How Much Do You Think About Acting In Movies?

[ie]

Honestly, I don't think about acting too much.

I don't like really bad acting that takes me out of the movie, but I don't mind "okay" acting, as long as there isn't a big focus on the acting.

To me, acting is just one element. I couldn't tell you whether I thought the acting was better in Harakiri or Pierrot le Fou, for example. Both had good actors, which helped make their stories better and more interesting to have unfold.


Had to delete the old poll because I wasn't finished with it. Sorry.


If the poll answers were confusing at all, here's a little bit a clarification:

• Most of the time = Unless the movie has good actors, you're simply not interested.
  
• Some of the time = Acting is good, but there are other factors involved.
  
• Not often = Okay acting is fine, so long as it isn't overly distracting.
  
• Never! = Bad acting is better than a good plot.
  

edit: This is meant as a discussion about acting, so feel free to talk about it and things.

[criterionmaster]

I feel that I watch the acting most of the time. Especially if it’s classic American films like The Apartment or 12 Angry Men, because for those movies one of the standing out points is the acting. Also it is easier for me to tell how good American acting, whereas it is harder for foreign actors; because I can’t really tell some of the time if they say their lines right or not, if it is in a foreign language. Really the only time I don't pay attention is for a movie like Wassup Rockers, where the kids are suitable for the roles or when I sucked up into the movie and am not paying attention. Also if the acting is just terrible, like in a terrible horror film, then I let it slide as it adds to the unintentional comedic elements to the film.

[ie]

Actually, I didn't really give Harakiri and Pierrot le Fou as examples of non-American actors, specifically to further my thoughts on why acting wasn't important. I just picked two movies that I am very fond of that seemed to work as examples, even if now they don't really.


To me, good acting is like an extra layer to appreciate.

12 Angry Men (older one) for example: good acting on top of good direction/cinematography on top of good plot.


One reason, perhaps, why I don't really think about acting too much is that you can have a bunch of good actors that are in just a really horrible movie. Uwe Boll could bring someone like Scarlett Johansson into his next movie, and while you would still have Scarlett Johansson in the movie, it would still undoubtably have Uwe Boll written all over it.

[kiddo]

For me, acting is not the main aspect of a film. At all. I easily prefer good/great cinematography over good/great acting. It's just no question. Plot? Hmm.. I'm one of those who's more concerned about how the story is told, rather than what's told (in danger of sounding pretensious), but I guess I prefer a good plot over good acting. There's dozens of films that I love, that doesn't have the greatest acting ever.

Acting is, mostly, as ie says, "an extra layer to aprrecate", but in some cases, like Happiness, the acting is one of the main reason the film works as good as it does. Of course in addition to the script. So.. difficult to say anything certain about this thing, but I can say that I do prefer great cinematography over great acting. And the script, which often can be put together with the acting, is mostly more important than the acting itself. In my view.

This discussion is to be continued.

[ie]

One thing I noticed is that plays transition well to movie format. On the one hand, you have a script that's been worked out several times at the least, and on the other hand if you bring actors in, they're really familiar with the material. (Maybe even too familiar?)

With good actors working with a bad script, we're still left with a bad script. No matter how convincingly a good/decent actor could pass the line "And I love being on the pipe..." it's still hilariously bad.

At least a bad actor with a good script won't say stupid shit.


One tell-tale sign in movies is something like a translation scene. Bottle Rocket did it right. A person speaks one language, then the interpretor takes that and translates it into another language, and the person in the other language has to only then respond. The timing has to be perfect or else the whole scene falls apart.

[criterionmaster]

That is a good point, when I think of Cassavetes films the acting is usually the dominant force that I look at. So whereas some films you don't really look at the acting as much as the other things (directing style, cinematography, etc.), but for his films it is the main thing I actually pay attention to, and then the other stuff is just added bonuses.

[eatawiiner]

Some of the time, but thats because i get wrapped up in the movie so much I forget ppl are acting sometimes.

[The Anti-Snob]

I think acting is a very important element of most films, but stellar performances are not always a necessity for a good movie or the salvation of a bad one, so I suppose I agree with Ie in that respect, although I probably rate acting a little higher as an element of a good film than he does. The thing is that a bad script can bring down an actor's performance, and a bad performance can bring down a good script, or vice versa.

For example, the Star Wars prequels were home to some horrendous acting, and a lot of it comes from Natalie Portman. Now, I'm sure most people here have seen Natalie Portman in other movies, and she's a good actress. What happened in Star Wars? Bad dialogue that completely ruined at least one half of Episode II for me; that's what happened. By contrast, in Episode III, which I thought was a very well crafted story, the acting was still kind of sub-par, but I noticed it far less because the story was told well and it was more compelling than that of the previous two films.

There are some movies, though, that aren't meant to be on such an operatic scale, that require better performances to augment the story (usually dialogue pieces).

-Dan

P.S.: Dan, you can't tell if a foreign actor is good? Have you fucking heard of Toshiro Mifune?!

[criterionmaster]

Yeah, I have heard of Mifune and he is my second favorite actor ever. Like I said, sometimes I can't tell. Like for a lot of films I can't tell whether that actor is saying his lines right or not. Plus, for Mifune, it is his style of OVERACTING that I like, and not a lot of actors can pull that off, but I have come to expect that from Mifune, he is just amazing.

Some of my favorite actors are foreign, but it is harder for me to spot a bad foreign actor than it is for me to spot a bad American actor.

[lordofdance]

I don't particularly like actors. Perhaps the reason I like watching Robert Bresson movies is because he doesn't have actors chewing up the scenery. I want the actors to be likable, but I'm not one to look for great performances. There are very few movies that I like because of the acting alone.

[sacrilegend]

I don't think about it very much, but it probably has to be conducive to the mood, atmosphere, and style of the film, otherwise the film didn't reach the goals it had set, or brought across the message it should've.