DS Forums

 
 

How do you judge whether someone is good/bad at acting?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16-03-2015, 19:40
Vatican
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 387

Sorry if there's been a thread on this before but I was just wondering how you all judge an actor/actress on their performances. Of course it's all a matter of opinion however it seems like it is judged too harshly on here!

Lots of people seem to have different criteria for what a good actor/good actress is and I'd like to hear what you think
Vatican is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 16-03-2015, 19:45
dd68
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Posts: 16,810
Some bad actors come across as 'wooden' or are painful to watch
dd68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 19:45
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
Hard question to answer as it is very much in the eye of the beholder but i suppose for me it is versatility, realism (do i believe in the character, understand their motivations, what makes them tick, multi dimensional) and whether I 'feel' for them, whether the performance moves me whether positively or negatively.
kitkat1971 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 19:47
superstar111
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: scotland (:
Posts: 17,356
Hard question to answer as it is very much in the eye of the beholder but i suppose for me it is versatility, realism (do i believe in the character, understand their motivations, what makes them tick, multi dimensional) and whether I 'feel' for them, whether the performance moves me whether positively or negatively.
isnt alot of that down to the writing though?
superstar111 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 19:50
Aaron1995
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,686
I think a lot of it goes to down to the ability to make you believe that they are the character they are playing rather than it being glaringly obvious that they are putting on a performance. If that makes sense?

Charisma and nuance goes a long way too.
Aaron1995 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 19:52
danyell
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,206
It's how they deliver their lines. They have to mean everything they say to sound genuine. And use of body language.
danyell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 19:56
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
isnt alot of that down to the writing though?
Not always. A good actor can play against the lines to still make you feel sorry for them even when they are behaving badly. Also a bad actor can screw up the best script in the world.

I maintain that two different actors could play the same part, say the same lines and one performance would move me and another wouldn't.
kitkat1971 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 19:58
MrJames
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,968
It's usually quite obvious. General unrealistic delivery is the best sign of a bad actor. Small nuances and realistic delivery are the first signs of the other category.
MrJames is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 19:58
Scrabbler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31,192
It depends how good looking they are.
Scrabbler is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 20:00
Scrabbler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31,192
Hard question to answer as it is very much in the eye of the beholder but i suppose for me it is versatility, realism (do i believe in the character, understand their motivations, what makes them tick, multi dimensional) and whether I 'feel' for them, whether the performance moves me whether positively or negatively.
I think a lot of it goes to down to the ability to make you believe that they are the character they are playing rather than it being glaringly obvious that they are putting on a performance. If that makes sense?

Charisma and nuance goes a long way too.
It's how they deliver their lines. They have to mean everything they say to sound genuine. And use of body language.
Some good answers here.

Not always. A good actor can play against the lines to still make you feel sorry for them even when they are behaving badly. Also a bad actor can screw up the best script in the world.

I maintain that two different actors could play the same part, say the same lines and one performance would move me and another wouldn't.
Scrabbler is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 20:00
Aaron1995
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,686
It depends how good looking they are.
.

No truer words were ever spoken .
Aaron1995 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 20:02
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
I think a lot of it goes to down to the ability to make you believe that they are the character they are playing rather than it being glaringly obvious that they are putting on a performance. If that makes sense?

Charisma and nuance goes a long way too.
Yes, that is part of what i was trying to say about 'realism'. Whether they embody a part to the extent that you can believe they exist outside of the scenes we witness. That the person remembers their history and all of that informs their actions even if not referred to in words.

Body language and nuance is a huge part of it, just somebody getting expression into their eyes or the way they hold themselves can convey so much.

I'd cite rosie Marcel and Adam Woodyatt as being textbook examples of that, all in the eyes and boy language which often won't be in the script and can make me want to cuddle them and cry for them even though they've done something dreadful.
kitkat1971 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 20:12
cyrilandshirley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 39,631
If you believe in them as a character.

If they seem natural, so you don't even think about them acting.

If they can move you just by a look, or a shrug of the shoulder, or a glance.

If they keep the histrionics to a minimum, so they're powerful when they emerge.

If what they're saying and thinking and feeling seems to fit together, and come from the inside - not just put on for effect.

That's good acting.
cyrilandshirley is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 20:16
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
A good actor should be able to make me feel that I'm right there with them, experiencing the same emotions, walking in their shoes. I agree that it is as much down to body language and facial expression, and it's not just what they say, but how they say it, timing etc. I'd also say that the best actors have a wide range...Jessie, Linda Henry and Nina Wadia are the best examples of this.
vald is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 20:26
Aaron1995
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,686
Yes, that is part of what i was trying to say about 'realism'. Whether they embody a part to the extent that you can believe they exist outside of the scenes we witness. That the person remembers their history and all of that informs their actions even if not referred to in words.

Body language and nuance is a huge part of it, just somebody getting expression into their eyes or the way they hold themselves can convey so much.

I'd cite rosie Marcel and Adam Woodyatt as being textbook examples of that, all in the eyes and boy language which often won't be in the script and can make me want to cuddle them and cry for them even though they've done something dreadful.
Great post.

A good actor should be able to make me feel that I'm right there with them, experiencing the same emotions, walking in their shoes. I agree that it is as much down to body language and facial expression, and it's not just what they say, but how they say it, timing etc. I'd also say that the best actors have a wide range...Jessie, Linda Henry and Nina Wadia are the best examples of this.
I strongly agree with you on Jessie Wallace and Nina Wadia.

Linda Henry, whilst good, sometimes over eggs the pudding in scenes that are not even supposed to be overly dramatic which comes across as unnatural IMO. I wish she would tone that down as she is quite good otherwise.

I'm aware that I might just be the only one on this forum that holds that view.
Aaron1995 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 20:30
trevor tiger
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 22,735
I always thought this was obvious but I'm not too sure now. Take a character like Steve in Corrie who has up until now done a fine job portraying a jack the lad type character, handsome and amusing with multiple partners and a business owner with a dodgy past but since his depression story line started I haven't believed him one bit and cringe at him regularly. He was just awful in the coach crash but still not as bad as Sean

Up until the coach crash I'd always thought Sean was decent enough at playing a knob but now I realise that is all he can do.

I would have said those 2 were both decent at playing their essential role but are incapable of playing anything different. I think it's relatively easy for useless actors to get away with being so if they just play a one dimensional role for years.
trevor tiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 20:37
dinbin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 967
Sorry if there's been a thread on this before but I was just wondering how you all judge an actor/actress on their performances. AOf course it's all a matter of opinion however it seems like it is judged too harshly on here!

Lots of people seem to have different criteria for what a good actor/good actress is and I'd like to hear what you think
Have a look at Billy, Tam, Alfie, Sonia, Tina, Kim = bad
dinbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 20:42
ME1234567
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5,037
Some bad actors come across as 'wooden' or are painful to watch
I agree.
ME1234567 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 20:47
Adrian_Ward1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Plymouth Devon
Posts: 12,497
Whether they emotional connect with the audience.
Adrian_Ward1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 21:14
GeekInfected
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: EastLUNDERN
Posts: 6,247
For me, it's got to do with how true to life they are. Soap is meant to be about characters plucked from real life. We are supposed to recognise the characters as people from our areas or neighbourhoods. But unfortunately the producers sometimes just come up with any old shit and expect us to like it.
GeekInfected is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 21:37
Bertypop
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bridge Street
Posts: 3,085
I think there have already been some very good answers, and I'm not sure I can add anything to them, but I would at least like to echo some of the points.

It's not so much about how they say or deliver their lines (pausing, shouting, volume, etc) - that's just what makes a good orator or a public speaker, and there are some I know in real life who speak in an odd way, that if done in front of a camera would be considered bad acting, but is just their natural style.

For me it's about what the person is thinking when they deliver their lines.

Take Laurie Brett and Adam Woodyatt for example. In the moment that Ian realised what had happened to Lucy, that it was Bobby who had killed her - you could see it in his face, what was going on behind his eyes. And you could see Jane's facade crumbling away as she knew Ian had rumbled her.

They both inhabited those characters, and we could tell what the characters were thinking, NOT, what the actor was thinking.

An example of bad acting (not a bad actor, because I think he's decent at times) is Roger Sloman - aka Les Coker. I find in scenes when he's angry that he's completely unbelievable. When I watch him be angry all I can see is the actor thinking 'I need to be angry now' - not the character thinking 'I'm angry because...'

It's one of the reasons I rate Lacey Turner so highly, I think even in non-dramatic scenes you can tell what Stacey is thinking. I also think Letitia Dean does it quite well.

Of course, being a good actor or actress because of being able to do these things, doesn't necessarily make them a versatile actor. They might be able to do one role really well, but if you shoved them into an episode of Game of Thrones, would they be able to portray an evil king or a prostitute in a brothel?
Bertypop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 22:20
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
Yes there are actors that I recognise must be technically good due to their versatility - the sheer number of very different roles and critical acclaim they've had but i just don't personally engage with them. Gina McKee would be an example of this, I get she must be 'good' because I'm not arrogant enough to think that so many casting directors and critics can be wrong but i find her unengaging.
kitkat1971 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 22:47
Stupid_Head
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 36,061
There are some bad actors who have loads of charisma and get away with it, whereas some great actors who have zero screen presence and they just bore you. It's a strange thing!
Stupid_Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 22:51
Corstemmee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 928
Great thread! Some really interesting and well thought-out answers.


Also, I think I judge on what I've seen of the actor in other acting roles or (moreso) just being themselves, eg on chat shows, reality tv, etc.
Sometimes I come to the realisation that there is in fact very little acting going on - the actor and the character are virtually the same.
Such as (imo)
Anthony Cotton/Sean
Bill Roache/Ken

Sometimes, I find the opposite true and realise that an actor is nothing like their character in some significant ways.
Such as (imo)
Pam St Clement/Pat
David Neilson/Roy

Although I guess it could be debatable whether that should be counted as a means of judging?

Also, there's over-acting, which to me is one of the worst things, when I see it.

Maybe we should use some case examples, and try and figure out why our opinions differ?
Which characters are the most devisive?
I suggest
Letitia Dean -. EE
Emma Atkins - ED

for starters.

So, what do you specifically like/dislike about the way the actors give us these characters? Examples?




Corstemmee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2015, 22:52
srhgts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 7,564
For me it's two things. Firstly whether I believe them as a real person, do they seem natural rather than like they're reading from an autocue or something. Secondly, when they're doing something very dramatic/sad do I feel emotional or burst out laughing. Bad actors delivering lines that are meant to be dramatic are usually pretty hilarious.
srhgts is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:02.