PDA

View Full Version : OT - How difficult is it to be an actor?


QuikSand
10-13-2003, 11:01 AM
It seems to be a very slow day here at FOFC... though I'd toss a log on the fire. This is something that strikes me from time to time...

There are a variety of professions where people who hold very special or rare skills are handsomely rewarded - athletics is the obvious example (especially in this setting). Most top-tier athletes possess certain skills that are clearly far beyond anything else that we, the great unwashed, simply don't.

Even in entertainment, I think there is clearly a great deal of natural talent involved with most top performers... musicians and comedians certainly need to have specific skills to succeed with what they do. The ability to perform on stage requires a certain nerve that not everyone has, of course.


However, in my mind -- it just seems that the ability to "act" is a little different. The differences between good acting and poor acting are a lit more subtle in my mind, and I think there's plenty of room for interpretation as to what is and is not good acting.

I'm inclined to think that being a good actor probably requires certain skills, but that those skills really aren't all that rare. I suspect that most fairly intelligent people with a decent amount of common sense probably could pull off a respectable "acting" job without much trouble. Given good material to work with (compex characters, good direction, etc) perhaps even better than that. I'm just not sure that most "good" actors are really much more evolved than the rest of us - I'm not sure they really possess something that the rest fo us don't. (In the way that a great athlete or a great musical talent does seem to)

cthomer5000
10-13-2003, 11:08 AM
I agree that it must be (by far) the easiest of the celebrity professions. I honestly think a great director can get exactly what he needs out of nearly any passable "actor." We've all seen films where someone turns in a career performance and never comes close to that again. Conversely, we've seen movies full of respected actors where 1 or more turn in complete clunkers of a performance (George Lucas ruining everyone in the 2 most recent Star Wars springs to mind).

Draft Dodger
10-13-2003, 11:19 AM
the other factor here is that - probably more than almost any other profession - skill isn't necessarily the most important factor in success.

looks, marketing, and choice of material are all probably more important to success to actual acting talent.

albionmoonlight
10-13-2003, 11:20 AM
Danny Devito and Reha Perlman aside, you generally need to fit the accepted model of being "hot" in order to succeed in Hollywood.

For the great unwashed masses, however, I think people like and support who the entertainment media (as an aside--what kind of a world do we inhabit where there are people who's actual job is "entertainment journalist?") decides that they should like.

Take Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. Both have done well since busting unto the scene with Good Will Hunting. I think that Matt Damon has a lot more acting talent than Ben Affleck, who I think is worse than most of the actors out there today. Also, most people I talk to think that Damon is clearly the sexier of the two. However, Ben Affleck is the one who is THE STAR right now. Think how many productive man hours have been wasted following him and Jennifer Lopez around for the last year or so--WHY? What makes Affleck such an attention magnet right now? I think, in part, it is because someone somewhere deep the the bowels of E headquarters decided that he had "it." And the rest is history. The media creates the image, and then fullfills its predictions.

In a "Trading Places" sort of way, it would be interesting to have the E network decide to take a random joe off the street (oh, let's say, Marmel) and make him the next big thing. I think that in 6 months, Marmel would not be able to sleep for all of the helicopters hovering above his house, waiting to ask him if the rumors about Cameron Diaz are true.

VPI97
10-13-2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by QuikSand
I suspect that most fairly intelligent people with a decent amount of common sense probably could pull off a respectable "acting" job without much trouble.
I agree...the difference between the person you describe and an average actor is opportunity. The difference between an average actor and a "great" actor is knowing which roles to say yes to.

KWhit
10-13-2003, 12:13 PM
Sigh.

I am an actor. Well, I'm actually a corporate trainer who has studied acting and still dabbles in it from time to time. Right now I am in a semi-professional production of a musical.

I've heard your theory many times. Everyone thinks that they can be an actor. Well, it's nowhere near as easy as you make it out to be, and I get a little ticked off every time I hear claim that it is.

There is a great deal of theory behind how an actor should approach a role. If you care to read about it, start with this book by Constantin Stanislovski. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0878309837/qid=1066062844/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_3/103-6807102-8908628?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

But I think what you're referring to is talent more so than knowledge. What skills does an actor have that you don't? It is not easy to let yourself go emotionally in front of hundreds (or thousands) of people - especially in live theatre. In the play I am currently in, I have to break down into sobs at the drop of a hat when a fellow actress tells my character that he is "beautiful." I can tell you from experience, this is extremely difficult to do.

Not only do I have to get over any macho hang-ups about crying in front of hundreds of strangers (and my wife, parents, best friends, etc who come see the show) but I also have to have the technique to be able to pull this emotion up from my subconcious in a matter of 1-2 seconds onstage.

And contrary to what some of you might say, if it isn't "real", the audience will not buy it. When emotion is "indicated" (the term used in my acting education for faked or forced) it comes across as phony. So I have to REALLY get myself into a state of emotion to cry. This has been a huge challenge for me.

When most people claim that acting is easy, they are thinking about shows like "Friends" or maybe an action movie where the special effects drive the excitement. But actors have to be prepared to show real emotion and need to have the technique to do a role that requires more than just looking cute and spouting one-liners. Most actors can do this or they never would have gotten the opportunity to land that role in "Friends" etc. (but there are plenty of exceptions).

Also, to become a successful actor (one that can quit their day job and support himself on just acting pay), someone must have a big "bag of tricks".

For my current role, I have to speak in a Polish accent. I can also do Irish, Scottish, Genteel Southern and Mountain Southern (not too tough since I live in GA), Standard British, Cockney and others. I had to learn the International Phonetic Alphabet (http://hometown.aol.com/hpaumit/ipachart.html) (with well over 100 symbols) in order to learn these dialects. And speaking them is a real talent (one I wish I was better at).

I also have gotten roles because I can juggle, tumble, balance objects on my chin, dance, sing, play musical instruments, etc. You're probably thinking "well, those things aren't acting". No, they're not, but the profession is so competitive, that an actor needs every possible advantage he can get. If I can do all of these things and you can't, I am going to have a much better chance of making a living as an actor than you because I'll be considered for more roles.

Basically, actors claw and fight for every job against hundreds of other actors. Even professional actors (those in the Actor's unions) have it tough. The following quote I found relates to film work, but the same can be said of stage actors as well:

"Earnings from acting are low because employment is so irregular. The Screen Actors Guild also reports that the average income its members earned from acting was $1,400 a year, and 80 percent of its members earned less than $5,000 a year from acting. Therefore, many actors must supplement their incomes by holding jobs in other fields."

So obviously, actors must have "real" jobs for the most part. And 99.9999999% of them do not make the kind of outrageous $$ that the stars make.

Whew. I don't know if that answers your question (I kinda just threw down a bunch of thoughts really quickly), but it's really not easy to do.

Mustang
10-13-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by albionmoonlight
Danny Devito and Reha Perlman aside, you generally need to fit the accepted model of being "hot" in order to succeed in Hollywood.


Steve Buscemi could probably be included in that non-hot list...

QuikSand
10-13-2003, 12:50 PM
Good response, KWhit... well thought out.

However, at the same time that you are defending how much skill it takes to be an actor, you're simultaneously talking about how many legions of people are doing this kind of work and it's so competitive. In a sense, that buttresses my argument (that these skills aren't really special) as much as yours.

And I would also like to try to clarify - and separate out the matter of "requiring hard work" and "requiring rare skill." (And I recognize that my thread title is ambiguous as to which of these I'm venturing) I'm not necessarily suggesting that being a professional actor is easy - just that it doesn't seem to require such a set of rare skills that are completely different than those most of us have. I don't know if I'd ever be able to perfect an acceptable Polish accent, nor whether I'd be able to suffer the hours it takes for production of a serious effort... but I'd hazard a guess that I (or others like me) might have the requisite skills to do so, were I able to commit the needed work. I can't think of any other high-profile career where I can say that with any confidence.

CraigSca
10-13-2003, 12:52 PM
There's a world of difference between acting in a theater and acting in a motion picture. Obviously, in a motion picture, much more can be done to overcome a particular actor's shortcomings.

However, how many people from other professions step into a motion picture/TV show and perform in a passable manner? Now...how many people from other professions step onto the ballfield and perform in a passable manner? It's only rarely, RARELY done.

There may be EXCELLENT actors out there who get the shaft, but that's only because the entire industry is based on looks/charisma/looks. It's probably hard to be a really good actor, but the fact is, the industry doesn't really care, because the buying public doesn't care.

GrantDawg
10-13-2003, 01:05 PM
I knew KWhit would respond. :)

KWhit
10-13-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by QuikSand
I don't know if I'd ever be able to perfect an acceptable Polish accent, nor whether I'd be able to suffer the hours it takes for production of a serious effort... but I'd hazard a guess that I (or others like me) might have the requisite skills to do so, were I able to commit the needed work. I can't think of any other high-profile career where I can say that with any confidence.

High-profile careers that don't require "rare" skills:

model
newscaster
sports announcer
radio dj
rapper
pop star
commedian (I don't know why you thought this would be easier than an actor, maybe the writing??)
movie producer
record producer
talk show host

And there are others that I was going to list, but they would probably be viewed as debatable and I didn't want to start quibbling over individual careers' merits, etc.

And regarding why there are so many people in the business competing for so few jobs, it's exactly because of opinions like yours. Most people think that anybody can do it, so if they're semi-cute they think they can make it in Hollywood. Just because THEY think anybody can do it doesn't make it true.

I guess it depends on the role. I personally think most every Joe Blow could be put into "Friends" and be decent. It requires VERY little skill to play that type of comedy, IMO. But take "Forrest Gump." How many actors could have pulled that role off? Whether you liked the movie or not, Hanks was able to make the character multi-layered even though the script gave him NO intelligent dialogue in which to do it. You laugh at the character, but you also care about what he goes through much more so than you SHOULD based on the semi-sappy script (which isn't great). That movie is carried by Hanks.

Nicholson's role in A Few Good Men... How many could have made Jessup into the bad-ass he was. And while we're speaking of Nicholson, nobody could have been as freaky as him in the Shining or as lovable/hateable in Cuckoo's Nest.

I could go on and on, but won't. When an actor is truly stellar, you know it. Can any Joe Blow get up there and deliver lines? Yep, but when an actor is truly gifted, others can't compare.

It's like the difference between the Major Leagues and Pee Wee. Are they both baseball? Yes, but I'll bet you can tell the two of them apart.

vtbub
10-13-2003, 01:57 PM
I would beg to differ that Sports Announcing/DJ's/Talk Show hosting doesn't require "rare skills".

Not everbody can think on their feet for long stretches of time. You have to be able to entertain, inform, sound good, think quickly, and be concise, while having a mastery of the English language. On top of all that, do it night after night while keeping your enthusiasm flying by the seat of your pants.

We don't allow DJ's anymore to be creative, they now all do talk shows. Still, it takes considerable skill to sound excited when you have talked about the same issue for 3 hours or 3 days, or to hear that 50 cent song twice a shift, six days a week.

QuikSand
10-13-2003, 02:00 PM
You've got me with your list... I'll agree that acting is not unique as a "high-profile" career that may not requires exceptional skills.

And yes, of course there are particular performances which represent "good acting" by some measure. What of rapper, DJ, and so forth? Okay, I used the term "high profile" loosely earlier, but I hope you can see past that -- it doesn't really get to my main point.

But your baseball analogy might.

If you give me a year to train and get ready, and then throw me onto the Seattle Mariners, I'd no doubt make a damned fool of myself. There's just a huge gulf between what I am able to do, and what it takes to do that job at that level.

Give me a year to train and get ready, and then throw me onto the cast of E.R. (or whatever), and I suspect that I might very well be able to hold my own. And if not the difference between what I could do and what the "professionals" can do is certainly a much narrow difference than in the athletic example.


As I contemplate most celebrity professions, I tend to put most of them into the former grouping-- athletes for certain, artists of most sorts, musicians, real writers, and so forth. They all seem to possess something that I simply don't - and no amount of my hard work could bridge that gap.

Maybe it's a naive opinion (and I suspect you would say so) but my best guess is that I (or really what I mean here is "people like me") could become a very good actor, if that's what I wanted to do. Perhaps not outstanding or rarely gifted, but I don't recognize the elements of acting as being as elusive and rare as those of the other professions I mention above.

dawgfan
10-13-2003, 02:00 PM
Hmmm, a few comments:

- I would agree with Craig that there is certainly a difference between acting in a motion picture and on the stage. With the stage, you have a very different skill set at work - in addition to the acting itself, you also have to deal with a much more immediate and exposed form of pressure, the fact you're operating without a safety net. There's no take 2. You also have to be able to project to the theater. On the other hand, with the big screen you are able to use subtlety far more to your advantage.

- Regarding whether acting requires "rare" skills, I think one thing that hasn't really been discussed is the quality of charisma. Certain people are able to command your attention when they are on-screen. You can put a good-looking person on film that has some acting chops and is directed well, but do they have that something extra that leaves the audience riveted? Think Russell Crowe in Gladiator, or Brad Pitt in Fight Club. Why can some people cross over from other arenas and find success in movies? I think charisma has a lot to do with it - witness Eminem in 8 Mile. I don't think he's a particularly great actor, but he has undeniable charisma and in that role he was able to hold your attention.

- On this debate about "rare" skills, I think it's important to distinguish between those who are mega-successful and those who aren't. There are any number of actors out there, just as there are comedians, musicians, dj's, etc. The ones that are very successful do have rare skills, at least in comparison to their peers - that's why they've achieved that level of success. Certainly with the entertainment business there is the ability to manufacture success, especially in pop music, but I would argue that there is usually something rare that seperates the hugely successful from those that aren't.

- As for models, they don't have "rare" skill, but they are physically gifted in a way that most of the population isn't.

Cringer
10-13-2003, 02:07 PM
I like KWhit's agruement a lot and back him up. I think the arguement " just that it doesn't seem to require such a set of rare skills that are completely different than those most of us have." can be said about a million jobs in my opinion (though obviously not "high profile") but doesn't mean anyone can do it. What special skills do i have as a truck driver? None that can't be learned by most people in a matter of weeks, but in my opinion most the people on here could not stick it out for an extended period of time (multiple years) because the lifestyle is one that just isn't suited to most people.....just like i couldn't do the job of the people making the products i hual away from the factories, i don't have what it takes to work a line job in a plant. It may not be that hard of a job, but it drives me nuts for some reason, i have tried several times.

What i'm getting at is that for a lot of jobs/careers, it doesn't take JUST skills....you have to have a certain personality and characteristics to go along with those skills. To equate this to the word of sports/acting, take the example of highly rated college football players who though could go high in the draft, decide that that lifestyle just isn't for them and bow out. Its not all that common because the draw of money is so great, but it does happen. Also, to draw a parallel to what KWhit is talking about with the "good" actors....we all know about those guys in athletics that just have that something special, those "intangibles" as they are so often called......the perfect example is Jeff George....all the talent in the world, but just didn't have what it took to be a Montana,Elway, or someone of that calibur.

Hope i made sense, i know i can ramble..........

KWhit
10-13-2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by vtbub
I would beg to differ that Sports Announcing/DJ's/Talk Show hosting doesn't require "rare skills".

Not everbody can think on their feet for long stretches of time. You have to be able to entertain, inform, sound good, think quickly, and be concise, while having a mastery of the English language. On top of all that, do it night after night while keeping your enthusiasm flying by the seat of your pants.

We don't allow DJ's anymore to be creative, they now all do talk shows. Still, it takes considerable skill to sound excited when you have talked about the same issue for 3 hours or 3 days, or to hear that 50 cent song twice a shift, six days a week.

This is what I didn't want to get into (because that's not really the point) but...

I was basing my definition of "rare talent" on the one implied in the original and subsequent posts. It doesn't take rare talent if it is something anyone can do if taken off the street and be passable.

You state that "it takes considerable skill to sound excited when you have talked about the same issue for 3 hours or 3 days, or to hear that 50 cent song twice a shift, six days a week." But it doesn't take skill to create a convincing performance out of a character that is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from who you are??? To portray a Polish immigrant who is so beaten down by the plight of the working class of the 1890s that he decides to assassinate Woodrow Wilson. You're right. That's easy compared to sounding excited about a song from 50 cent.


:rolleyes:

Celeval
10-13-2003, 02:24 PM
I have a long reply coming, but...

KWhit - are you in 'Assassins'? Where? I've wanted to see that for a while, and am interested. :-D

KWhit
10-13-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Celeval
I have a long reply coming, but...

KWhit - are you in 'Assassins'? Where? I've wanted to see that for a while, and am interested. :-D

Yep. That's it. It is definitely an interesting show. Makes you think.

It's at Onstage Atlanta in Decatur.


Link (http://www.onstageatlanta.com/osamainpage.html)

vtbub
10-13-2003, 02:42 PM
I've done some acting, and yes to be really good, you have to possess special skills, especially those who do theatre and soap opera acting, where having to get it right the first time is not an option.

In no way was I meaning to take anything away from what you do.

KWhit
10-13-2003, 02:42 PM
For those who don't know the show, it is a dark musical drama about all the US presidential assassins (and attepted assassins). It throws them all together and they interact with each other as if they were all in the same time period.

The show opens on Halloween and it closes on November 22 - the anniversary of the assassination of JFK. Pretty ironic timing.

It is a very controversial show. It shows the assassinations from the killers points of view, discussing why they did what they did. Some audience members feel that in doing so it glorifies them. I don't see it that way, but it should be fun to rile people up!

mckerney
10-13-2003, 02:47 PM
In my experiences acting is pretty damn easy, and from what I hear cartoon voice overs are even easier. All you have to do is show up at the studio and eat food, only making sure that you don't have any food in your mouth when it's time to say your line.

KWhit
10-13-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by vtbub
I've done some acting, and yes to be really good, you have to possess special skills, especially those who do theatre and soap opera acting, where having to get it right the first time is not an option.

In no way was I meaning to take anything away from what you do.

That's cool. You know this, but many people don't understand that unless you are in the top .01 % it is a pretty thankless job. Yes, you get applause (and sometimes it helps you get women - yeah!) but you are paid like crap and have to put in incredibly long hours.

But we do it because it can be incredibly fun and rewarding. I just don't like to hear people say, "Eh... acting's not so tough.*"


*Okay, so I know that's not exactly what was said, but some people have come close to saying that.

Drake
10-13-2003, 02:56 PM
Not unlike all the people who have ever said, "Yeah, one day I'm going to sit down and write the great American novel".

KWhit
10-13-2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by mckerney
In my experiences acting is pretty damn easy, and from what I hear cartoon voice overs are even easier. All you have to do is show up at the studio and eat food, only making sure that you don't have any food in your mouth when it's time to say your line.

That's what I've been doing wrong! I knew there was a reason I wasn't famous yet.

Celeval
10-13-2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by QuikSand
Give me a year to train and get ready, and then throw me onto the cast of E.R. (or whatever), and I suspect that I might very well be able to hold my own. And if not the difference between what I could do and what the "professionals" can do is certainly a much narrow difference than in the athletic example.

I completely disagree.

I've done acting as well - college theatre, mostly, and it's not my profession by any means. I've done some community theatre; acting, some directing. I like to think I'm a nearing being a decent actor, but I'm a dabbler. So much for the background.

I've gone through a number of productions with people who step up the same way as you're suggesting - auditioning for a role, putting a few months into it before performances. And yes, the writing of the role will make people laugh, there will be moments of well-done pieces, there will be those two minutes where the actor/actress will hit things right. When people talk about "anyone can do that" - they're right. You give a couple of guys off the street a day and a scene from the Odd Couple, and you'll get laughs. That's not the actors, that's the material. You give those same guys the whole script and three months; you'll get the same laughs - and probably a lot of silence in the parts between great lines where the character is supposed to be. And that's with a great script.

That's a pretty straightforward comedy. Try Rumors (or any farce) where timing is needed. Try Much Ado about Nothing, where there's also something of a language barrier with the audience. Try drama. Try Hamlet. Try being a /character/ and not yourself in the role.

One reason people think acting is easy, is because of what sells. What sells and what entertains in Hollywood, on television - is empathy. There needs to be a connection between the actor and the audience, the audience needs to connect with the people on stage. There has to be some kind of personal identification with the character, the audience member should see himself/herself in that character. If you see "yourself" on stage/screen, of course you're going to think it's easy to do it yourself. Try talking to the actor afterwards, and finding out he's 20 years older (or younger) than you thought, and speaks normally with an entirely different accent.

Another trouble is typecasting, especially in Hollywood. You see the same person in the same role over and over again... it looks easy, since they're doing the same thing. It's not. You don't believe me? Go find a high school performance of something. Then go see a community theatre performance. (I'm not talking the Alliance Theatre or the Fourteenth Street Playhouse - I'm talking someplace where nobody's getting paid, and it's done for the love of the art.) Then see something in a semi-professional theatre; then something else off- or on- broadway. The differences between these performances is like night and day - like the difference between a sunday beer league softball game, AA ball, and the major leagues.

Do all that and still don't believe me? If you're near New York (or anyplace with a large theatre district), find a show with decent reviews starring someone you've seen in films - the range that 75% of actors who make it in Hollywood can show (and yes, there are always a few who get by on good looks and sex appeal) on stage is fucking amazing.

Still think it's easy? Try. It's the investment of a few months to act in most community theatre productions, give it a shot. It's extremely hard work - there's no skate time. You can't let up for a moment, even though you've done the same act night after night for weeks on end. And if you're not 100% on your game every night, you - and the audience - will know it.

Celeval
10-13-2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Celeval
I completely disagree.

Dola.

The longer it's been since I've posted this, the more I've wanted to edit it to read: "You're fucking nuts."

No offense, QS. :-)

Bee
10-13-2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Celeval
I've gone through a number of productions with people who step up the same way as you're suggesting - auditioning for a role, putting a few months into it before performances. And yes, the writing of the role will make people laugh, there will be moments of well-done pieces, there will be those two minutes where the actor/actress will hit things right. When people talk about "anyone can do that" - they're right. You give a couple of guys off the street a day and a scene from the Odd Couple, and you'll get laughs. That's not the actors, that's the material. You give those same guys the whole script and three months; you'll get the same laughs - and probably a lot of silence in the parts between great lines where the character is supposed to be. And that's with a great script.


I think this was the point that Quiksand was trying to make. There are some cases where it takes a great deal of talent or skill to pull off a performance, but that doesn't mean you must have a great deal of talent or skill to be successful at acting. With the right script and under the right circumstances a "man off the street" can be successful in a TV show. That's not the case with some of the other examples Quiksand gave (such as the sports star).

QuikSand
10-13-2003, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Celeval
The longer it's been since I've posted this, the more I've wanted to edit it to read: "You're fucking nuts."

I'm not certain that woudl have made it more likely that I'd end up agreeing with you. But we live for applause, right?

Anyway - it's certainly possible that mine is just an ill-informed opinion, and that I am flat-out wrong. I know that when many people look at so-called "modern art" (usually the more abstract variety) they are prone to commenting that "anyone can just go dump a bucket of paint on a canvas and smear it around and sell it for amillion dollars." Perhaps I'm falling prey to the same thing - a lack of understanding of the nuances between great, rare skill and pedestrian attempts at the same. Certainly is possible.

Killebrew
10-13-2003, 03:21 PM
What some people are missing here is that although many could handle the actual job of acting, the difficult part is putting yourself in the position of getting that job. Careers in the arts generally require more dedication and risk taking than most other career choices. You need to be committed enough to give up huge portions of your life for extended periods of time, you need to be committed enough to be able to pick up and leave your home and live elsewhere on very short notice, and you need to do that with almost no guarantees as luck always plays large role. Most people are simply not prepared to take those risks even if they had the talent, physical attributes, and personality type.

Celeval
10-13-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by QuikSand
I'm not certain that woudl have made it more likely that I'd end up agreeing with you.

That's why I added it as a separate post, rather than an edit. :)


Originally posted by QuikSand
I know that when many people look at so-called "modern art" (usually the more abstract variety) they are prone to commenting that "anyone can just go dump a bucket of paint on a canvas and smear it around and sell it for a million dollars."

I've fallen victim to this too - I think a lot of that comes from lack of understanding and lack of knowing what the art is. I used to think acting was pretty easy too, back in high school. :-)

Celeval
10-13-2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Bee
I think this was the point that Quiksand was trying to make. There are some cases where it takes a great deal of talent or skill to pull off a performance, but that doesn't mean you must have a great deal of talent or skill to be successful at acting. With the right script and under the right circumstances a "man off the street" can be successful in a TV show. That's not the case with some of the other examples Quiksand gave (such as the sports star).

If it's a TV show that is cancelled in three weeks; or never makes it past pilot, I'm slightly more inclined. ER? Nuh-uh, part of what makes that show great is the /character/ and ability to sustain/guide that character through changes, not the lines.

Oh, and you're forgetting that you don't have months to work on an episode. You've got days, maybe.

Celeval
10-13-2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Celeval
You give those same guys the whole script and three months; you'll get the same laughs - and probably a lot of silence in the parts between great lines where the character is supposed to be.

Originally posted by Bee
I think this was the point that Quiksand was trying to make. There are some cases where it takes a great deal of talent or skill to pull off a performance, but that doesn't mean you must have a great deal of talent or skill to be successful at acting. With the right script and under the right circumstances a "man off the street" can be successful in a TV show. That's not the case with some of the other examples Quiksand gave (such as the sports star).

I don't consider my above to be succesful at acting. If people do, it helps explain some of the crap making $20m in theatres.

[edit: formatting]

Bee
10-13-2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by QuikSand
Perhaps I'm falling prey to the same thing - a lack of understanding of the nuances between great, rare skill and pedestrian attempts at the same. Certainly is possible.

But if you can't tell the difference, and you are the target audience, does it really matter if there is a difference?

Butter
10-13-2003, 03:31 PM
Anybody ever watch "Faking It"? It is a "reality" show on BBC America that has also been co-opted for a TLC show of the same name.

Basically, they take Joe (or Jill) Schmo, and see how they would perform in so-called "high-skill" jobs, and if they can fool experts from those fields into believing they have been doing those jobs for a long time.

I haven't seen one specifically target acting, but there have been episodes involving a priest becoming a used-car salesman, a law student becoming an Atlanta Falcons cheerleader, a sheep shearer becoming a hairdresser, a member of the US Beer Drinking Team (!) becoming a sommelier, and a house painter becoming a "modern" artist.

All are very interesting for just the reasons stated above... how much "talent" does it really take to become good at certain professions? As it turns out, most of the time, not a whole lot. I would be anxious to see one that involved acting in some way.

Buzzbee
10-13-2003, 03:32 PM
My thoughts:

In sports you can quantitatively tell if someone is good or not. With musicians you can tell if they are good by the music (meaning notes) they are able to play. Musicians are a little more subjective, but it is usually pretty easy to tell quality musicians from garage bands. With acting, it is even more subjective to tell a good performance from a great one.

To me actors are liars. I liken them to salespeople. A sales person often has to lie, or stretch the truth, or spin things a certain way. They have to step outside of themselves to make you believe what they want you to believe. Actors do the same thing, only to a much greater degree.

Not only does an actor have to show emotion, they also have to remember their lines, remember where on stage or set they are supposed to be. They also have to be aware of the other actors to key off their lines and emotions. Actors are multi-taskers and not everyone can do that.

Truly great actors can step into a variety of roles and still be good. I don't think us "everyday Joe's" can do that. Tom Hanks is an excellent example. From comedy in Bosom Buddies on the boob tube; to comedy on the big screen in Big; Romantic comedies in Joe vs. the Volcano, Splash, etc.; to serious dramatic roles in Philadelphia & Castaway to somewhat unclassifiable roles in Forrest Gump and Apollo 13.

With most sports you need speed, strength, stamina, coordination. For musicians you need creativity, an ear for what sounds good, an ability to play an instrument. For radio show hosts you need a good speaking voice, a knowledge of the subject on which you are talking (most of the time), an ability to think on your feet and develop an argument in an instant. What ablilities to good actors posess? It's hard to define. I think that is why people think it is easy to do, and also why QS believes that actors aren't that much different from the "everyday Joe."

My final thought. This is the one that I feel undermines QS's argument that most anybody has the skills to act. Your honor, the defense offers up American Idol as evidence. Yes, it is musically related, and not acting. However, I believe the same principal applies. Yes, there are Kelly Clarkson's, and Justin's and Ruben's out there, but how many would-be "Idols" just flat out sucked? These are people like you and me who believe they have what it takes to be a superstar. They have no concept of reality. For every Kelly, there are thousands who are absolutely horrid. For every Justin, thousands who are absolutely tone deaf. For every Ruben, thousands who make shower walls cringe in horror. I believe the same is true with acting. It may seem easy, and like anyone can do it, but I bet when it comes down to it, most of us don't have the skills needed to jump out of our skins and into someone else's.

QuikSand
10-13-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Celeval
Oh, and you're forgetting that you don't have months to work on an episode. You've got days, maybe.

Come on, work with me, here. I'm not saying a year to get ready for one episode, I'm saying a year to get myself ready to become an actor, capable of doing this job. (Capable of working for one week on one episode of a show, or the equivalent)


My main point is this: I could "train" all I wanted, and never be a great painter... singer... athlete... and so forth. My argument is simply that these are skills that are closer to "innate" than learned. If I don't have the proper sense of aesthetics, I will never properly understand composition and balance and color to create a great work of art.

I would speculate that it's possible to become a "great" actor without possessing any certain innate skills of this sort, but rather just to have some fairly well-tuned common sense and well-trained ability. And that a fairly intelligent, sensitive, and dedicated person could do more to bridge this gap than those of these other professions.

And again... look at the legions of people out there competing for acting jobs (as described by the actors posting in this thread). That, to me, seems to be evidence that there are plenty of people out there who just "decided" to become actors, rather than people who were inspired by some innate gift that led them that way.

I'd speculate that there are any number of people in other lines of work who, if they put their mind to it, could become successful and effectuive actors if that's what they chose to do. I'm not saying it's easy, I'm not saying it's pointless, I'm not denying that acting success depends on things other than talent, and I'm not saying that anyone can do it at the highest level... keep setting fire to all those strawmen and you'll get rounds of applause, but you aren't really addressing the main argument.

QuikSand
10-13-2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Buzzbee
My thoughts:

My final thought. This is the one that I feel undermines QS's argument that most anybody has the skills to act. Your honor, the defense offers up American Idol as evidence. Yes, it is musically related, and not acting. However, I believe the same principal applies. Yes, there are Kelly Clarkson's, and Justin's and Ruben's out there, but how many would-be "Idols" just flat out sucked? These are people like you and me who believe they have what it takes to be a superstar. They have no concept of reality. For every Kelly, there are thousands who are absolutely horrid. For every Justin, thousands who are absolutely tone deaf. For every Ruben, thousands who make shower walls cringe in horror. I believe the same is true with acting. It may seem easy, and like anyone can do it, but I bet when it comes down to it, most of us don't have the skills needed to jump out of our skins and into someone else's.

The emphasized part, where you attribute to me an argument, is not my argument. Throughout this thread, I have more or less said that I think intelligent people with common sense could probably learn to act. I'm not necessarily including the nitwits on your TV show who don't have any sense at all.

Buzzbee
10-13-2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by QuikSand
The emphasized part, where you attribute to me an argument, is not my argument. Throughout this thread, I have more or less said that I think intelligent people with common sense could probably learn to act. I'm not necessarily including the nitwits on your TV show who don't have any sense at all.

I stand corrected. I was trying to paraphrase your general attitude and obviously failed miserably. My apologies.

Buzzbee
10-13-2003, 03:50 PM
To take this discussion a step further, what skills or abilities DO great actors have that differentiate them from good, or bad actors? Or are there skills and abilities that make a great actor? Answering this question might give QS the info/points he was looking for.

QuikSand
10-13-2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Buzzbee
I stand corrected. I was trying to paraphrase your general attitude and obviously failed miserably. My apologies.

The tail-between-legs tone tells me I overreacted... and I apologize for that.

Buzzbee
10-13-2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by QuikSand
The tail-between-legs tone tells me I overreacted... and I apologize for that.

Nah, no over-reaction. I'm just a good actor. :D

QuikSand
10-13-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Buzzbee
I'm just a good actor.

I was actually going to work that into my comment, but thought it took away from the message. Heh.

lurker
10-13-2003, 04:09 PM
It seems like a lot of the disagreements in this thread are arising from the definition of an actor. My guess would be that Quiksand is just talking about becoming a successful actor in the sense of being in a lot of movies and achieving fame for being an actor, whereas I think KWhit is defining a successful actor much more narrowly – someone who is actually *good* at it, not necessarily in Hollywood.

For instance, KWhit, do you think the actors on Friends (or any random sitcom) are really good actors? If not, then I think that proves the point that pretty much anyone can become an actor. Can they act as well as the people you described in theaters? Not necessarily, but the masses will still think of them as actors.

Celeval
10-13-2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by QuikSand
My main point is this: I could "train" all I wanted, and never be a great painter... singer... athlete... and so forth.
[snip]
I would speculate that it's possible to become a "great" actor without possessing any certain innate skills of this sort, but rather just to have some fairly well-tuned common sense and well-trained ability.
[snip]
I'm not saying that anyone can do it at the highest level...

QS - I was addressing that last bit more towards what I felt Bee was saying, rather than your year comment. You're actually a bit more on track than some other comments I've seen/heard in that you understand the need for some kind of serious training.

I think a point that KWhit brought up that your argument doesn't address at all is acting range - I would argue that someone who fits the perfect criteria, with the right script and the right circumstances, could have a good /performance/ of a particular character; but one performance (even one series of performances of a single character) does not make a great (or even a good) actor.

Another suggestion - spend some time watching "Inside the Actor's Studio" on Bravo network. It gives a lot of insight into particular actors/actresses, and the way they go about preparing for characters, and how difficult it can be.

Buzzbee
10-13-2003, 04:11 PM
Ablilties needed to be a good/great actor:

Intelligence - to memorize lines

Timing - knowing when to deliver a line

Show emotions through facial expressions - "Is that your MAD face? It looks more like a constipated face."

Multi-task - remember lines, deliver lines with the correct emPHAsis on the correct sylLABle, move around set/stage to hit marks, react to other actors lines/emotions, etc.

Concentration - Ablity to ignore the audience, camera, stagehands, etc. and focus on being the character.

Others?

dawgfan
10-13-2003, 04:15 PM
A point that I think is getting overlooked in all this is the level of success. I think there are any number of good actors out there that get movie roles and/or TV roles and make a pretty good living, but there are very few actors that command the huge salaries that make people sit-up and take notice - the Julia Roberts, the Russell Crowes, the Brad Pitts, etc. What seperates them from the good actor without the big money? As I mentioned earlier, they have a charisma that I'm not sure can be learned - they just have it.

With TV, it's a little different - one could argue that much of the success of Friends is due to writing. Still, I think the actors themselves deserve a lot of credit - can you imagine anyone else in those roles? Courtney Cox recently talked about how she auditioned originally for the Rachel part, but realized she was a better fit for Monica. I think a big part of the success of that show is that it was well-cast - the actors really fit the characters, and the writers did a good job of finding the strengths of those actors and playing up what they did best.

lurker
10-13-2003, 04:19 PM
The success level is important to the discussion. But you could argue that Saved By the Bell was a successful show because it was on for several years and made most of them famous. But were they all good actors? I doubt it -- I can easily imagine anyone else in the role of Zack Morris.

Bee
10-13-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Celeval
QS - I was addressing that last bit more towards what I felt Bee was saying, rather than your year comment.

Sorry, I don't see where that was addressing anything I said. Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't mention anything about taking a year or months to prep, etc. I think anyone would need at least some training in one form or another. But the point still remains with training I think an intelligent person can pull off a solid performance acting, but I don't see that as the case with some of the comparisons that Quiksand was making (sports, singing, etc).

Cringer
10-13-2003, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Cringer
I like KWhit's agruement a lot and back him up. I think the arguement " just that it doesn't seem to require such a set of rare skills that are completely different than those most of us have." can be said about a million jobs in my opinion (though obviously not "high profile") but doesn't mean anyone can do it. What special skills do i have as a truck driver? None that can't be learned by most people in a matter of weeks, but in my opinion most the people on here could not stick it out for an extended period of time (multiple years) because the lifestyle is one that just isn't suited to most people.....just like i couldn't do the job of the people making the products i hual away from the factories, i don't have what it takes to work a line job in a plant. It may not be that hard of a job, but it drives me nuts for some reason, i have tried several times.

What i'm getting at is that for a lot of jobs/careers, it doesn't take JUST skills....you have to have a certain personality and characteristics to go along with those skills. To equate this to the world of sports/acting, take the example of highly rated college football players who though could go high in the draft, decide that that lifestyle just isn't for them and bow out. Its not all that common because the draw of money is so great, but it does happen. Also, to draw a parallel to what KWhit is talking about with the "good" actors....we all know about those guys in athletics that just have that something special, those "intangibles" as they are so often called......the perfect example is Jeff George....all the talent in the world, but just didn't have what it took to be a Montana,Elway, or someone of that calibur.

Hope i made sense, i know i can ramble..........


i like what this guy said.......;) :D

Celeval
10-13-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Bee
Sorry, I don't see where that was addressing anything I said. Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't mention anything about taking a year or months to prep, etc. I think anyone would need at least some training in one form or another. But the point still remains with training I think an intelligent person can pull off a solid performance acting, but I don't see that as the case with some of the comparisons that Quiksand was making (sports, singing, etc).

It's been a long day. :) You responded to my bit about giving the man off the street three months to work on a script; that's what I was going off of.

JPhillips
10-13-2003, 05:11 PM
As a professional actor/director/designer let me add a few things.

Making a lot of money and being a really good actor are not necessarily corollated. To get cast in the big TV show or movie you need to have a look with acting skill sometimes coming in second. Think of the 7'3" guy in basketball. If you have the height they assume you can play, same thing with a lot of big budget Hollywood. The real test is if people work repeatedly. The people who are working in their forties and fifties are the ones with real talent. Those people, Diniro, Streep, Penn, Hepburn, I think we can agree have skills that the vast majority of us don't.

You are also limiting acting to a narrow type. To be a musical theatre actor you need to be an accomplished singer and dancer. In India a great sanskrit performer has to learn thousands of hand/face combinations perfectly. A Balinese shadow puppet performer has to inprovise in four or five languages, hold multiple puppets in each hand and play percussion with his feet. This leads to the unanswerable question of what an actor does. Defining this will answer your question to some degree.

I'm willing to concede that some very rich and famous actors don't have a lot of skill, but at the same time I think its much harder to come off real on camera than you think. I'm willing to give you and nine others here a year of training and I bet no more than two or three of you could pull off an episode of ER in a starring role. That's still better than professional athletes, but to say any intelligent person can pull it off is a stretch.

I also think the ability to sustain a career is important. Is Rick Ankeil a great pitcher because he had one good year? Keeping it up over years is the mark of a great professional in any career, acting is no different.

Bee
10-13-2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Celeval
It's been a long day. :) You responded to my bit about giving the man off the street three months to work on a script; that's what I was going off of.

Ah...I didn't even notice the 3 month thing in your original quote, I was looking at the one day for a scene comment.

I think an intelligent person would need some training in one form or another, but I think they could do a solid job with the right script and if they were cast in the right part. I think that's where acting is different than the other professions that Quiksand mentioned.

Bee
10-13-2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by JPhillips

The real test is if people work repeatedly. The people who are working in their forties and fifties are the ones with real talent. Those people, Diniro, Streep, Penn, Hepburn,

Stallone, Schwarznegger, :D

JPhillips
10-13-2003, 05:41 PM
Bee: And for what they do they do it well. Could you play out the roles that they do at their age? Could you do T3 in your fifties? They may not have much of a range, and I wouldn't cast them in almost any play I can think of, but for what they get paid to do, they do it damn well.

This brings me to another point. Remember the fame and the fortune acquired by these people comes through a very democratic process. The people vote that these stars are the ones they want to see through tv remotes and movie tickets. They may or may not be great actors, but they have some skills that a lot of us are willing to pay to watch. That's really what the Hollywood system comes down to. The actors are just another product that people either buy or don't.

Celeval
10-13-2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Bee
I think an intelligent person would need some training in one form or another, but I think they could do a solid job with the right script and if they were cast in the right part. I think that's where acting is different than the other professions that Quiksand mentioned.

Acting : Hitting a baseball ::
Doing a solid job with the right script and right part : Hitting a 65-mph changeup that you know is coming

Neither can be done cold, either can be done after a lot of practice. Neither is representative of the profession in general.

Bee
10-13-2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Celeval
Acting : Hitting a baseball ::
Doing a solid job with the right script and right part : Hitting a 65-mph changeup that you know is coming

Neither can be done cold, either can be done after a lot of practice. Neither is representative of the profession in general.

I don't really think that analogy is accurate. I could make a living doing a solid job with the right script and right part (as demonstrated by many actors), there's no way I could make a living only being able to hit a 65 MPH changeup.

Maybe you should compare it to blocking Warren Sapp coming up the middle when you know he's pass rushing. :D

QuikSand
05-02-2016, 01:24 PM
Onion Studios (http://www.onionstudios.com/videos/jared-leto-thanks-acting-for-being-an-easy-thing-that-anybody-can-do-2065)

No, I'm not serious. Made me think of this aged-old thread. Didn't like feeling ambushed at the time, but I've made my peace with it. Still would agree that in my mind acting is fundamentally different from, say, painting.

Solecismic
05-02-2016, 01:49 PM
I was asked to record some clips for an upcoming documentary. So I wrote a few bits of dialogue, then set out to record them. It was remarkable how hard it was to read/semi-memorize these bits and make them look somewhat "natural" on camera. Being able to put yourself into a context is a lot harder than it seems, and if you can't do it, it looks terrible. There are plenty of examples in mediocre movies. Unfortunately, the director recently decided to stick with footage he shot himself, so my brush with fame will have to wait until another day.

JonInMiddleGA
05-05-2016, 12:45 AM
It was remarkable how hard it was to read/semi-memorize these bits and make them look somewhat "natural" on camera. Being able to put yourself into a context is a lot harder than it seems, and if you can't do it, it looks terrible.

There's quite a few things in life that way, reading from a teleprompter is another. (That's why I've never given Obama grief about that particular thing, it's a learned skill)