Al Pacino voted Greatest Film Star of All Time. (1 Viewer)

[Lew Crippen]

I agree with you about the technical differences, but that doesn't preclude subtlety on stage. It just changes the mechanics of subtlety.

Very true Michael. But I think that the mechanics of the stage get in the way of the suspension of disbelief necessary for enjoyment.

Compounded when attending Shakespeare, where it usually takes me 3-5 minutes to get my ear attuned enough to really understand the delivery (and I’ve been a regular theatergoer my whole life).

 

[Lew Crippen]

John you're going the right way for a smacked bottom, when it comes to Shakespeare no one can touch me and me mate google.

And would that be the source of your allusion as well or are you just conversant with A Midsummer Night’s Dream?

 

[Michael Reuben]

But I think that the mechanics of the stage get in the way of the suspension of disbelief necessary for enjoyment.

I would put it a little differently and say that the mechanics of the stage require a greater participation by the audience in suspending disbelief. On film, the camera (and the editor) are supposed to eliminate all of the machinery to the point where it becomes invisible. The stage asks the audience members to perform much of that task themselves and to become complicit with the performers in sustaining the illusion that the stage represents Elsinore (or a London flat or "our town" or whatever) and the actors are impersonating other people. Watching stage acting is, for me, a very different experience than watching film acting, because I have to work harder. But the rewards are more than worth it.

M.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I would put it a little differently and say that the mechanics of the stage require a greater participation by the audience in suspending disbelief.

A fine, but accurate distinction. I realized when rereading my post in your quote that I should have added ‘for some’ to the end of ‘suspension of disbelief necessary for enjoyment.’

And perhaps this is the source of why some don’t really care for the acting in earlier films. Technical limitations (e.g. size of equipment and film speed) and the state of the art of film editing did not as completely eliminate the need for some effort on the audience’s part to suspend their disbelief, so the acting itself is more apparent.

 

[Michael Reuben]

It's not just older films that suffer from this phenomenon, which I'd call "the lazy audience". Why do you think subtitled films don't typically command big box office? Because they require the audience to work at participating in the viewing. Your average moviegoer (and that includes many, many people who post on this forum) plunks down in front a movie or TV screen and says "Entertain me!", without investing anything in the process beyond the price of a ticket or the cost of a DVD. Small wonder, then, that the studios concentrate on "event" movies -- the kind where the experience is pre-sold by advertising and there are few, if any, surprises. It's a product, not a process, and acting is often one of the least important parts of it.

Which kind of takes us back to one of your earlier points: the difference between an actor and a movie star.

M.

 

[Lew Crippen]

You point as to event movies is well made. Just recently for example, X2 is so neatly and completely packaged that acting is not only not noticed, but is pretty much largely beside the point. Now this is not to knock the movie, but to further your observation as to movies requiring audience participation. Or not.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The example I would have picked is Matrix Reloaded, but X2 will do. (And for the record, I enjoyed X2.)

For those of you who think that today's film acting is so much more natural and less stagey than that of a bygone era, watch any of Laurence Fishburne's scenes as Morpheus, and then tell me how "theatrical" acting in films is a thing of the past.

(And that's not a criticism of Fishburne, either. He's a fine stage actor, theatrically trained, and he's smart enough to know that Morpheus has to be larger than life. So he plays Morpheus like he would play Shakespearean royalty. It's right for the part, but it ain't "natural".)

M.

 

[Holadem]

Sorry, Holadem, but pronouncements like this make me want to reach for the "rolling eyes" smiley.

I am glad you didn't use it Michael, I wouldn't want my comments to be lumped with Jeff's 35mm diatribes

The reason for my commment is that actors in older movies require a greater suspension of disbelief on my part to accept them as characters. This applies more to the supporting cast than anything else. An exemple would be that buttler looking for the french guy in The Man Who Knew Too Much. Was there not a more subtle way to look around that room? How about Jimmy Stewart rolling his eyes suspiciously in Rope? I am not pickingon Hitchcock, just what I can think of offhand. I find many instance of such things in films from that era, and I firmly believe that we have dramatically evolved from that kind of overacting. Such atrocious acting would no be allowed in a sitcom today.

The big stars of the past are no less than the big stars of today. However that has more to do with charisma that actual acting IMO.

When it comes to acting, as in making me believe that I am watching a character, and not someone perfomring, I much prefer todays methods.

As for the theater vs film, I know nothing of the former, other than it's obviously harder.

[EDIT] Also Michael, you cited LOTR, X2 and Reloaded while acknowledging that the material calls for that kind of larger than life acting, which invalidates your point somewhat. Wouldn't it serve you better to cite acting that is at odd with the material?

--
Holadem

 

[Rob Gillespie]

I disagree with you as to the validity of their votes, at least as it pertains to the film industry and historical significance.

Well, obviously there viewpoints are valid because they get to decide who gets the little golden bloke each year - but we're still talking about personal opinions, and however learned, informed and experienced these people are, it doesn't stop the occassional contraversial decision been made. Gladiator as best movie? Why the best? What evidence is there to prove it other than Ridley standing there with a golden statue in his hand?

No, the point I was trying make was with any of these kinds of lists there will never be a definitive choice made on who is best at what. Different artistic traits move different people. So when a public poll - like the one conducted by Channel 4 - throws up a few 'unusual' choices, it's no surprise that some people get all high and mighty over it. Actually, scrub that - it is surprising that people get seemingly so frustrated with it. Myself I just had two pleasant evenings in watching several hours of that top 100 list. Who cares who won. I know who's the best and bugger off anyone who disagrees!

Al Pacino is a bigger film star than Rob De Niro.

OK - how do you prove it?

You can't. There is no tangible way of measuring something like this. So it just comes down to personal preferences. Sorry Bob, you're no. 2 (I think you should have been no. 1 myself).

Perhaps a better wording would be Al Pacino is the most popular film star. But would that be too politically correct and non-offensive?

Bugger it. Who gives a toss! Anyone for a beer?

 

[Michael Reuben]

Also Michael, you cited LOTR, X2 and Reloaded while acknowledging that the material calls for that kind of larger than life acting, which invalidates your point somewhat. Wouldn't it serve you better to cite acting that is at odd with the material?

Allow me to remind you of your initial post, in which you criticized "the exagerated, often melodramatic theater style performances of the past". Are you now willing to concede that, if the material calls for it, today's acting may involve an "exaggerated, often melodramatic theater style" and still be effective? If so, we've now invalidated your initial generalization (and that was my basic point), and we've moved on to evaluating the merits of a performance based on the material, not the year in which it occurred. Which is as it should be.

M.

 

[Agee Bassett]

When it comes to acting, as in making me believe that I am watching a character, and not someone perfomring, I much prefer todays methods.

Or, if I am reading you accurately, you might paraphrase that to say that today's films make you believe you are watching a character which resembles people you interact with on a daily basis more accurately than you see in older films. Of course, doing so was never the intention of a great many older films/performers, as "escape" was the keynote for Depression-era cinema particularly. However, if you look deeper, I think you'll find some magnificent sojourns into a more "naturalistic" style, where old-time performers and filmmakers show that they could more than hold their own in the idiom alongside today's counterparts. Take a look at The Grapes of Wrath, or The Magnificent Ambersons, or Twelve O'clock High, just for starters.

 

[Steve Christou]

Speaking of Shakespeare AND Al Pacino, I dimly remember the critically acclaimed docufilm 'Looking for Richard', directed by Pacino, he and some fellow actors rehearsing and studying Shakespeare's Richard III. Kevin Spacey and Alec Baldwin also appeared. I remember there was some shouting, especially from Al (who else?) haven't seen it in years, doesn't seem to be available on dvd, maybe OOP?




http://us.imdb.com/Details?0116913

 

[LaMarcus]

Long live Denzel!

 

[Kamal_K]

McGregor and Brad Pitt, just to name a few in fron of Eastwood? Thats CRAZY!

 

[Tommy Ceez]

FOR THE DEFINITAVE ANSWER AS TO WHOSE THE BEST ACTOR SEE THIS SCIENTIFIC STUDY!

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/0...ype=Page2Story

Scroll down to last letter if you get antzy.