ACTING

The recent comments on my Facebook post on who should or should not have won the 1972 Best Actor Oscar, (I went with Brando and hopefully I will explain why), has prompted me to take a look at what constitutes good, or maybe bad, acting and to take a look at a few of those actors that are considered 'great' or the best. Acting seems to provoke a wealth of feeling with some of my Facebook friends coming to metaphorical blows on the subject.  Looking at those candidates for the Best Actor Oscar in 1972 I went, as did the Academy, with Brando's Don Corleone in THE GODFATHER, a performance many felt was nothing more than ham and yes, from quite early on in his career Brando had a propensity for ham.  Some, myself included, think he is still one of the all-time greats, a judgement I've reached based on a handful of performances, THE GODFATHER being just one, and I don't think there are too many people who will deny just how great he was at the start in films like A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, JULIUS CAESAR and ON THE WATERFRONT.  Unfortunately he got lazy early, coming to rely on mannerisms and funny voices. Sometimes it worked, (VIVA ZAPATA, THE YOUNG LIONS), but mostly it didn't, (dreadful as Napoleon in DESIREE, in pantomime mode in THE TEAHOUSE OF THE AUGUST MOON and just plain weird in MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY).

The older he got the fatter he got and sometimes I had to pinch myself to think the guy in THE APPALOOSA or THE COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG was the same man who played Terry Malloy. However, his 'comeback' performance in THE GODFATHER showed just how good he once was, Yes, he relied heavily on mannerisms and make-up here but to great effect in building the character from scratch.  Like his best early work it was often the gestures, the silences, his way with a single line, (the way he said 'the funny papers' in his final scene), that made this performance great and he was equally good the following year in his much more method-orientated performance in LAST TANGO IN PARIS.

The Method?  What's that all about? You could say it's the difference between what Laurence Olivier did and what Dustin Hoffman does.  If Olivier liked to 'act', Hoffman likes 'to be' yet both were capable of hamming, both were capable of bad acting. I never saw Olivier on stage, (I once queued for day tickets for a performance of THE DANCE OF DEATH but missed out), so I can only judge him on his screen work.  He was, of course, great in Shakespeare. His RICHARD III may be the greatest single performance on film and in the right role, (REBECCA, CARRIE, THE ENTERTAINER, on television in both A VOYAGE ROUND MY FATHER and in BRIDESHEAD REVISITED), he could be just as good but I am not a fan of his work in WUTHERING HEIGHTS in which I felt he was simply miscast as Heathcliffe and in old age he often reverted to some appalling mannerisms reaching a nadir in THE JAZZ SINGER.

Hoffman started at the top. Though too old for the part he was perfect as Benjamin Braddock in THE GRADUATE and two years later he disappeared totally into the character of Rizzo in MIDNIGHT COWBOY, a performance that showed he was as much a character actor as a method actor and subsequently he has been cast as much for his ability to play 'a role' as a variation of himself.  He has won two Oscars and for two very different parts, playing a 'character', adequately rather than brilliantly in my opinion in RAIN MAN and playing a living, breathing human being in KRAMER VS KRAMER.

The actors I've mentioned, of course, are ones most people rate as 'the best'. There are others that we all have opinions about, (Katherine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Spencer Tracy, Henry Fonda, James Stewart and the actress who may be the best to come from 'classic' Hollywood, Olivia De Havilland as well as the post-method school that includes Pacino and Jack Nicholson, not to mention Meryl with her 3 Oscars and 21 nominations), all capable of the best of acting and the worst. As I've said, acting isn't a science but an art; it is a job of work and we all have our bad days.  Of course, there are some actors I have always maintained are incapable of giving a bad performance,the ones I think of as the unsung heroes. For me, the greatest character actor will always be Ward Bond , who like Gene Hackman, is someone who couldn't give a bad performance if he tried, (and yet who is someone  totally ignored by Oscar), just as that old ham Maria Ouspenskaya could never give a good one. It is, you see, subjective. I am often surprised by the awards given to actors sometimes at the expense of others.  Recently I saw Andrew Garfield give one of the most phenomenal stage performances I have seen in 50 years of theatre-going, playing Prior Walter in both parts of ANGELS IN AMERICA yet his work was overlooked at the Oliviers in favour of Bryan Cranston in NETWORK. Admittedly I haven't seen Cranston's work but could it really have been better than Garfield's.


As I continue to single out my top 5 performances of the year in film I know I will incur the wrath of many people reading these posts as I choose which performance I would pick as the best, being castigated for leaving out a particular favourite of someone, (or even putting someone in the 'wrong' category; was Brando's performance in THE GODFATHER a lead or a supporting turn?).  I myself, like Joseph Corral and Craig Dudley, have acted on stage but unlike them never professionally. I was at one time a member of the '71 Players and, quite frankly, I was terrible. I could never seem to get into the part I was playing. I knew just how wooden I was and only came alive on occasions when I  committed the cardinal sin of improvising.  However, in real life I may be a very fine actor. As a Civil Servant I worked my way up the ladder fairly quickly, not because I was particularly good at my job or actually cared very much about what I was doing but because I was good at playing a role. I knew how to be the person people wanted me to be and I was good in interviews.  Now I hear you say, he's insincere but not at all. The role I was playing was that of myself; you get in me exactly what you see. Mr Shakespeare knew that all those centuries ago when he said 'All the world's a stage...' I shall leave you to reach your own conclusions on the rest of that sentence,
but not at all. The role I was playing was that of myself; you get in me exactly what you see. Mr Shakespeare knew that all those centuries ago when he said 'All the world's a stage...' I shall leave you to reach your own conclusions on the rest of that sentence,