(Ch. 6) Response Post Assignment & Updates & Reminders

Response post and upcoming assignments:

Response Due Oct. 8 by 11:59 PM:

Read and review materials from Chapter 6:shatner

 

 

Response Post Assignment

After reading the materials and listening to some of the featured actors, respond to what is “acting?” – Answer the following questions in the response section of this page.

  1. What did you learn about acting you didn’t know before? How do you feel that will change the way you view, and review films?kristen-stewart
  2. As a rising film critic, what do you find to be the most challenging about evaluating “good acting?” Name someone you feel is a good actor (male or female) and defend your answer. Name someone you feel is a bad actor. Why?
  3. Select three elements from the readings about comedy/humor that you found interesting. Explain why they interested you.
  4. Based on the interview with one of the actors on this page, what did you find most intriguing or interesting about their approach to filmmaking. Why?

Upcoming Assignments and updates:

You must also address how music, sound and silence are used in your selected film. Find the examples here.

Review Assignment (Option 2)

You may also choose to review a film from 20 Great Performances Every Actor Should Watch or from this list featuring some of Hollywood’s best ever acting talent (talent and films listed here).  Use this 600-word-evaluation-rubric if you select an “Acting-driven” film. 

  • October 13-31– Semester Project notes: watch final two films (and make detailed notes).

16 Comments Add yours

  1. Celia García Martín says:

    1. What did you learn about acting you didn’t know before? How do you feel that will change the way you view, and review films?

    In order to evaluate acting in a fair way, we must always consider the context in which that acting is happening. There are many roles in cinema that do not represent real characters, that is to say, characters that we could believe exist in the real world (although reality surpasses fiction in many occasions). Thus, playing those roles means that the actors probably have to perform in a non-natural or exaggerated manner. However, no matter how unrealistic a role may be, the quality of an actor is measured by his ability of making that specific character look real and believable for the audience. As the actor and Oscar winner Michael Caine explains, you have to focus on the situation that you are recreating and forget about everything else. You have to believe that the situation is real in order to make it believable for others.

    2. As a rising film critic, what do you find to be the most challenging about evaluating “good acting?” Name someone you feel is a good actor (male or female) and defend your answer. Name someone you feel is a bad actor. Why?

    I find that one of the most difficult things evaluating someone’s acting is to be able to separate the person behind the actor and the character he or she plays. For example, we might not like a specific actor for the way they are, so to say, in real life. We might not like their way of thinking or how they behave in interviews and that affects our opinion of them as actors. Likewise, it is difficult to identify good acting if we do not like the movie as a whole. In this regard, the fact that we do not like certain movies does not mean that the acting in those movies is necessarily bad. Therefore, getting rid of our personal opinions while writing a review is a big challenge.
    As for good actors (in my opinion), I would like to mention Matthew McConaughey, Leonardo di Caprio or Christoph Waltz. I think the first two went through a similar evolution in their acting careers. They started as blockbusters or romantic comedies actors (e.g.: Leonardo di Caprio in “Titanic” or Matthew McConaughey in “The Wedding Planner” or “How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days”) but not as Oscar winning actors. However, they have proven by far that they can also succeed as dramatic actors. Such is the case of McConaughey in “Dallas Buyers Club” or the TV series “True Detective”. As for Di Caprio, he did an excellent job in “Shutter Island” or “The Revenant” among others. Christoph Waltz, on the other hand, is very chameleonic. He can play a lunatic in “Django Unchained”, a dramatic role in “Big Eyes” or appear in a comedy like “Horrible Bosses 2”.
    Regarding bad actors, or actors that I do not particularly like, I would say Adam Sandler or Nicholas Cage. In the first case, I feel like all Adam Sandler movies look alike and I only found that his role in “Spanglish” was a bit different than usual. As for Nicholas Cage, it is hard to say whether I consider him a good actor or not, but I definitely do not like most of his movies. This latter aspect is also important when identifying good actors, that is, their ability to choose the roles they want to perform.

    3. Select three elements from the readings about comedy/humor that you found interesting. Explain why they interested you.

    Comedy is usually so culturally embedded that it might be difficult to understand for audiences who do not live with that same culture. The positive thing in this regard is that we can learn a lot from other cultures from the way they understand comedy. It is interesting, however, how sometimes some comedies get to cross borders and be understood worldwide since they project a humor internationally recognizable (“Young Frankenstein”, “The Hangover”.)
    Comedy is subjective. Even within the same culture, we might laugh at things that others do not find funny. The question is, why does that happen? We might have different ways of understanding comedy or it is possible that our personal baggage influences us when considering what is funny or not.
    Thus, despite cultural elements and subjectivity, comedies can still be successful if they respect certain principles. One of them is what Schopenhauer defined as “violating people’s expectations”. When the outcome of a situation is different from expected, this is likely to be funny. An example of this occurs in “Young Frankenstein” when Frederick is telling Igor that he is a very good surgeon and that he can help him to get rid of his hump. A normal reaction to this would be that Igor showed interest for what he is listening to rather than acting as if the hump did not exist.

    4. Based on the interview with one of the actors on this page, what did you find most intriguing or interesting about their approach to filmmaking. Why?

    In Britt Robertson interview, she talks about the importance of remaining true to oneself. Since actors do exactly the opposite and they continuously have to pretend that they are someone else, it is easy to lose oneself in the process. However, actors should also be attached to their roots and their origins. They have to know who they are first and, from that base, be able to play different characters.

    Celia García Martín

    Liked by 1 person

    1. noeltmanning says:

      Leaving our baggage behind (especially for acting talent) is a true challenge. All I can say is – try, try, try.
      If we try, maybe we’ll be surprised (like I was years ago with a Nick Cage film).

      I love “Igor’s Hump” line in YF. I still laugh at that.

      I think Britt’s comments can apply to film critics as well (especially once we find our voice).

      Thanks Celia.

      Like

  2. 1. Moonlight was shot in just days. Some actors finished shooting their scenes in 3 and others in 5 days. Something that I do find interesting about acting in a film rather than in a play is that it is harder to act in a film. It’s harder because when filming a movie an actor must perform his different scenes out of order. As Zoe Saldana mentioned, an actor can place so much effort into their part and during the post-production period, the director could decide to edit their scene to show them in a completely different light.
    In comparison, while acting in a play all your scenes are in order and it would be far easier to play a character who’s character growth is in a natural order. I forgot how hard it must be to act in a film as compared to a play. I think that in the future when I review a film I will try to appreciate what an actor did.

    2. I have a really hard time telling if someone is overacting. I consider a good actor to be someone who plays a character in a way that doesn’t remind me of their previous work. I rather like Meryl Streep for this reason. I don’t see Julia from “Julie and Julia” in Miranda from “The Devil Wears Prada”. She has played so many roles and I have yet to see her play a character that reminds me of one of her previous characters.

    As mentioned in class, I personally don’t like Anne Hathaway as an actor. My reasoning is that when I see her play a character I feel like I have seen that character from her before. Now this might just be because of the roles she chooses, but when I see her character in “One Day” I am reminded of her roles in “Becoming Jane”, “The Devil Wears Prada” and “Bride Wars”. I personally don’t feel like I have baggage as to why I don’t like her as an actor since I like her in “Interstellar” and “Princess Diaries”. Perhaps it is because he is playing different roles.

    3. I found the Ted talk extremely interesting. There were definitely
    3 things that I never knew about until I saw that video.

    1. Laughing is good for us and our body can’t tell the
    difference between a fake and a real laugh.
    – I have always heard that laughing is good for us, but I didn’t
    know that it helped the body relax and actually gave the
    internal organs a massage.

    2. Using humor to aid in leadership actually has a variety of
    benefits!
    – I was very unaware that using humor when being a leader
    will improve how your employees feel about you. It will make
    you more approachable and trustable.

    3. I wish I could understand it a bit more, but if I do find it
    interesting that our brains find certain words funnier than
    others.

    4. Great interviews with Mahershala Ali and Brit Roberson! I like Mahershala Ali’s simple approach of literally just telling the truth. It doesn’t matter if the content is fictional, but it matters to the character that an actor is playing. They must tell the truth that the character is feeling. I like this because I feel like there is a lot of complexness surrounding the concept of acting. It’s simple. Tell the character’s truth.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. noeltmanning says:

      “Tell the Character’s Truth” – that really stuck with me too. ‘Stage acting” and “film acting” definitely take different approaches. Thanks Sam.

      Like

  3. drewpeden says:

    1. What did you learn about acting you didn’t know before? How do you feel that will change the way you view, and review films?
    • I didn’t realize that actors put so many small things into their acting our small things they do on camera that the general viewer would never notice. I knew that the camera truly does show everything you say or do, but I was shocked at how often an actor will do something not scripted and sometimes un-noticed by the producer/editor, but when the film comes out, and people are able to catch those small things, it makes for a much better time. This will change the way I view and review films, because from now on, I will be sitting and watching every detail trying to pick out things that may have been thrown in there secretly by the actor to put their own little twist on the scene.

    2. As a rising film critic, what do you find to be the most challenging about evaluating “good acting?” Name someone you feel is a good actor (male or female) and defend your answer. Name someone you feel is a bad actor. Why?
    • To me, the most challenging aspect of acting that define the actors between good and bad, and what may classify one as a good actor, is how well they prepare for a role. Matthew McConaughey is an outstanding actor. Now while he may not fit all roles, he has a very specific type of style that I have grown to love watching. He is very real with his emotions and his feelings, and you can actually believe that he is feeling that way. Now one bad actor that I feel was not meant for the screen is Tommy Wiseau. With as bad and robotic his acting is, his self produced film “The Room”, is extremely popular and is being praised for how bad it was. Wiseau had a dream of acting, and he did just that. Now while he may be a very staged and not natural actor, he has scored roles in other films. Acting, to me, is all about feeling, and if the actor makes me believe that they are truly feeling depressed or sick, I love that and I am drawn to that actor for their amazing ability.

    3. Select three elements from the readings about comedy/humor that you found interesting. Explain why they interested you.
    • I found the fact that laughter is actually scientifically healthy for you as a tension or stress reducer to be amazing. I always knew I loved to laugh, but I never realized that it was actually healthy. I also found it interesting that films are targeted towards specific groups of audiences and specific types of people with a specific type of humor. I have found myself watching a film, and while everyone else around me was cracking up laughing, I was sitting there and while I admit that what was said or done was funny, it wasn’t funny enough to me to laugh. Also, I found it interesting that comedy films generally do not have as high of a budget as other films may. I had never thought about that, but I guess it kind of makes sense. Although this genre of films generally has a lower production budget, they are still very successful and fun to talk about!

    4. Based on the interview with one of the actors on this page, what did you find most intriguing or interesting about their approach to filmmaking. Why?
    • I listened to the interview with Britt Robertson, and what I found most interesting in her approach to acting was how important it is for her to stay true to herself and keep her roots. She lives in Hollywood, but she was born and raised in the south, Charlotte, NC and Chester, SC to be specific. Being a southern grown girl, she has those southern manners and tends to use those not only on screen, but also on set with people shes interacting with.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. noeltmanning says:

      Those small details matter to acting talent, and can help them retain sanity (at times).
      Ultimately when we review “acting” – we should ask ourselves -does the character “feel” real within the world we’re exploring?

      Thanks Drew

      Like

  4. 1) What did you learn about acting you didn’t know before? How do you feel that will change the way you view, and review films?

    As someone who knows a good bit of acting from watching movies, it’s always my goal to be immersed by an actor/actress’s performance. I’m always hoping to believe that what I’m seeing on screen is the character and not the actor/actress. What I will say is one of the biggest things I’ve learned from acting is the toll it takes on someone. But the one thing that I learned from the reading is the idea that every single actor takes certain gestures from other actors, while still being able to make it their own. It’s one thing to carbon-copy something, but it’s important to know that you should make it your own and to execute it in your own definitive style.

    2) As a rising film critic, what do you find to be the most challenging about evaluating “good acting?” Name someone you feel is a good actor (male or female) and defend your answer. Name someone you feel is a bad actor. Why?

    I think the most challenging aspect when reviewing “good acting” is if things seem real and attachable. One actor that comes to mind is someone that I’ve been keeping my eye on for the last 10 years is Ryan Gosling. Now, he’s only 37 years old, but when looking at the films he’s been in since 2011, it blows my mind on how different they are from each other. He can be a romantic lead in Crazy Stupid Love, he can do the grit and edge in the movie Drive, he can do the comedy in The Nice Guys and he can lead a huge and very beloved science-fiction property with Blade Runner 2049. The versatility of his movies speaks for the contrast for the characters that he portrays in each movie he does. As far as actors I don’t like that’s real tough because that’s such a subjective question, but there’s really no actor I strongly dislike. I generally like most actors.

    3) Select three elements from the readings about comedy/humor that you found interesting. Explain why they interested you.

    One aspect of the comedy section is that it’s the genre in Hollywood that’s the least successful market in the international market, which does make a lot of sense if you really think about it. Comedy is such a subjective genre, and a lot of it has to do with the culture that revolves around you. Sure, big comic-book movies and sci-fi properties will do great business overseas, but movies like The Hangover, Role Models or Superbad are really targeting domestic markets and the comedy is more strained to that culture. Another thing I found interesting about the comedy section is how it might be the best genre for the sense of escapism because a comedy can really help you cope. Going into a comedy and hoping to laugh can be a great feeling. Humor and laughter always seems like a great natural element that human beings all share.

    4) Based on the interview with one of the actors on this page, what did you find most intriguing or interesting about their approach to filmmaking? Why?

    I listened to the interview with Mahershala Ali, an actor that I really admire, and the most interesting thing to take note on from his point of view is I was quite surprised as to how long it took from him to shoot Moonlight. Granted, his character wasn’t in the movie for that much, but for him to wind up winning the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor at the 89th Academy Awards is outstanding. I also like how much it matters him to how the character is portrayed on screen and how much the representation is important to him. There’s a sense of truth and honesty with what he was saying and I really liked that.

    – Zane Gray

    Liked by 1 person

    1. noeltmanning says:

      It’s been said that there are “no new ideas” only “new ways of sharing old ideas.” That carries with acting as well.

      Ryan Gosling = great example of budding (and growing) actor.

      Thanks Zane

      Like

  5. jalissa9 says:

    What I find interesting in acting is how actors have to get into their character role. Actors could finish there are scenes in days or months depending on the extensiveness of the role. Also, what caught my attention is actors sometimes don’t say what exactly is on the script. A good actor could forget lines, but still be able to improv and make the scene even better. Getting into a character that is unnatural I find to be really difficult in a sense that you have to forget everything else even about oneself to portray a role out of your own “morals” or “characteristics”. When being a bad character simple thing could fail in the scenes where you are one note or your facial expressions are not as believable this can make or break the whole movie.

    As I said in number one it all has to do with making yourself believe you are that character forgetting everything else except the characters characteristics. Some actors have to play the role in there day to day lives to get the part right. I applaud them because this sometimes leads to them losing themselves or going insane some might say. Johnny Depp is the actor I feel that he knows how to be a great actor. He has played so many roles and some of the roles are unnatural like Edward scissor hands, Mad hatter. It’s amazing to see his facial expressions and how well he can take the character and make you feel like it’s actually real.

    Anti-humor, cringe humor, sitcom these are 3 different types of comedy and what I found is not everyone thinks everything is funny. Comedy is the least popular in movies and I understand why. It is extremely difficult not to offend people in the society we live in and sometimes different topics are sensitive to people and others are not. Even when it comes to translations in movies. English movies translated into Spanish can have totally different meanings based on humor because culturally speaking they do not have the same jokes. For example, sometimes I tell my mom a joke and she doesn’t see what’s funny and when she shows me jokes in Spanish it takes me to a minute to realize what’s funny about it.

    I love Britt Roberston and the main thing you take away is how she tells you to stay true to yourself. Because she’s right you are playing roles that aren’t “you” it’s all fake and sometimes you can get lost in the character. Which is why deaths happen or depression. Actors that take the role to seriously can end up affecting themselves mentally. You always have to remind yourself of the person you are before trying to evolve into a different character for every film you play in. For example, Britt is actually from the south but lives in Hollywood to the totally different atmosphere, but she still stays true to her southern hospitality regardless of her roles or where she lives.

    -Jalissa Herrera

    Liked by 1 person

    1. noeltmanning says:

      When we lose ourselves in the stories the characters portray … we can get a small glimpse into how “they can lose themselves in the roles too.”

      Thanks Jalissa

      Like

  6. Thomas Manning says:

    1. What did you learn about acting you didn’t know before? How do you feel that will change the way you view, and review films?

    One thing that stood out to me was recognizing the significance of an actor’s ability to appear alert and responsive to the things occurring around them. As the viewer, we focus first and foremost on who is speaking. It is secondary to examine the reactions of those around them. Yet, it is these reactions from those on the receiving end of the dialogue that often conveys a deeper level of emotion. For instance, if a child is in trouble with their mother or father, the parents can yell all they want, but only reach a certain level of emotional connection with the audience. On the other hand, if we see the vulnerable, sensitive response from the child, we feel that more completely as the viewer. In scenes like this, it is important to give credit to both sides of the equation. The emotional structure of these moments depends on support from both parties.

    2. As a rising film critic, what do you find to be the most challenging about evaluating “good acting?” Name someone you feel is a good actor (male or female) and defend your answer. Name someone you feel is a bad actor. Why?

    A specific actor that comes to mind as very skilled and diverse is Gary Oldman. I have only seen him in a handful of films, including the Harry Potter franchise, The Dark Knight trilogy, and Air Force One, but he showed me enough in these roles to leave an impact on my perception of him as an actor. He portrays a completely different character in each of these films, but makes you truly believe the authenticity of their personality. From a wizard double agent who turns out to be a loving uncle in Harry Potter, to an honorable police commissioner in the Batman films, to a malevolent terrorist in Air Force One, his actions and emotions felt completely natural, rather than forced and exaggerated.
    On the other end of the spectrum, Hayden Christensen has always struck me as a flat, emotionless actor. This is largely based on his two performances in the Star Wars prequels, so it is possible that I am jumping to conclusions with a sample size lacking in depth. Yet, his role as Anakin Skywalker in these films had so much potential, but Christensen’s portrayal left a bad taste in the mouth of many die-hard Star Wars fans. He took the origin story and character arc of Darth Vader, one of the most iconic and intimidating villains in cinematic history, and turned it into a robotic performance that has produced enough jokes and memes to last a lifetime. This is a disappointment to say the very least. Perhaps in other roles, Christensen has produced better content. However, solely based on my experiences with him in Star Wars, I can’t say that he is a very good actor.

    3. Select three elements from the readings about comedy/humor that you found interesting. Explain why they interested you.

    – I think it’s fascinating that a mathematical formula can be used to explain just about anything in the world, humor included. The article about the team from the University of Alberta that crafted this theory was eye-opening. But, when you think about it, this does make sense. Any time a joke is told, there is a plan in mind to get from Point A to Point B of the joke, with the goal of producing laughter.
    – I was definitely not aware of the Association for Applied and Therapeutic Humor. This just goes to show how remarkably impactful these emotions can be. I tend to think of humor as a temporary escape, but the very existence of this organization proves that its positive effects extend far beyond momentary happiness. Humor can be used to fight illness and greatly improve peoples’ quality of life.
    – I never consciously realized that laughter can block one’s pain awareness. On a subconscious level however, I can look back and remember personal experience with this unique ability of humor. When I was younger, if I was about to get a vaccine or a blood test at the doctor’s office, the nurse would tell me a joke to take my mind of the discomfort of the needle. In hindsight, this worked because of humor’s pain-blocking aspects.

    4. Based on the interview with one of the actors on this page, what did you find most intriguing or interesting about their approach to filmmaking. Why?

    I listened to the interview with Mahershala Ali. It was really interesting to hear him talk about his personal similarities to his character from Luke Cage, “Cottonmouth.” Cottonmouth had a deep-rooted appreciation for music, and Ali describes this as a reflection of his own passion for music. As an actor, if one’s personality blends with the character they are portraying, then a real, authentic performance becomes more likely. Personally, I have witnessed firsthand Ali’s performance in Luke Cage, and I certainly felt that emotional connection. It didn’t feel like he was acting. This is what sets apart skilled actors from the rest.

    – Thomas Manning

    Liked by 1 person

    1. noeltmanning says:

      “Reacting” to the other acting talents (and/or environment) is what separates “real acting talent.” To me, that is an art itself, understanding “reacting.”

      I encourage you to explore more Gary Oldman. films … you’ll continue to be impressed (surprised).

      In grad school, I actually did a research project and wrote a grant based on the “healing power of humor.”

      Mahershala Ali. was such a nice guy, and was willing to take more time with me than his publicist actually allotted. A great, and versatile talent. -Thanks Thomas

      Like

  7. What did you learn about acting you didn’t know before? How do you feel that will change the way you view, and review films?
    I learned that acting is based on the sole move itself. It isn’t a matter of taking themselves out of it, it’s a matter of making the world believable. In the video Ben Stiller made a good point about it being all about grounding it to reality- despite it being fictional. It was interesting hear such famous actors tell there advice. I think hearing and reading into acting will change the way I feel about acting because I have more of a checklist to approve of their performance. The more I read the more I find I don’t have taste towards good or bad acting because I don’t know the rules.

    As a rising film critic, what do you find to be the most challenging about evaluating “good acting?” Name someone you feel is a good actor (male or female) and defend your answer. Name someone you feel is a bad actor. Why?
    I think the most challenging part for me is that I really have a hard time saying somebody was bad at something. We ALL pick at nicholas cage being a bad actor and even when I do that, it just breaks my heart because that is his career. However, I guess that’s baggage and it’s called being a film “critic” and not a film “lover” if that makes sense. I’m much more likely to call out good acting, and I’m much more gravitated towards actresses and actors that I identify with on-screen. Someone I feel is a good actor is Emmy Rossum. Mainly because she’s just proved herself being so many different characters so well from Christine in Phantom of the Opera to Fiona on Shameless(TV show not movie). Owen Wilson is someone who I don’t mind too much calling out. His parts just are so similar in demeanor that I have to assume that’s himself coming out.

    Select three elements from the readings about comedy/humor that you found interesting. Explain why they interested you.
    Well for one I didn’t know that laughter is considered internal jogging. Turns out I’m more athletic than I thought I was, thanks. Secondly, and I just had a conversation about this with a friend the other day: things are funny when they aren’t what we think they’ll be. This just blows my mind honestly because every good joke in history that I can think of at the moment does JUST that! I also found it interesting how Westbury said “… humans function better when they are happy.” I’m not sure I agree with what he’s saying, but it’s thought provoking and interesting.

    Based on the interview with one of the actors on this page, what did you find most intriguing or interesting about their approach to filmmaking. Why?
    I got to listen to Britt Robertson’s interview and she actually stars in one of my favorite shows on Netflix called Girlboss! It’s crazy that she got her career started so close. (Kathryn’s shoutout made me happy too). I think what I found intruiging about her approach, and others like Anne Hathaway talked about their approach like this, was just their admiration for their characters. I’m no actor but I feel like it must be important to have some sort of emotion towards a role/character so that you know what others are going to feel as well. That way you know how you can intensify the emotions that role is supposed to evoke.

    -Kelsey Tanner

    Liked by 1 person

    1. noeltmanning says:

      Finding ways to share emotions on screen while also evoking emotions from an audience is a true talent. Some have it, and some don’t. When we as an audience see it, we KNOW good from bad. It may take us a while to explain it, but the more we watch the more we’re able to separate good acting from bad. Thanks Kelsey

      Like

  8. noeltmanning says:

    Post by Luke Gazak

    What did you learn about acting you didn’t know before? How do you feel that will change the way you view and review films?
    -Something that I learned about acting is in regards to what makes a bad actor, bad. Two things stuck out to me from what Marcus Geduld said about bad acting is an actor being vulnerable, and listening. Vulnerable meaning that a great actor will show the parts of them that are primarily hidden. Things like anger, jealousy, pettiness, and aspects of a person that they would try to hide in their personal life. In a good actor, they will show these things and won’t hold back. I think in a subliminal way I might have noticed that. However, the fact that it was brought to my attention will help me pay more attention to that aspect of an actor and how they use their vulnerability for the film. The same idea goes for the listening aspect of a good or bad actor. A good actor will be listening to the other actor in their role, and I think you can tell that. As opposed to remembering a line or just being blanked out the actual conversations between actors and being able to listen is key in portraying a realistic scene or interaction between characters. Both listening and vulnerability are two parts of acting, especially good acting, that I don’t think I recognized initially when watching films. Having realized how these two aspects of acting can make or break will definitely improve my overall analysis of an actor and their performance in a film.

    As a rising film critic, what do you find to be the most challenging about evaluating “good acting?” Name someone you feel is a good actor (male or female) and defend your answer. Name someone you feel is a bad actor. Why?
    – One of the most challenging aspects to me in evaluating good acting versus bad acting is the sincerity of their acting, and whether or not it is just who they are as an actor or in that particular role. Sometimes when I am watching a film a character or actor might just stick out to me in a bad way. It is usually because I can’t tell if the actor is acting in a way that fits a particular role or if its just the way the actor does their job. Sometimes it can be a way that the actor conversates or even their body language, but I can never fully conclude if it’s just me or if it’s actually bad acting. This could come from my lack of experience as a film critic as well as limited knowledge in the field of acting, but I do know what I like and don’t like. An actor that I do like is Matthew McConaughey. I think part of my liking for him comes from a bit of a fanboy type of deal. However, I like his swagger and simply the way that he carries himself in his role. He has a confidence in him and projects his emotions forward in such a believable way that it’s captivating. Every movie that Matthew McConaughey is in I get into his character more so than the others. His passion and flexibility as an actor to fit into multiple roles make him just enjoyable to watch. Lastly, I just feel like he’s a cool guy off screen. I really believe if for some reason he and I were to randomly meet up he wouldn’t be some pompous Hollywood actor who’s too good for the rest. I think my perception of him off screen has an impact as much if not more than his performance on screen. An actor that usually leaves a bad taste in my mouth is Melissa McCarthy. I don’t think that she lacks skill as an actor and I think in one way or another I can understand why someone might like her as an actor. Personally, her style of acting just doesn’t gel with me. As an actress, she tends to be loud, in your face, and have a slapstick appeal to her comedy. It just not my cup of tea and I think her lack of diversity as an actor is also what steers me away from her movies.

    Select three elements from the readings about comedy/humor that you found interesting. Explain why they interested you.
    – Three elements of comedy and humor that I found interesting were the health aspects, the styles or language of comedy, and simply the way that people perceive comedic approaches and what they find funny. It is interesting how simply laughing can be healthy for you. Of all the medical advancements we have made as humans it’s almost comical in itself to know that we hardly know much about why laughing is so beneficial to health. Aside from the health benefits, I find it interesting to know that there are so many ways to make someone laugh in the approach and genre of comedy. Whether it is a parody, satire, or dark humor, someone finds it funny. However, just as interesting as it is that so many ways exist to make someone laugh, people can just as easily chose not to laugh. It’s kind of outlandish to think that a movie or even just a joke can be absolutely hilarious to the masses but some people don’t even crack a smile. What is it in our brains that ticks to make something funny or not? It is intriguing to think about the fact that people’s perceptions of things and even perhaps the experiences they have gone through can make them die laughing, or walk away.

    Based on the interview with one of the actors on this page, what did you find most intriguing or interesting about their approach to filmmaking. Why?
    – Based on the interview with the actress Britt Robertson, what I find most interesting about her approach to filmmaking is the emotion and thought that she puts into it. I got this impression when Britt was talking about the film “Mr. Church” with Eddie Murphey. Just the way that she explains the movie and the emotions behind it that she wants to portray in real life, seem real to her. It doesn’t seem like she is just promoting a movie or starring in a random film, rather, she is connected with the movie and the feelings and morals behind it. I think that this approach to filmmaking and the personal aspect she includes in it is really beneficial to the viewer in making it seem raw and real.

    Like

    1. noeltmanning says:

      Luke – Being vulnerable and knowing how to “react” to other characters and the environment are the two keys for “great actors.”

      Sometimes -when we don’t “gel” with certain acting talent, it makes it difficult to leave that baggage behind and give them a chance. Sometimes we can be surprised by what we find if we only continue to give them chances.

      Britt’s approach is to be “raw, real and true” to the character within the story. That’s all we can ask for .

      Thank you Luke -Noel

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s