People who are just bad at acting

Having Character Parts WRITTEN FOR You Doesn't Make You a GREAT Actor...A GREAT Actor is a Guy who Can Pull off MULTIPLE Roles CONVINCINGLY...NO, Eastwood Could NEVER Pull Off a Flamboyant Queer...But Gary Oldman, Edward Norton, Don Cheadle or Kevin Spacey Could...Those Cats have Run the Gamut of CHARACTERS in their Careers...THAT's Acting...

Portraying the SAME Motherfucker Over & Over & Over & Over ISN'T Acting, Especially when that Character is Basically a Caricature of YOURSELF...


REED:hammert:

 

yeah it is.

eastwood has a limited range, but he can act. anyone who can stand in front of the camera and seem convincing can act.

 

Exactly. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

It's a Level of Acting that SHOULDN'T B Appreciated as Much as the Level of Those who Can B "Convincing" in DIVERSE Roles...Sorry, but Asking Clint Eastwood to PLAY Clint Eastwood ISN'T "Acting" To REED...



REED:shit:

 

I see your point but you still greatly underestimate the difficulty of it. I have studied a bit of acting and to be able to express such powerful emotions in front of camera is a real skill, it seems easier than it is, believe me.

To see the difference, watch Eastwood's Pale Rider and then compare that to Dolph Lundgren's remake of the same film, Missionary Man. You will notice how the two play the same role, neither changes their facial expression very much, and yet, one of them is 100x the better. There you can see what it means when someone actually can not act.

That being said, I do understand if somebody ranks the actors with great variety over the likes of Eastwood, Nocholson, Hackman etc., but to say these guys are bad actors is simply wrong, no two ways about it

 

Very good post.

 

Speaking of which, isn't that a remake of High Plains Drifter? I haven't seen PR, but the plot sounds almost identical to HPD.

 

So if Dolph Lundgren Merely Plays a Robotic, Roided Up, Russian Boxer in Every Flick for the Rest of his Life, he TOO Can Be Considered a "Good Actor"???...After All, Lundgren NAILED that Particular Role, Right??...

If Range ISN'T a Factor, Sly Stallone's a Great Actor as Well, for REPEATEDLY Pulling Off 1 of the Most Memorable Characters in Motion Picture History...



REED:cheer:

 

He's NOT a Great Actor in REED's Opinion, but Will Smith has MORE Range than Eastwood...Hancock, Ali, Pursuit of Happiness, 7 Pounds...NONE of those Characters R Alike...



REED:scared2:

 

There is something to be said for screen presence and charisma. Some guys have it, some guys don't.............even some very good "actors".

 

CLEARLY, Eastwood has these Qualities U Speak of...But he's More of 1 Trick Pony w/a HELLUVA Trick...



REED:scared:

 

Hugh Grant. I hate that cunt.

 

The thread is about 'Bad Actors". While Eastwood doesn't have the range to go from playing Josie Wales to playing Harvey Milk, I don't think that qualifies him as a bad actor.

The thing about Eastwood is that he has the ability to bring subtle depth to characters he does play. Whether it's a facial expression or the tone with which a line is delivered, there are definitive differences between Harry Callahan and Gunny Highway despite each having Eastwood's tough-guy persona as the base.

Is a guy like Edward Norton a better actor because his acting history doesn't pigeon hole him into certain types of roles? Or is there something to be said for a guy like Eastwood that has the ability, without saying a word, to have you absolutely glued to the screen watching his every nuance?

To me, it's simple, Eastwood has to be a good actor because none of his characters from a dude with no name in 'A Fistfull of Dollars' to Frank Morris in 'Escape from Alcatraz' to Frankie Dunn in 'Million Dollar Baby' seem phony or unbelievable with Eastwood playing them. And each of them had separate depth and flaws that Eastwood brought to life with minimal effort.

That has to be talent.

 

I really liked his performance in "I Am Legend".

The guy is very calculating in his career and he very rarely takes chances, but I do think he can act when he wants to.

 

disagREED...

That's the Very Definition of "Range", in REED's Opinion...CONVINCINGLY Pulling Off Characters that R NATHAN Alike...For Example, Dustin Hoffman in "Tootsie", "Kramer vs. Kramer", "Rain Man" & "Meet the Fockers" Exhibits RANGE...Those Characters R Entirely DIFFERENT People Completely, Portrayed by the Same Individual...That's Range...

Kevin Spacey in "Seven", "Superman Returns", "The Negotiator", "L.A. Confidential" or "American Beauty"...VASTLY Different Characters...THAT's Range...

@ it's Core, Acting is PRETENDING...When U Can CONVINCINGLY Pretend to B MORE Characters than the Next Man Can, U're the BETTER Actor....



REED:cheer:

 

(1) and some people can't pretend to be anybody - they're the people who are just bad at acting.

(2) acting of course isn't only convincingly pretending to be a list of different character types. two people can both put in a convincing turn at a role, but one be much much deeper. clint does a good, iconic, convincing job in a few movies, but there aren't the depths in it that you see in a great performance by dustin hoffmann, de niro, p s hoffmann, ... de niro as jake lamotta is much better than sly as rocky, even though both are good.

 

Absolutely.

 

Ridiculous

 

Eastwood has been great in 50 movies, you guys are loons

 

Yeah, but he never dressed up as a flamboyant pirate with a ridiculous accent like Johnny Depp.

 

You can just watch one and youve seen them all. Im not even being sarcastic.

Eastwood's talent is as a director.

 

Denise Richards in that one Bond film always stands out in my mind as one of the shittiest performances of all time. She was just embarrassing.

 

You are not being sarcastic, you are just wrong. Of course, Eastwood is a physical actor and thus all his roles remind each other, but he has variety in them. In the westerns, he plays this mysterious killer who doesn't express his feelings or motives, in Alcatraz he plays a guy who is known for his intelligence, Dirty Harry is an assholish tough guy, in Unforgiven and Bridges Of Madison County he has great variety of feelings (even though he doesn't express them yelling and shouting like so many lesser actors would). And so on.

Eastwood's roles are similar only superficially. To make them work takes plenty of effort and skill

 

But the thing is, Eastwood does NOT play the same character every time out. That is a misconception

 

word.

Anyone that says that Eastwood can't act doesn't know how to judge acting talent.

As nobleart said...it's probably because he never dressed up as a pirate and acted the fool.