Can you recognize if an actor has good acting skills?

Post Reply New Topic

I can understand good acting from bad acting. If a person on screen & what they're saying sounds believable, I consider them a good actor, if what they're saying doesn't sound believable, I consider them a bad actor. But it could always just be that the writers of the script were bad writers. Though, if a person is truly a good actor, they might be able to make even bad writing seem believable.

If I decide that I like an actor or actress, that person is sure to be criticized as dreadfully over-acting. Acting just doesn't seem to engage me unless the actors are hamming up the roles. I didn't notice it until the last ten or fifteen years or so, when acting became somehow more subtle and I lost interest in television. I think it's something to do with the change to digital media affecting the way actors portray emotion in front of the camera. Maybe they had to do something differently when acting for film? Now they don't seem to express much emotion -- until they do and then they get ridiculously carried away with it. Or, maybe I just got used to bad seventies and eighties acting while I was growing up and that's what I like.

Now, stage acting is a different kettle of fish entirely. I enjoy stage plays immensely.

I agree. It just often means those on Broadway or in New York or Hollywood have been lucky or they have had advantages or know people in the right places. I know enough about the arts to know it is one of the most unregulated industries, and largely founded upon who one knows who etc. There are always exceptions of course, but this is the usual rule. Harsh...but true.

while I do enjoy Johnny Depp's acting, I do have a problem with it: I refer to him as a "failsafe" actor, as basically he can do any role; the thing is, he can do any role, but he doesn't really "nail" anything. He can just pretty much do any role when you need him to.

Now, Heath Ledger blew me away as the Joker...however in the Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus...he pretty much acts very similar to his performance as the Joker.

My favorite actors are:

Jack Nicholson
Tim Curry( not including Rocky Horror Picture Show; I couldn't stand that performance)
Kelsey Grammar
Christopher Lee

what I absolutely love about Christopher Lee is that every role he's in he brings a very "dominating" aura to...I can't quite explain it, but it's so incredibly brilliant, and works so well.

i can not watch drama on TV because it is completely fake to me.

everyone knows exactly what they are going to say when it comes time for them to say their lines because they have rehearsed it many times.

when one person is saying a complicated sentence as they perform their lines, they never say "um" or "ahh" (except for when it is scripted and they can not fake it), and they do not seem to think about what they are saying. it is like the words are just spilled out of their mouths because they have said them many times before.
then, when who they are talking to replies, they take less than 1 second to begin talking, and their answer is also free of any glitch, and does not seem like it is laboriously constructed spontaneously, but it seems like it is just a reflex response because they too know their lines.

drama is like a hackneyed old verbal dance to me.

Ok, now you are acusing Steven Seagal of being a bad actor! I was his fan when I was young, especially the movie "Under Siege". Saruman, I mean Christopher Lee is a good actor. I think Robert Downey Jr. is a good actor, so is Terrence Howard. I liked a lot Mickey Rourke in "The Wrestler" he was very convincing and really gets the spirit of the character. I also was liked Sean Penn playing Milk in "Milk" it was different from everything he had made before. For actress I like Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich.

bolding by me


It's one thing to observe a person who is ill or depressed and realize that they are ill or depressed. It's quite another thing to simulate that behaviour so convincingly that people actually think you are ill or depressed, not that you are behaving in the expected way. It looks like an insignificant difference when typed out but it's a very significant difference when watching a performance. A bad actor merely imitates the behaviour he thinks a character would plausibly show.

Nevertheless, bad actors do get parts. Often it's because they bring something else to the table that allows the audience to forgive the bad acting. Another poster brought up Chuck Norris and he's an excellent example of that. He's a bad actor because his performances never go above "this is how an angry person would act" or "this is how a tired person would act". But his fans overlook that because what he lacks in acting skill he makes up for in martial arts skill. However, I'm not a martial arts fan so I'm not willing to overlook bad acting for the sake of a good martial arts display.

The very best actors are able to not only behave in a way so convincingly that you believe they are feeling a particular feeling. They are able to transcend their own personalities and make you believe that not only are they sad or happy or angry when it is called for, but they also have a completely different personality from their own actual personality. Anthony Hopkins is a good example of somebody who can do this. He is genuinely scary as Hannibal Lector because you believe that he is a methodical cannibal for the space of the movie, and not Anthony Hopkins acting scary. As Leejosepho said, Alan Alda is an example of an actor who can't do this. He can be convincingly angry and convincingly desperate and convincingly elated, but in all those performances he still just seems like Alan Alda being that. He can never leave his Alan Alda personality behind and play somebody who is completely unlike himself. Anthony Hopkins can. That's the difference between ok (Alda is ok, not bad) and great.

Of course you like Steven Seagal when you were young. Kids don't ask for much when it comes to acting chops. But now that you're an adult and have seen the amazing Mickey Rourke performance in "The Wrestler", do you really think Steven Seagal would have done as well if he'd been given that role? I don't. I think Steven Seagal would have made a terrible mess of what was a truly heartbreaking movie. I don't like wrestling but I was riveted to the screen by Mickey Rourke's performance. It felt like I was seeing moments from an actual person's life and not just a movie. Seagal would have wrecked it with bad acting.

I disagree that Johnny Depp doesn't "nail" anything. In Edward Scissorhands, any other actor would have bombed that role. It was Johnny's subtle body language and facial expressions, his ability to bring out the character's personality using only minimal dialogue, that made him truly shine. And pretty much all the critics agree that it was Johnny as Captain Jack Sparrow that made the PotC movies truly memorable.

I think I'm pretty good at spotting bad acting, but to be honest, I could be talking absolute rubbish. If you say something with enough conviction, most people will agree with you. Nearly everyone likes putting actors/actresses down and no one wants to look uncritical (which seems to be related to 'uncultured') so they will often go along with it.

Even if they disagree, well, it's all just opinions, unless it's your actual job.

that is brilliant, I love it. One thing that annoys me immensely is actresses getting paid millions of dollars to play themselves in every movie, i.e Julia Roberts, Meg Ryan, Angelina Jolie, and to a lesser extent, Jennifer Aniston. If you have seen more than one movie with these in it you will notice it, and when they try to play an honest to god character (like Jennifer Aniston in "The Good Girl") that is when their poor acting skills become painfully apparent...I'm not picking on Jennifer because I prefer her over all the others I mentioned and she has great comic timing but that film should have been a brilliant social commentary and she was just way, way over her head and it pretty much ruined what should have been a great film.

To me a great actor is one who can play characters authentically...they are willing to make themselves vulnerable almost to the point of humiliation, which 'movie stars' are just not willing (or able, probably) to do. I think Viggo Mortenson is a brilliant character actor because he really does well with characters like the jerk he played in GI Jane, the 'artist' (con artist) in The Perfect Murder, and the washed up baseball player in 28 days with Sandra Bullock. He's like the male Meryl Streep. Another one I love is Jennifer Jason Leigh. Another one who is both, in my opinion is Matt Damon, I think he did a great job in The Talented Mr. Ripley because he really went beyond his own dignity in portraying the desperation of that character. I pay more attention to actresses than actors so I don't know about most of the ones mentioned.

I think I have good artistic intuition and can discern bad acting from good acting, and good acting from great. I think great acting goes well beyond believability. Truth is, some fiction characters aren't and shouldn't be believable. You shouldn't confused them with "real" people, because then you're stepping outside their dramatic purpose. But they should be convincing within the dramatic context, and as alana said, authentic to their purpose. I see this as a big difference between merely good acting and great acting.

I'm a writer, so I think more in terms of good drama and good characterization that extends past what most audience members care to think about. They want to be entertained and not be distracted from being entertained. Good actors do that, and I think that's what most people mean by a "believable" performance--really what they mean is a "non-distracting" performance, i.e. the actor is not drawing the audience member's attention to the fact that they acting, so the audience member can focus on just the character and the story.

But acting can be much more than that, I believe. A great performance as, I see it, has that authenticity, a pulse of life that comes from the actor truly embodying the character, living as that character. And that kind of performance is mesmerizing in its own way, because it impresses on you that sense of life, that pulse. You don't just recognize the character's motives or emotions, but you can feel them within you just by watching this actor embody them in him or herself while "in character." That's an extraordinary thing, and that's what makes great acting a true art form, as it can transport you into the inner world of someone else, even when that someone else is a fiction character.

Booyakasha....that picture just made me laugh SO MUCH

I can spot terrible acting. But just about every other kind of acting looks "good" to me. If you don't suck I generally lump you into the "good actor" category.

And to answer the question...I think so. But then again, there might be some personal preferences mixed in that alter my evaluations of the actors. For example, I'm not sure if Winona Ryder sucks at acting, or if I simply find her terribly annoying in every movie I've seen with her in it.

Well, since I am a stage actor and director, yes, I can most assuredly recognize if an actor has good acting skills.

The skills are generally categorized into three primary areas:

1) Control of the vocal instrument Vocal control involves a wide range of variables: dynamics (loud vs. soft), projection, intonation (pitch), diction and rhythm. In order for a monologue to hold the listeners attention, the actor must use all of these components to, "mix it up" while maintaining a rationally consistent prosody. This, in turn, requires control of the physical aparatus--the diaphragm, larynx, resonance sites (chest and head), vibrato (when singing) and, of course, the tongue, teeth and lips. All of this is layered over with coordination of aural input with vocal output.

Accents are a particular function of diction, intonation and rhythm, and are particularly challenging because they often conflict with learned muscle memory related to vocalizing speech sounds. Actors with ear training are typically better at reproducing these vocal characteristics.

2) Control of the corporal instrument Movement. If an actor is permitted to take only one class in his entire life, it should be a movement class. We can hear ourselves speak, but we cannot see ourselves move. The formation of character is enormously dependent upon physical control (not least because posture affects breathing, and breathing affects voice). Maintaining consistency in posture and gait is a crucial tool in the actor's kit.

3) Understanding of text: Other than non-verbal performance (like dance or mime), text lies at the foundation of the actor's craft. A finished product will, of course, be informed by the collective work of a cast with their director, but during a cold read or a a call-back, it will often be patently obvious which performers can quickly pick up text, break a scene into beats, parse the material, and structure the phrasing to match their breath control.

All of these craft skills can be identified, and exercises developed to identify them. Without fundamental control of these skills, a performer will be extremely limited in the range of character that can be played. It follows that a skilled director can work with almost any performer to enhance these skills, given enough time (of which there is never enough!)