor I’ve ever seen.
But ‘presence’ can be found in dignified silences just as much as bombastic performances.
Think of Gary Oldman in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, or Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung in In The Mood for Love or Casey Affleck in Manchester By The Sea.
Those performances are worlds removed from the “Look, I’m acting!” brand of performances that routinely gather acclaim, but they have just as much presence and gravitas.
The four actors mentioned above completely internalise their character’s motivation and they authentically convey those emotions to the audience.
Subtext
Good actors can communicate their character’s thought process to the audience. They show us the wheels that are continually in motion within their characters – how they think, how they feel.
For me, there are few better examples of this aspect of acting than Al Pacino’s monumental work in the first two Godfather films. Again, this performance is an example of the ‘team sport’ nature of acting.
Everything had to fall into place to make the ‘Diner’ scene in The Godfather work the way it did. We can virtually see a hazy concoction of rage, torment and hesitation raging inside Michael Corleone.
Of course, Pacino does much of the heavy lifting, but it is Michael’s spectacularly fleshed out characterisation and the detailed story beats that grant us the ability to delve into his mind and imagine what he might be thinking.
Subtlety
This is perhaps the most subjective of the three, but it is also one that is of colossal significance to me. Good actors can convey paragraphs with a raised glance; they can do so much with so little.
Of late, Ryan Gosling stands out to me for his capability to be a subdued yet hugely compelling performer.
Even in his ‘stoic’ avatar, there are different pitches. The depth, nuance and variance he brings to three performances that may at first glance appear to have a lot of similarities – Drive, Blade Runner 2049 and First Man – are astounding.
I will forever be a proponent of ‘best acting’ over ‘most acting.’ And Gosling has done some of the best acting I’ve seen this past decade, and he has done so with commendable restraint and subtlety.
Image source Google
Thanks for Reading
0 Comments