Is there such a thing as a good actor?

If so, how can you tell it's a great actor? Is it their ability to play whatever character on the screen? Or is it perhaps getting the character down to a T and perfecting their emotions and personalities and presenting us with that on the screen?

Attached: oCEqyDN.jpg (1510x916, 256K)

Protip: anyone can be an actor. It's all nepotism that decides who gets to be one professionally.

For most cases I agree with you. I assume you think everyone who does it professionally is there because of nepotism though.

It’s not so much about versatility and fitting into a character but morsel of an actor researching his character, and creating all sorts of things to transform him into that character. The character must be well written and then the actor highlights the characters various mannerisms, emotions, speech patterns, etc in order for the actor(while playing that character) to allow you to become fully immersed in the film just by the character alone. For example Cristian Bale in American Psycho and Daniel Day Lewis in TWBB

Marlon Brando didn't even read the script, he would just show up ask what emotions they wanted him to convey and he acted

No they can’t. You only have to watch a student production to know that some people just can’t do it. That said, you are right that the actors who make it big aren’t ‘the best’ but have somehow managed to cut out a good career path.

Great acting is when you only see the character in the role the actor is playing and not the actor. And I'm not talking physically but the entire character, the delivery of lines the mannerisms the way he talks etc

Dicaprio is not a good example because you "see" him in almost every role he plays, while you can't see Daniel Day Lewis in the role of Daniel Plainview or you can't see Heath Ledger in the role of The Joker.

But there are some exceptions where the role the actor is playing is pretty similar to the actor himself so it can still be a great performance, like Casey Affleck in Manchester by the Sea.

But don't you think we only see Dicaprio because he's a household name? The same happens with other popular actors, except I think Dicaprio is actually a good actor. I don't think there is anything he can do about it, and I don't think just because he's so popular, it should immediately make him a bad actor.

If you asked people to name two movies from Daniel Day Lewis and Heath Ledger, I don't think they could since they are well known, but not as known as someone like Dicaprio. This question is more so for average people you would just meet on the street. Here everyone knows of course.

Gary Oldman is also a household name, yet you don't see Gary Oldman in his roles.

Dicaprio struggles to keep accents between all the takes, especially when he starts yelling. Also not much of a body language aware actor

I see, I've only recently started getting into acting and determining who's great and not.

Damn, I really thought that Dicaprio was good, even when I was younger...

I suppose I should take a deeper look.

Why do great actors outnumber great actresses?

Those student actors are directed by student directors though. Put those student actors in a movie directed by someone competent and they would probably do far better.

BASED

Method cucks on suicide watch

For me there's a threshold above which I cannot tell the difference. Basically, if their acting doesn't break my immersion, I can't really tell the difference between the acting talent of Nicholas Cage and Leonardo DiCaprio.

This, he uses the same repetoire of facial expressions, looks, intonations everything. Simliar to Ricky Gervais, he can only play variations of himself (save for Derek, maybe)

This. Dicaprio is so stiff, and you can tell that he is "acting". He's probably the most overrated actor, and I haven't seen any movie where he does a convincing job. His """accents""" are usually enough to completely take me out of a movie, too. Like others have said, a good actor is someone that "becomes" a character, rather than acting like one.

Gary Oldman is a literally who compared to DiCaprio. 99% of people here don't know anything about his personal liffe and never watched an interview with him. He only makes the news once every 5 years or something.

did leo decide to stop acting after he got his oscar? he's been in one movie the past 4 years and he hasn't agreed to be in any more since once upon a time in hollywood wrapped last year. i think he just wants to fuck supermodels and do one movie every five years now that he finally has an academy award.

>Great actor
>DiCaprio picture

Seriously. You brainlets just don't know anything about acting. DiCaprio is a terrible actor, and you can "see" him act in any movie he makes.
You can see his tryhard "look mom I'm ACTING" work. You can see him thinking "oh, yeah, now's my turn to squint my eyes and arch my eyebrows". He's a talentless hack. He had to beg and scrap for years to get a consolation oscar, in a movie his acting was as obvious and unbelievable as ever.
Look at wolf of Wall Street. He was outacted by Matthew Fucking MacCounaughey. Mostly because MacConaughey was so ghigh he probably actually believed he was just having lunch with some random actor and acted the way he usually does.
But if morons can't tell good from bad actin, no point on arguing about it.

The youngest one is insanely hot.

You can use DiCaprio as an example for the seen/unseen comparison with Blood Diamond and The Revanant, in BD you see him and it’s all DiCaprio, he doesn’t take some characteristic form and after all the star power that also came from The Wolf of Wall Street diluting the past you can tell DiCaprio can be described and seen as a sleazy type of actor while in the revanant he takes on the full transformation of a dedicated father and throughout the film you only see him as a man that has fought nature and man for the sake of bloody revenge even as his Oscar winning role where is dialogue is 70% grunts and groans the previous scenes follow the CHARACTers struggle isolating him from being DiCaprio.

I dont think it makes him less of a household name. You can still see him as a jack of all trade given the various personalities he's interpreted. Yet you can't see any patterns, any usuals mimics in his acting. In fact the more I think about it, the more I see that these huges actors' persona overshadow their acting. Bruce Willis, Samuel L Jackson, Will Smith, Brad Pitt.

Smh I already explained that I'm new to acting and just watched movies casually. Now I actually got very interested in acting/movies and want to analyse shit myself.

So please, do explain what's good acting and bad. Others have already given me answers but you just came to hate on a fucking picture lmao.

Not really. It’s more of “These characters as DiCaprio” rather than “DiCaprio as these various characters.” Samuel Jackson is infamous for this and Daniel Day Lewis is known for being the opposite mainly with Abraham Lincoln, Bill the Buther and of course Daniel Plainview

Look, you know how if you watch a conversation in candid camera, and another between actors reading a script, you can sort of "tell" which one is fake and which one isn't?
That's great acing, if you can fool people into not noticing you're acting at all. If you are angry and make people think you are actually angry, not acting, Or sad. Or having fun.
The rest is just bullshit. You don't have to "change" for every role, you don't need to mimic accents or whatever. You just need to be natural.

>“These characters as DiCaprio” rather than “DiCaprio as these various characters.”
What's the difference ? All in all, you can see the actor which we don't want. I would say that one should avoid playing similars characters too often, bit then again, I don't Leo's characters all look alike.
Moreover, thinking about it, I realize that this is something that happen when you watch a lot of movies featuring the qame actors. Given some time, you recognize the patterns for a lot of them, no matter how good they play.
Ive been thinking and the only guy I can think of that doesnt show me his mimics is Al Pacino. Maybe Michael Douglas but I didnt see a lot of movies with him again.

For me a good actor is one who can act for more than 30 seconds at a time. I'm so god damn tired of rapid cuts back and forth between close-ups on actors' faces. Just give me one fixed shot. Are you telling me your so-called "actor" can't memorize more than two lines of dialogue and corresponding actions before needing to break the shot? If your actor is fucking up so much you can't do a long take then get another actor. If he can, then give me a long take so I can see that he can.

I see, so your idea of good acting is them practically just being as normal as they can? As long as the audience doesn't have a thought of it being an actual movie scene, it becomes great? Basically, the more realistic the speech and body language, the better?

Then my question is, can't everyone be a great actor? Just memorize lines, and just try to feel natural and express stuff normally. As long as your face represents the character of course.

This pretty much. 'Good' actors also tend to fall into two categories - natural talents, and the ones that take it super seriously and try really hard. Dicaprio's definitely the latter there, I'd unironically say someone like Nic Cage is one of the former (but is fucking nutter butters). Mixes of the two are your GOAT actors.

>can't everyone be a great actor?
Some people can't immerse themselves enough to become their character , as someone wrote previously, you're not "acting an angry man in scene n°123", you're actually PISSED AND WANT TO FIND THE MURDERER!!

That's like saying that anybody can be a great artist just by memorizing human anatomy or a great musician by learning the scales.
You can learn to be competent at practically anything. You'll just (probably) never be Mozart.

Wonder if acting schools are worth it or not honestly.

This. I always like Jake Gyllenhaal’s subtle acting, you can almost see the character’s mind ticking.

Attached: 78A0427A-D2AC-4A2F-9E5F-3B6E282522F4.jpg (480x600, 48K)

This is why blackwashing is harming cinema. I can’t see past the politics the studio has forced on the film, and casting for brown skin reduces the pool of talent massively.

Maybe because actresses are chosen based on the tastes of slobs like Weinstein? It makes me wonder what modern film would look like if all these films weren’t ruined with his harem of mattresses.

Also acting "range" is an overrated meme term, what matters is that the actor picks roles that are perfect for him specifically, not to pick the most le diverse roles possible just for the hell of it.
Almost all Gosling characters are entirely perfect for him to act, you practically can't pick anyone else that would be a better pick. Same thing with Casey Affleck, his roles such as the role in Manchester by the Sea is entirely perfect for him and there is no one else who would be a better pick for the role.

An actor is good when he finds at what he excels at. Gyllenhaal is good at disturbed off beat characters (Nightcrawler, Enemy, Prisoners), not at Prince of fucking Persia.

DiCaprio is an outstanding actor, brainlet moron.

>not at Prince of fucking Persia.
You really think so? I mean, the movie kinda sucked, but I thought he did a good job.

For a lot of occupations that don't require a degree (like being a doctor for instance), you could say that... Some people are very fast learners or have enough experience to handle a job like it was their 5th limb. The schools are still relevant for those who aren't already good at it & might need academic guidance to achieve the same.

Attached: NaturalTalentModU145.png (256x375, 199K)