J.W. Hastings writes a great piece on movie acting, one that nicely formalizes and codifies a number of common-sense but, to my limited awareness, generally unspoken observations. Here are just a few of my favorites:
"Actors should not show how hard they are working."
You can observe a current and flagrant violation of this rule in the 15-second spots for "The Terminal," apparently sufficient time for Tom Hanks to display a host of the kind of miniscule-yet-overplayed mannerisms (the stoop, the soft-spokenness, the Bronson Pinchot accent) that J.W. deplores. It's not as "serious" as the stunt roles, Method-isms, and naturalistic contortions he cites, but it's cut from the same cloth. If I had to coin a term for it, it would be "flagrant restraint"; happily, J.W. has little use for it.
"Almost everything is forgivable if the actor is having fun."
This is the reason I'll watch nearly anything with Ewen Macgregor, who surely enjoys his work more than any man alive, even if it sports George Lucas direction or Baz Luhrmann ironic pop medleys. His enthusiasm (alas, not always communicable to the rest of the cast) generates a total commitment to his roles, and a remarkably unmannered commitment - even if it's to the mannerisms of a 1960s Cary Grant/Rock Hudson or a 1970s Alec Guinness. That is, he's willing to to flout an overvalued cinematic naturalism but he's not willing to add his own ironic winks as he does so.
You have to like any essay that's willing to praise typecasting over mimicry (maybe this is just my bias for the better class of studio movies showing through - why would you ever ask Peter Lorre or Claude Rains to play anyone other than "Peter Lorre" or "Claude Rains"?) or the always-excellent Brian Cox over the increasingly self-parodic Anthony Hopkins. Go read the entire piece.
Please pardon this interruption; we now return to your regularly scheduled rant on comics and literary respectability.
That wee lassie got glassed, and no cunt leaves till I find out what cunt did it.
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?
Posted by: Kan Mattoo | July 14, 2004 at 06:38 PM
And with that, young Renton was in love.
Dot. Dot dot.
Posted by: Marc | July 14, 2004 at 09:13 PM
interesting that you bring up Brian Cox -- I remember being impressed by him in Manhunter (where just about every part was well cast), but not seeing much of him after that. Lately, it seems like he's in a lot of movies -- The Ring, Troy, X-men 2, and I know he was in something else we watched the other night, but...
you are right, he is what Anthony Hopkins used to be in terms of a strong actor who plays the part, not the part of an actor playing a part.
Posted by: Jim Kosmicki | July 15, 2004 at 04:56 PM
Brian Cox was in Adaptation, The Bourne Identity, and its upcoming sequel, and he was superlative in the criminally overlooked 25th Hour. I can't say I'd really noticed him before his current omnipresence (well, okay, he was good in Rushmore too), but he is great, isn't he?
Posted by: Marc | July 16, 2004 at 01:06 AM
Before his role in Rushmore, Cox worked alsmot exclusively on British TV shows. I'd be interested to know how Wes Anderson came to cast him (maybe he says something about it on the DVD commentary, but I don't have the Criterion "special" edition of the movie).
Everyone was terrific in 25th Hour. I wasn't wild about the movie, but I'm still surprised that it got so little attention. (I thought it was Spike Lee's strongest film since Malcolm X).
Thanks for the link...
Posted by: J.W. Hastings | July 16, 2004 at 09:20 AM
Brian Cox also did a hilarious turn in SUPER TROOPERS, a movie at which I laughed quite a bit, but I laugh pretty easily.
Posted by: Chris Galdieri | July 16, 2004 at 02:01 PM