What does an actor do?

Tools    





My question of the moment after some mentions of movies like Casablanca -

Does an actor act to the role that's created by writers OR

Does an actor, especially one who IS a character (Bogart and John Wayne come to mind here) portray themselves in a role?

Which actors are better suited to playing themselves in a setting (John Wayne in a John Wayne movie), and which of them morph into a character that's NOT like them (Johnny Depp as a professional wrestler)?



Actors act. Some do various forms of method acting. Some give polished thespian readings, especially back at the start of sound movies. And some, possibly many, play themselves to some degrees. Those actors who do the latter need to have a charismatic, personable onscreen persona. All three types of acting are valued.



It looks like the first thing to do is to remove one's cape. Well, at least if you're a Master Thespian




I've always been fascinated how the camera loves some actors. Screen presence, their voice and their talent dovetails right into a story. Casting people and some studio heads often don't get the credit they deserve for their selections.

The late Omar Shariff on the set of Lawrence of Arabia mentioned David Lean told him" don't act, just be yourself."



I think as much as we want there to be clear lines, so we can give out awards and compare and contrast, it'll always be fuzzy, and the answer will be slightly different every single time. Hell, it'd be slightly different if the exact same people shot from the exact same script just a day later. Writers will write with people or types of people in mind, those people may inform rewrites, may ad-lib, may deliver a line in some way that was not intended and either improves the result or not.

It's one of the reasons so many awards are so ultimately meaningless: was this performance great, or did they just cast someone whose natural characteristics matched the role (and to that point, they're adding an Oscar category for casting itself)? Was this script great, or did otherwise banal writing become elevated by incredible performances and/or direction? There is no answer.



I think as much as we want there to be clear lines, so we can give out awards and compare and contrast, it'll always be fuzzy, and the answer will be slightly different every single time. Hell, it'd be slightly different if the exact same people shot from the exact same script just a day later. Writers will write with people or types of people in mind, those people may inform rewrites, may ad-lib, may deliver a line in some way that was not intended and either improves the result or not.

It's one of the reasons so many awards are so ultimately meaningless: was this performance great, or did they just cast someone whose natural characteristics matched the role (and to that point, they're adding an Oscar category for casting itself)? Was this script great, or did otherwise banal writing become elevated by incredible performances and/or direction? There is no answer.
That may explain why and for other reasons many top film makers don't belong to most or any of the award presenting organizations.



That's some bad hat, Harry.
He says his lines and avoids bumping into the furniture
__________________
Looking for a bigger boat | My latest movie lists and reviews | Find me on Letterboxd



Actors have to create a character, at least if the portrayal is worth watching. The character needs to be believable, have some motives and identifying behavior and engage the viewers if the character is going to work.



They do what the director likes on camera, if they don't, they do it until they do. The best of them don't act at all. Do little and let the audience project onto them.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.