charlie brown Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 What do you all think. I know this isn't "Guitar" related, but... I'm still curious. We all love movies, right? So, are todays actors (male or female) really better, at their craft, or are the fewer, or less strict limitations, on them, than in the past, the bigger factor? CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesguitar65 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 IMHO, actors, actress of today pale in comparison to actors/actresses of yesterday, about 30 years ago. The earlier actors/actress were much conviencing in convaying the characters they were protraying. Today, special effects have taken the front seat in the movies and the acting went to the back seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 I wonder if that's (really) true, or more the "fault" of the story tellers, themselves... i.e. writers, screen writers, etc.? There are still some good "story driven," and/or character driven movies, though possibly not so "main stream," but in Indy or even Foreign made films. I have no problem with "special effects," if it's not the main attraction, but merely a tool, to help make a good story "work!" Even acting within the "special effects" can be a real challenge, in itself, as well. So...??? CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesguitar65 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Often times, you hear people say "the book was better". It is because a good book with great story often allows the reader create the story in their heads, in their imagination. it is the art of great story telling. This goes for the movies. Often times, many movies have weak stories and actors and focus too much on special effects. The imagination part for the viewer/ the reader had already done for them. and lost in all the special effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fl00dsm0k3 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 the actors today represent everything wrong with the workd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 Well, I suppose, in those (Special Effects) movies/instances, I can see that. I tend (personally) to avoid most of what I would call "Special Effects" movies, more often, than not. So, I tend to gravitate toward non "main stream" Hollyweird fare. Unless, of course, they DO make a good/great story, into a great story driven, character driven, film, as well. Hollywood is perfectly capable, to doing that, as we've seen, in the past. It's just that they have to make, what "sells," even to be able to do the "good stuff," as well. So, maybe part/most of the problem, is the primary viewer's/age group, expectations? Another thing, is there's no "Studio System," anymore...to control, or at least keep an eye on, and "take care of," their "Stars!" Their shortcomings, and mis-steps were not so readily available, to the average consumer, as they are today, in this 24-hour a day, Tabloid crazed, media mentality. So, our perceptions, of what "Stars" are, and should be, have changed, a lot...because of that. If one reads anything of "Old Hollywood," there were plenty of well known actors/actresses, that were every bit as "wild" as any of the current crop. It just wasn't published, or broadcast. The Studios saw to that! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturn Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I don't know if I would say "better" or "worse". I think the actors/actresses back in the earlier days of Hollywood had more of a certain stylistic flair. Maybe because they were still more connected to stage acting, where you have to almost over project and exaggerate in order for everyone in the audience to get the point. I think the good actors of today are better at acting more natural, like real people so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 I don't know if I would say "better" or "worse". I think the actors/actresses back in the earlier days of Hollywood had more of a certain stylistic flair. Maybe because they were still more connected to stage acting, where you have to almost over project and exaggerate in order for everyone in the audience to get the point. I think the good actors of today are better at acting more natural, like real people so to speak. Yeah, and a LOT of that, was Studio generated...beyond what the "Star" had, already. That's part of what I was referring to, regarding the Studio(s) "taking care of," their actors/actresses. Their "image" was very closely created, and monitored. Today's actor/actress has more "freedom," that way, and... unfortunately, it can sometimes "backfire" on them, too. If they don't have the personal willpower, and/or real "Class," inherent, to resist those trappings, to begin with. Still, there are some great actors, today...given any decent material to work with. Some, even do amazing performances, with little to nothing, to work with. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrosurfer1959 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Depends on what you call the past? there's some excellent actors in the trades today that are extremely believable in the roles they play. I think nostalgia comes into play as we remember the good old days and everything it it as better kind of the beer goggle effect for life. Some of today's talent is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 IMHO It mirrors popular music - in that there there are as many, or even more talented actors around today making excellent films; the 'but' being that that you have to search through a lot more not so great films to find them! I would agree the relation between quantity and quality has increased (in relativity) with quantity being the winner in our modern times over quality, but there is so much acting talent around now it astounds me. There are also thousands of superb films being made every year - again you have to just look for them while wading through things like 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow LOL Matt p.s just kidding about the last two movies - I am going to watch the latest Transformers film as well as The Mechanic with Jason Statham in today ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 What do you all think. I know this isn't "Guitar" related, but... I'm still curious. We all love movies, right? So, are todays actors (male or female) really better, at their craft, or are the fewer, or less strict limitations, on them, than in the past, the bigger factor? CB Charlie I love films almost almost much as music! and watch around 3 - 5 new films (well new to me) a week. I have been a on a lucky run lately and this one really impressed me. It is a about a man going to visit the ex partner of his deceased son (Alan Rickman) and after an accident on the way there, how his life becomes entwined with an autistic adult (Sigourney Weaver) and also a selfish neighbour with a heart played by Carrie Anne Moss. IMHO the realism in a film like this wouldn't have lent itself to a film made a few decades ago... It is an indie film and all the big names did it for next to nothing as the script read so well Here is the trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfwoJfDx7mc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I think there's just as many great actors and actresses from the last 20 years as there was from the last 75 years. It's just that once an era has passed we only reflect upon the best of the era. For every James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart there was a dozen Randolf Scott's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swampash Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I watched a documentary the other night about Paul Newman where they showed his relationship with Robert Redford. It struck me then what true cinematic legends these men were. You could add Clint Eastwood, Steve McQueen, Harrison Ford, Jack Nicholson and Gene Hackman. These guys didn't have gigantic egos and didn't show their wealth and celebrity in people's faces. These were the real Hollywood stars that I grew up watching as a kid in an era where movies were original. They weren't remakes, sequels, prequels or reboots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesguitar65 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I don't know if I would say "better" or "worse". I think the actors/actresses back in the earlier days of Hollywood had more of a certain stylistic flair. Maybe because they were still more connected to stage acting, where you have to almost over project and exaggerate in order for everyone in the audience to get the point. I think the good actors of today are better at acting more natural, like real people so to speak. So, really anyone off the street can be an actor I guess. Just be yourself "naturally". I guess this holds true as many popular shows are "Reality TV". I guess, the cast of "Jersey Shore" and the Kardashians are great examples of "naturall" actors. [flapper] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveinspain Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Old movies are great! New movies are great just better visual quality and more spectacular... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluzhammer Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 So, really anyone off the street can be an actor I guess. Just be yourself "naturally". I guess this holds true as many popular shows are "Reality TV". I guess, the cast of "Jersey Shore" and the Kardashians are great examples of "naturall" actors. [flapper] More like natural ******bags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturn Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 So, really anyone off the street can be an actor I guess. Just be yourself "naturally". I guess this holds true as many popular shows are "Reality TV". I guess, the cast of "Jersey Shore" and the Kardashians are great examples of "naturall" actors. [flapper] No no no...I don't mean reality shows....they only "act" like ******s I mean a guy like Robert Duval. He's not young, but I consider him one of the more modern type actors. Maybe say from the late 60s up to now. IMO he just becomes whatever character he plays, without injecting his own personality into the role. You watch someone like him act and it's like watching someone in real life. A lesser actor would end up looking stiff and phony. I don't know how many people ever watched the HBO series "The Wire"? It was gritty an pretty violent, but I think it's a shame that it never won any Emmy's for "story" or any of the acting performances. All the character, no matter how small a role, were played with more realism than anything I've ever seen on TV or screen. Especially a black British actor named Idris Elba. He played the character of a Baltimore drug dealer and was so convincing it's scary. I was totally shocked when I heard the real person speaking in this perfectly proper English accent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigzag Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 IMHO It mirrors popular music - in that there there are as many, or even more talented actors around today making excellent films; the 'but' being that that you have to search through a lot more not so great films to find them! I agree completely. I get over 150 channels and a dozen or more available movie and PPV channels on my TV, plus Netflix. The closest movie theatre shows 8 movies at one time. There are 3 stage/theatre venues within 25 miles of my house, and all do excellent productions. The problem IMO is the writers/screen writers, not just the story/plot. And most network TV is junk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I don't know how many people ever watched the HBO series "The Wire"? It was gritty an pretty violent, but I think it's a shame that it never won any Emmy's for "story" or any of the acting performances. All the character, no matter how small a role, were played with more realism than anything I've ever seen on TV or screen. Especially a black British actor named Idris Elba. He played the character of a Baltimore drug dealer and was so convincing it's scary. I was totally shocked when I heard the real person speaking in this perfectly proper English accent. Saturn, I don't know if you have heard of it, but Idris Elba is also in a few seasons of a recent crime series called 'Luther'. It is again very dark and gritty and he has the wonderful almost Lecter and Clarice relationship with a lady called 'Alice' who is a psychopathic genius. In the very first episode she is the one he is investigating for the murder of her parents, but as the series carries on (she doesn't get caught as she is too clever) she becomes an unlikely ally! Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturn Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Saturn, I don't know if you have heard of it, but Idris Elba is also in a few seasons of a recent crime series called 'Luther'. It is again very dark and gritty and he has the wonderful almost Lecter and Clarice relationship with a lady called 'Alice' who is a psychopathic genius. In the very first episode she is the one he is investigating for the murder of her parents, but as the series carries on (she doesn't get caught as she is too clever) she becomes an unlikely ally! Matt Thanks, I'll have to check it out. Along with that other clip you posted "Snow Cake". That one actually looks like one my wife would really enjoy, since she works with autistic children. BTW, I heard somewhere that Idris Elba is going to play the next "007"....hmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Thanks, I'll have to check it out. Along with that other clip you posted "Snow Cake". That one actually looks like one my wife would really enjoy, since she works with autistic children. BTW, I heard somewhere that Idris Elba is going to play the next "007"....hmm I could live with that! He also had a small role in Thor which seemed to really not suit him LOL! Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 So, is it that actors today, Are as good (if not better) than they've ever been, but that their technique(s), and that of their medium have changed significantly, from those of the past? Stage and Film, acting, to me, are two very different approaches, by necessity. And, actors for each, don't always translate well, in their opposite medium. Of couse, some of the really great actors, can and Do, work well, in both. Personally, I think every era, of film, and stage acting, has had it's greats! So, beyond Technique, or even technical and stylistic approaches, they're essentially the same, quality wise. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Daniel Day Lewis is working on his Abraham Lincoln role. To me he is the best actor of any era past and present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I think one factor is that styles have changed in movie directing and framing. Some of the John Wayne westerns - the cavalry trilogy for example - was actually a set of Remington-like paintings interspersed with dialog. I got into an argument with a lady friend who also was my theater teacher a thousand years ago about movie vs theater with me taking the side of movies. In retrospect I think it's because I'm a photographer who uses distance and perspective to tell part of the story rather than a perpetual long-range look at people walking around and talking loudly. Movies "got it" very early - before sound was added, in fact. Actors... I dunno. I think they have less opportunity to shine than in the old days; but also the old days gave "us" some surprises, such as the low-budget Casablanca that's still a classic in spite of some less than stellar acting even by true "stars." The story carried it regardless. I'll say this, I don't think we have the cinema "art" in the sense that we once had in terms of framing and perspective. I think also that "style" of acting today too often follows the "style" of how we expect people to respond in today's culture - which is to me rather different from in the olden days. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem00n Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I think the biggest factor is that we love actors we see as children more then we do as adults. Why? Because we loved being a child, you didn't have to work and worry about everything. Sometimes things can seem better to you of your childhood but its just an illusion from your childhood. Thats my crazy two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.