Im talking about this photo compilations of the same actor in different roles. It portrays how much an actor changes between one film to the other – like how Johnny Depp, or Ralph Fiennes, or Gary Oldman- but this only shows us how much the characterization team worked.
It’s assumed that if the characterization is so good, it means that when we watch the movie we see a matching performance – which is not always true! Johnny Depp for example plays the same guy in different masks. Not necessarialy Gary Oldman performance is very different from one character to the other, unless 2 characters are very idiosyncratic in some way!
Same applies to other times when we talk about some actor went through body transformations. That doesnt always automatically translates to believability of feelings, different body languages, speech patters, etc
Comments
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Yet, none of those things managed to make a good actor of Gal Gadot. So maybe it is not only design or production.
Granted those things play a big role, but in the end you need talent to have a great range as an actor.
Spend any time on a film set and you’ll learn that there are actors who let the director or writer define the nature of their performance, and there are actors who are fully in charge of how the character is perceived on screen. The actors you mentioned are all in the latter category. They get hired specifically because they bring skills and understanding that are considered to be above what a director or writer could do for the character. As Steve Jobs, the former CEO of Apple once said, “It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to to do. We hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.”
In the case of your examples, they have proven track records that demonstrate that they are the smart people who got hired to tell the directors what the character was going to be.
Yes and writing that makes their character leave a stronger impression also. People consider Heath Ledger’s Joker role to be legendary, and obviously he did a fine job, but it’s written so the character absolutely dominates everyone else in the film for the entire 2+ hours. He’s smarter, tougher, stronger, more resourceful etc and makes the rest of the characters look like idiots, including Batman. And his death also increases the emotional resonance people feel.
Consider ‘Death of the Author’ principle. This concept applied here, is that an Actor should be judged by their performance in a singular film, irrespective of any other material or certainly any real-life behavior.
I hold that Robert De Niro is an incredible actor, because of Taxi Driver. Irregardless of his performance in any other film.
Years ago I watched a interview with the woman who originated the role of Angelica in Hamilton. She was very humble and said when the thing you’re in is so good it takes less of you and makes your job easier. That doesn’t mean she’s not a wonderful performer, she is, it’s just giving credit to everyone involved in a production.
Photo compilations are naturally more about the design, since it’s just a still image. But when people post those images they are usually also referring to the actual delivery and mannerisms of the actor in the role. It’s not just about the look of the character.
Are you saying Johnny Depp’s performances as Jack Sparrow, Willy Wonka, and Edward Scissorhands are only due to the design? He still had to act his ass off to elevate the design into a real character that audiences care about.
Same for Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, DDL, etc.
Honestly this is how I feel about Keanu Reeves
He’s not really a good actor It’s just that the character of John wick was very so clearly designed around him and written to essentially match his personality
Pretty much any other film series he’s been in his acting has been subpar and disappointing
Yeah, just the pictures aren’t enough to judge on. There are plenty of actors who just repeat the same character in a different costume. The character design thing is part of it, but if the examples for the actor are lots of disparate roles then it is also the actors ability to adjust to those roles.
I personally find it most impressive for an actor if I see one if those photo collections and think, “I had no idea that was them”. Even more rare and impressive is when I see one and end up googling to verify because I still don’t believe it.
Counterpoint for the good character design/production design to be realized you need good acting.
Theoretically acting should be like umpires in baseball. The good ones you don’t point any specific call that make them great and the bad ones are obvious.
A good actor translates to whatever and role and direction. I’ve seen movies with good actors and they were the only thing good about them. Hell, one of the reasons I can’t watch the Venom movies is because I think it’s below Tom hardy. The writing is terrible. It feels like an Oscar nominated actor doing a high school play
What if I told you the actor is often what makes the characterization good. Johnny Depp is the one that had the idea for how jack Sparrow should be played.