I still disagree... This would be like saying that if you took another actor than Bale in The Prestige for example, in the scene where he talks with his daugther before he's going to die it would have worked anyway because of the script, the context, the music and the cinematography. What I meant is that you can't replace an actor that easily, maybe another actor than Bale in that scene, or even better in the scene of TDK where he's sitting and devastated by the loss of Rachel would have cried and there would be more "demonstrated" emotions but it wouldn't have been any better for me. If you talk about methods, than I suppose that crying for an actor when he is not sad is probably harder than just "looking sad and devastated" but for me as an individual, the scene was much more powerful BECAUSE Bale didn't cry, I could feel his pain if he acted differently it would have probably been over-acting for me but for others maybe, they would have preferred if Bale cried there instead and they could feel emotion was lacking. That's why I think a part of "acting" and deciding whether a actor is "good" or not is subjective, it comes from the interaction between yourself and the actor's performance on screen more than from the actor's method. The actor might really be "in character" and you might not like his acting because you are not touched by it.

I mean, cinema is like art... It IS an art. When you see a painting from an awesome well-known painter you will have the right to say you do not like it because, again, there's a subjective and individual perception of it, it's not like science or technology where you just say "it's black" or "it's white" there are many nuances and that's why you don't necessarily need to be an actor yourself or a painter to judge acting or painting. Of course, if you have knowledge about those you might start seeing acting/a painting differently and it might open some doors you weren't able to open before.

Just my two cents

Crazy Eight wrote: Not gonna lie, I skimmed your comment... way too much reading for me when I have a headache.

I wasn't saying that an actor can be traded out mid movie... that's absurd. What I'm saying is that with emotional scenes great acting isn't required, context is. Titanic wouldn't be half as emotional if it wasn't for the touching music and Cameron's melodramatic script. The character of Jack could have been played by a number of actors and the final scene would have been just as emotional. Emotion is conveyed through acting, but not as much as you think. Give the writers, composers, and directors their credit.

That being said, yes there is definitely an objective point to acting. And that's like I said earlier: If you watch an interview with an actor and his mannerisms are exactly the same as in his performances, then he's not really acting. He (or she...) is just reacting to things on camera. It's not acting. Parts of it, such as likability, are subjective of course, but there's definitely an objective factor.

Batcat wrote:

Crazy Eight wrote: Not gonna lie, I skimmed your comment... way too much reading for me when I have a headache.

I wasn't saying that an actor can be traded out mid movie... that's absurd. What I'm saying is that with emotional scenes great acting isn't required, context is. Titanic wouldn't be half as emotional if it wasn't for the touching music and Cameron's melodramatic script. The character of Jack could have been played by a number of actors and the final scene would have been just as emotional. Emotion is conveyed through acting, but not as much as you think. Give the writers, composers, and directors their credit.

That being said, yes there is definitely an objective point to acting. And that's like I said earlier: If you watch an interview with an actor and his mannerisms are exactly the same as in his performances, then he's not really acting. He (or she...) is just reacting to things on camera. It's not acting. Parts of it, such as likability, are subjective of course, but there's definitely an objective factor.

Haha, yeah, sorry for the long post, I thought I just had to explain why I think acting is important (as much maybe as the music, cinematography and context) in an emotional scene and why there also is a subjective aspect to what one can think is "good acting". I'm not really sure if actors can be replaced as easily as you seem to think, I think that if we ever tried to do so the scene would be different, the emotions would be different eventhough all the other elements are the same.

So do we agree then that there's an objective and a subjective aspect to acting? :modesty:

talli wrote: a lot of the times its not the actor creating the emotion, but the soundtrack.

Batcat wrote:

talli wrote: a lot of the times its not the actor creating the emotion, but the soundtrack.

Maybe... But I can't help feeling that if you replaced an actor by another the emotion (and so the entire scene) would be different.

talli wrote: i think the director would always look for a truthful emotion so it wouldnt change the quality of the film

Batcat wrote:

talli wrote: i think the director would always look for a truthful emotion so it wouldnt change the quality of the film

Yes, of course, but still it wouldn't be the same scene as every human being is different.

talli wrote: for sure. But if you had originally seen a different actor in it, you wouldn't ever question the scene.

Batcat wrote:

talli wrote: for sure. But if you had originally seen a different actor in it, you wouldn't ever question the scene.

I knew you would say that But then, I think EVERY actors could be replaced because it could work for any scenes. Like if Nolan chose another excellent actor than Heath Ledger for the Joker you wouldn't have questioned his scenes because you would have never seen them with him, the same goes with Liam Neeson as Ra's.

talli wrote:exactly.somebody else could have created a fascinating joker. but they couldnt have created Heath's joker.