From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar; Eric Baker
Subject: In Defense of Good Acting
Just as watching a movie is a subjective experience, watching a performance in a movie is subjective as well. I like all sorts of movies, and if there's anything my favorite movies have in common, it's that they offer some element of surprise. That "surprise" has come in countless guises and has been the work of actors, writers, directors, composers, editors and cinematographers. But particularly actors. I am always surprised by an actor's honesty, whether it be comic or tragic. Great actors tell it like it is. But even this is a point of contention. I didn't believe Eminem in "8 Mile." Many people do (including Eric and Adam). As a point of reference, I think Al Pacino "lied" his way through most of the movies he's done in the 90s, including the film he won his only Oscar for (and excluding "Glengarry Glen Ross" and "The Insider"). "Lying" in a performance is different from "phoning in" a performance. I admire Eminem's effort in "8 Mile." I think he was very brave to take it on. But I don't think he was prepared to give as much of himself as he may have thought he was. To respond to Ben's opinion in the Feedback Forum: there may be exceptions, but a performance in a video is not acting. It's a performance. And it relies completely on a performer's charisma, which, as I mentioned in my initial thoughts on "8 Mile," Eminem has to spare. There are "actors" who build their careers on charisma and I don't think there's anything wrong with that (Brad Pitt, John Travolta, Mel Gibson, John Cusak). All of these guys are usually fun to watch as long as they're playing variations of their film personalities; but put them in a film that requires an honest emotional commitment and they just can't pull it off. Acting is hard. Being an honest actor is harder still. I don't blame De Niro for taking on all of these comedies as he moves into his golden years; he probably took years off his life for his performance in "Raging Bull" alone. Besides, I love "Meet the Parents." Bring on the sequel. As to my ranking of "8 Mile" the #13 movie of the year (and I actually ranked it #11, which puts it smack in the middle of all the films I've seen this year), which Ben asks me about in the Feedback Forum: the bottom half of my list contains 7 films that that I thought stunk; the 3 films between "8 Mile" and the films that get my vote as the worst movies of the year, sit behind "8 Mile" not because I enjoyed them less -- quite the opposite in all cases -- but because they were either more deeply flawed ("Panic Room" & "Spider-Man") and/or were just un-ambitious trifles ("My Big Fat Greek Wedding"). At the risk of outstaying my welcome in this post, I want to answer some of Adam's thoughts. I completely agree with his criticism of Andrew O'Hehir's top-ten explanation. To restrict a top-ten list to films you want to see again is limiting. I thought "Happiness" was a great movie, but, even after two years, I'm still not thrilled with the idea of revisiting it. At the same time, a film like that is the exception, and it would have made it on my top-ten list. And for the record, I think "In the Bedroom" is a flawed movie with some really good performances. And I probably would have left it off my list just like O'Hehir (and maybe that's why I responded with so much enthusiasm to his explanation). One more thing: I didn't like Basinger's performance as much as Eric, but I didn't hate it as much as Adam. I thought it was fine. A "5" on the lying scale (whatever that means). And Brittany Murphy was both dirty and strangely attractive. I love the connection Eric made between Murphy and Bonham Carter in "Fight Club." Right on the money. I think Murphy's a good actress. We'll see how she does on SNL tomorrow night.
No comments:
Post a Comment