Last Movie Watched

[joshsquash729]

The best definition I've seen compares "movie stars" to "great actors". A great actor makes you forget them as a separate person and convinces you they *are* the character. I'm not watching Phillip Seymore Hoffman, I'm watching Owen Davian or Truman Capote.

Tom Cruise is a movie star. You never forget he's Tom Cruise, he just gets you to believe Tom Cruise could do the things Ethan Hunt does. Movie stars are hired to play stylized versions of themselves in movies. So like Will Smith, Sam Jackson, Harrison Ford, and Michelle Rodriguez are more movie stars. Daniel Day Lewis, Ralph Fiennes, and Toni Collette are more actors.

edit: I'm not the biggest fan of the terminology I'm using here that implies movie stars don't act, because I think they do, but you kinda get what I mean, they're doing a different, but related sort of acting.

As for “movie stars” . . .
This is tough for me, because I’m biased as I am *definitely* a Hoffman/Lewis style actor myself: I pride myself on being able to “disappear” into a role. And when I work with “heightened version of themselves” actors, what I usually walk away with is that they have not much in the way of talent or skill, but tend to have cultivated internet “followers” or other kinds of intentionally-gathered “fans”. As I’m sure you can guess, I fucking despise that shit.

(Worth noting that the stage acting “scene” is not the same as the film acting “scene”, and I’m definitely primarily a stage actor by choice)

I tend to draw a line between actors and “celebrities”-who-act. Gary Oldman is an actor. Leo DiCaprio is a celebrity who acts. I’m not saying I hate all celebrities-who-act, but I’ll never be “drawn” to them or line up to watch them exist on screen. Glen Powell is a margin call for me: he’s basically the only thing I liked about that dumb Top Gun Maverick movie, and he seems like he has some actual talent and skill, but he’s doing all the “hot leading Hollywood guy” stuff that bugs the hell out of me and doesn’t really showcase anything other than “statistics say people like looking at you”.

Ultimately I understand that people want predictability, comfort and “safety” in their art and their “heroes”, and that’s why a well-known but untalented lunk like Dwayne Johnson gets big work. But I frequently feel like I live on another planet from folks who are drawn to that kind of bombastic mediocrity.

You guys summed up my thoughts pretty well. For me, the best actors are the ones who disappear into the characters. The ones where, even if I subconsciously know it's that person, all I see is the character. Not saying that people who play themselves aren't acting- they obviously are, but like Jake said- they're playing slightly heightened versions of themselves in this world. Those kinds of actors too, I think, are generally the ones who have the most ego, since they're getting all this praise for essentially being themselves. Not always the case, of course, and on the flip side, I'd say the character actors can often more snobbish when it comes to the profession, even if they don't always need to be front and center like the movie stars do, though many character actors are quite shy and modest. So pick your poison, really.

To me, the character actors are just the more interesting ones, since they tend to understand the character better and can bring out more emotions and nuance. Those are the roles I tend to remember best, since I never really know going into it the first time what I'm gonna get. As opposed to seeing Tom Cruise or Dwayne Johnson or whoever- I know I'm gonna see them, and even if they're being silly, it feels like they never want to make too much of a fool of themselves. That's not always a bad thing, though- Samuel L. Jackson always plays Samuel L. Jackson and I love the guy, because it feels like outside the movie he just loves what he does and has no expectations or praise or fame. I feel like Leo is the best example of someone in the middle- he certainly can disappear into a character, but he also tends to live the lavish celebrity life and shirk the modesty that many character actors seem to have; he wants to be recognized as a good actor, not just make a living off it. I can never really pin down if he's in it for the love of the craft or for the love of fame.

Character acting is my style as well. There's not really much that's interesting about me as a person, so I'll always try to find something I can do that will help me differentiate the character a bit- a voice, an accent, a physicality, a quirk, etc., no matter how grounded the story is. I act not only to have fun, but also to find and explore other sides to myself that I wouldn't be able to in the real world. I'd be far happier being known as the weird actor guy than the serious, stoic actor. And not that I'll ever hit it big, but I don't think I'd want to even if I could; I enjoy the anonymity, I appreciate the praise if and when it comes, but it makes me too uncomfortable. I just wanna make a living doing what I love to do, and I definitely appreciate actors who feel like they're doing the same.

 

[adrienveidt]

Glenn Powell's eyes are too close together, like he's MTG's nephew or something.

 

[AceofKnaves]

I do think a lot of the movie star appeal is their charisma (real or perceived) off camera. And i think that's largely why they play roles that are "x, but with a gun" or "x, but he drives cars real fast", or "x, but he implausibly went to lawschool". If they seem funny and approachable and not really taking it all that seriously then the average person thinks "oh yeah, they're a little like me... just much wealthier and with a personal trainer... but we could have a beer and it'd be cool". And I don't think you get that as much with folks who are capital A 'actors', because they're largely thinking and talking about their craft as a craft. They occasionally send out 'artist' vibes, and there's noting the average person (average American anyway) hates more than an artist except maybe a scientist. Tom Cruise doesn't make movies very often where he has to talk about the meaning of the piece. He does movies where the meaning is largely "get the plans" or "save the Pentagon". It's easy to read him as non-threatening because he makes almost exclusively non-threatening art.

I hear what you are saying, and I believe you, but I just can’t relate to any of that at all.


Also I have zero interest in artists outside of their art, so I don’t watch interviews and such. I just judge by the art itself.

 

[AceofKnaves]

Not saying that people who play themselves aren't acting

Ehhh they are performing, but I wouldn’t say they are actually acting, in the disciplined-craft sense of the word.

Those kinds of actors too, I think, are generally the ones who have the most ego

Good Grodd, yes. Usually with little to back said ego up with.

I'd say the character actors can often more snobbish when it comes to the profession

Shhhh-shut up, dude!!!!!

And not that I'll ever hit it big, but I don't think I'd want to even if I could; I enjoy the anonymity,

Heheh yeah I made a conscious choice years and years ago to stay out of the “fame lane”. Very pleased and comfortable to be in my medium-sized regional theatre pond.

I will say that I don’t love the label “character actor”, because it tends to come with a “supporting rather than leading actor” subtag. And, like, I’m a repertory actor, which means I play a wide variety of large AND small roles for the company I work with, but I am very much a “leading man”, just not one made of cardboard and frozen smiles.

Ultimately, I don’t think there is anything a “celebrity” can do that a truly-trained-and-talented actor can’t do waaaaaaaay better. The rest is just a popularity contest, in which I refuse to participate.

 

[JakeEkiss]

Also I have zero interest in artists outside of their art, so I don’t watch interviews and such. I just judge by the art itself.

Yeah, I'm a process junkie. I do behind the scenes, interviews, and making of stuff on basically every kind of art I consume. Not just actors, pretty much anybody. I want to know all the bits and how basically everyone does what they do. I'm the kid that wanted to learn how all the magic tricks worked. Granted, I try to react to the art honestly on its own terms as well, so I usually have two responses to any given piece. One as an audience member, and then one as someone who likes to make things and wants to know how that experience happened.

Now, I will say, I get something very different out of, let's say, a Tom Cruise interview (he's probably not the best example here, but he's easy to point to) than a Bill Nighy one. But then I get something really different between the Bill Nighys and the Daniel Day Lewises too. Generally I find the interviews and off set stuff I respond to best are the folks who are both character/journeyman actors and also not method guys. The method guys are interesting, but the work is often so internal, and I don't think many of them have a facility for talking about it (or maybe they just don't like to, fair enough). The journeyman dudes, Anthony Hopkins is a good example, look at it purely as a job, a craft they learned that has digestible techniques.

 

[AceofKnaves]

Yeah, I'm a process junkie. I do behind the scenes, interviews, and making of stuff on basically every kind of art I consume.

OK that stuff does interest me, I just have no interest in human beings talking about themselves in a “look at me” context. So I guess I will watch short clips of interviews in the context of learning more about the “how” of a project.
I’m just not interested in “personality” or “celebrity”. And “this guy seems cool in real life” is just not on my radar at all.

 

[Damien]

Some people lose the creative spark. It's particularly evident with musicians. I know I'd be perfectly happy in my Malibu mansion, not lifting another finger.

I think with musicians this is more the case with people that really identify with 'the underground' in such a way that stardom destroys their credibility even with themselves. Or, I guess, for musicians that don't love music and only played for the money. I'd say those are actually a lot fewer and further between than anything else. Most musicians are in it for love because most musicians will never be wealthy, or even financially stable, from playing music.

But that being said, I can also argue for some artists putting out their best work after becoming 'rich and famous' (or something approximating that).

 

[JakeEkiss]

OK that stuff does interest me, I just have no interest in human beings talking about themselves in a “look at me” context. So I guess I will watch short clips of interviews in the context of learning more about the “how” of a project.
I’m just not interested in “personality” or “celebrity”. And “this guy seems cool in real life” is just not on my radar at all.

Yeah like, I might watch one of those more bland promo interviews, the Hot Ones format or whatever where virtually nothing of substance happens, but that's like background noise for me. Stuff I put on while cleaning out the fridge. The ones I pay attention to are the ones where you get like specific behind the scenes insight, or it's a roundtable or cross interview with other pros in the industry. Film commentaries are hit or miss in this regard, but I'll almost always pick one of those over, say, a Steven Colbert interview.

Even in the commentary style stuff, you can see a wide divide. Cruise for example largely talks about the behind the scenes management of projects and keeping them going, with a bit about the technical stuff of things like doing stunts or working with new tech. He doesn't seem to talk about meaning or ideas. He rarely seems to even talk about his characters as if they are 3d people (and of course, they largely aren't). Then you get someone like Nighy who is all about acting prep and delivering a performance on the day, but with an almost anti-ego stance on his importance as an actor. You get an Ethan Hawke who will go deep on character and finding a role and waxes a little artsy fartsy, btu in a way I mostly enjoy. Then you get the method guys and... well maybe I just need to see more of them, but I feel like they just say very little in their interviews.

 

[AceofKnaves]

But that being said, I can also argue for some artists putting out their best work after becoming 'rich and famous' (or something approximating that).

Merely anecdotal, but I leveled up significantly from an artistic perspective once I straightened out my shitty life and started being more stable, balanced and (relatively speaking) affluent. I lost that “working from desperation” sheen and was able to actually focus.

 

[AceofKnaves]

the method guys

Mmmmm heheheheh.
I mean I definitely use tools from “method”, but I tend to find “method actors” closed off, narcissistic and sometimes even abusive.

 

[JakeEkiss]

Merely anecdotal, but I leveled up significantly from an artistic perspective once I straightened out my shitty life and started being more stable, balanced and (relatively speaking) affluent. I lost that “working from desperation” sheen and was able to actually focus.

It's a real wonder what consistent 8 hrs of sleep and lack of free-floating anxiety will do for your performance in most things.

I mean I definitely use tools from “method”, but I tend to find “method actors” closed off, narcissistic and sometimes even abusive.

Come now, you only say that because it's often true

 

[AceofKnaves]

It's a real wonder what consistent 8 hrs of sleep and lack of free-floating anxiety will do for your performance in most things.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I absolutely could NOT speak to that since it has never happened to me.
But stable marriage to a good partner, a clear “day job” career path that involves service to others, the love of a good kitty and VERY firm boundaries with my family has been helpful. Not using alcohol as an anxiety crutch/means of self-harm is also helpful.

Come now, you only say that because it's often true

Oh it is, it is.
Although since I do a LOT of musicals, I’m frequently the most “method” member of the cast. I remember closing day of The Little Mermaid a couple years ago (I was playing Grimsby, VERY against traditional character type, sooo much fun!!), and one of the mer-sisters came up to me after the show and was like “I SAW THOSE TEARS in the finale!! I’m so sad the show is closing too!!” And I was like “ohhhh ha ha I cry every show, the boy I raised finally found happiness and my heart is full . . . or rather Grimsby’s heart is full . . . OH but like I’m super sad the show is closing yeah.”

 

[joshsquash729]

Ehhh they are performing, but I wouldn’t say they are actually acting, in the disciplined-craft sense of the word.



Good Grodd, yes. Usually with little to back said ego up with.



Shhhh-shut up, dude!!!!!



Heheh yeah I made a conscious choice years and years ago to stay out of the “fame lane”. Very pleased and comfortable to be in my medium-sized regional theatre pond.

I will say that I don’t love the label “character actor”, because it tends to come with a “supporting rather than leading actor” subtag. And, like, I’m a repertory actor, which means I play a wide variety of large AND small roles for the company I work with, but I am very much a “leading man”, just not one made of cardboard and frozen smiles.

Ultimately, I don’t think there is anything a “celebrity” can do that a truly-trained-and-talented actor can’t do waaaaaaaay better. The rest is just a popularity contest, in which I refuse to participate.

I mean, hell, I count myself in everything I said, cuz like, I'm some nobody saying what is and isn't acting. Level of fame, ironically, has nothing to do with level of snobishness. I know some community theater actors who have a bigger ego than some of the biggest celebs. I'm always more of a "cast the best person for the role" kind of guy, not the "cast the biggest name in Hollywood", especially when it comes to voice actors. That's a whole other skill level that, while every actor probably foolishly thinks they'd be good at it, it really is something so unique and refined. Chris Pratt as Mario is still....a choice to me. Heck, the whole cast is, even if I love Charlie Day and Jack Black.

I feel you on the "character actor" label, though. It does, I think, happen to oftentimes relate to supporting characters, but I think that's mostly because the profession often prefers the main character to be somewhat of a blank slate so as to be more easily palatable to the audience, so it's the supporting characters who get to have fun. Not always, of course, but still. The flip side to that is that those are often the most memorable characters. Ultimately, I think a label is what you make of it. Some "character actors" do just fine as the straight lead of a film, whereas not all straight leads can do the "character actor" thing.

I do think a lot of the movie star appeal is their charisma (real or perceived) off camera. And i think that's largely why they play roles that are "x, but with a gun" or "x, but he drives cars real fast", or "x, but he implausibly went to lawschool". If they seem funny and approachable and not really taking it all that seriously then the average person thinks "oh yeah, they're a little like me... just much wealthier and with a personal trainer... but we could have a beer and it'd be cool". And I don't think you get that as much with folks who are capital A 'actors', because they're largely thinking and talking about their craft as a craft. They occasionally send out 'artist' vibes, and there's noting the average person (average American anyway) hates more than an artist except maybe a scientist. Tom Cruise doesn't make movies very often where he has to talk about the meaning of the piece. He does movies where the meaning is largely "get the plans" or "save the Pentagon". It's easy to read him as non-threatening because he makes almost exclusively non-threatening art.

Which hey, I like a good action romp every now and again too, and I think those movies would bore or annoy someone like Steve Buscemi or William H Macy to tears. It's good that we've got people to cover that stuff. Keanu Reeves has a lane and he mostly stays in it and everyone's happy about that. Robert Pattinson did his time in the pretty boy mines so he can move on and leave those roles to Tom Holland or whoever else is 25-32, can fake an American accent, and has a decent jawline. Now Robert can be the acting goblin he clearly always wanted to be instead of the movie star folks assumed he'd turn into.

I sorta agree, but this is another area that just varies so wildly. I know some people think that Tom Cruise is a cool, charismatic guy, but I don't much care for him. There's just something there I don't vibe with- a (perhaps) false sense of importance, a complete unwillingness to look uncool, etc., I'm not sure. I gauge charisma by how much I'd want to hang out with the person. Tom Cruise? Dwayne Johnson? Leo? Eh, I wouldn't wanna hang out with them because I feel like the conversation would mostly just be about them, you know? (and Leo wouldn't want to hang out with me because I'm over 18 anyway) Same with actors like Jared Leto, Daniel Day Lewis, etc.- I feel like they'd feel they were too good to converse with you, or even worse, they'd talk to you in character. I try not to judge anyone's process- I certainly have my weird acting quirks, but I do think there's a line. Samuel L. Jackson? Matthew Lillard? Brendan Fraser? Keanu? I feel like you'd have an interesting discussion on anything. Meryl Streep? Robert Pattinson? Heath Ledger (RIP)? I feel like you'd have fascinating discussions on the craft, on life, etc. Then again, I've always been drawn to the "weirdos", or the ones willing to stand out, but I know plenty of folks who find some of those actors offputting.

 

[AceofKnaves]

I know some people think that Tom Cruise is a cool, charismatic guy, but I don't much care for him. There's just something there I don't vibe with

Maybe the fact that he is the face man for a pervasive, destructive cult and his wives/girlfriends have been low-key trafficked for him?

 

[joshsquash729]

Maybe the fact that he is the face man for a pervasive, destructive cult and his wives/girlfriends have been low-key trafficked for him?

A coincidence, I'm sure!