|
Of course! Otherwise it wouldn't be realistic! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If they act better that way, then yes. It will benefit their career. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There are different kinds of actors. Method acting is in my opinion, the better as the actor studies
and develops the character they are trying to portray.
It is uncanny the number of times an actor acts out the role they played, in their real life.
Singers too. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well now, i have never been interested nor attracted to the acting career myself, so anything I say
on this debate is without actual knowledge or information, basically I am ignorant on this topic,
OK?
So, that said, its just a guess on my part.
(Hard to debate without any exposure to information).
I am guessing, that within the job or career of acting, it would probably, require personal feeling
added to the mix of clinical technical acting training skills to create a fully-developed
flushed-out character.
Perhaps, this is what you call "becoming the character'??
Or, I misunderstood the question.
Anyway, in my observation in movies/entertainment that I enjoy?
Leonardo DiCaprio, is at the very top of the acting profession, for the reason that while looking at
his work, one forgets for the time being that it is not real, but all professionally acted parts.
I would tend to think, that that would indicate he has "become 'the character',..........perhaps. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Otherwise known as method acting, it is the best way to achieve a good performance. Look at Robert
De Nero and Al Pacino. Two cinema greats who tried to become the character they played. It can have
some effect on the set, the actor strutting around in character, but it is a sure fire way to get
good reviews. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
To be a nice actor, an actor MUST become the character! Take viggo mortensen... All long the Lord of
the ring, he was weiring his sword all the time, even in restaurants! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes its what there for. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes? I'm not going to be convinced of an actor's genuineness in a role if he or she is just reciting
lines. I need to believe that they are who they say they are. They need to convince me and get into
character |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That is what they teach you in theatre; I think it is safe to assume that that is also where the
phrase "get into character" comes from. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Actors put soul into a role when they ‘become’ the character. So much so that becoming a
character is an art that all actors need to excel. Only by becoming a character actors can engage
their audience and bring a character to life. Characters are created on paper and imagined by actors
and writers together to become what we as audience see on the screen. If actors would not become
their character the fun of drama, theatre or movies will be not even a small percentage of what it
is right now. In fact the number of characters will then only be limited to the number of actors. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Of course they should. If an actor didn't become a character then every single film would be boring
and there wouldn't be a job for them to do!
Just because a character is fictional doesn't mean an actor shouldn't try to fit into that part.
We're all perfectly aware that characters are fictional, but what would life be without them?
Actors help to bring our favourite characters to life. We get joy from watching them do so.
Actors have to understand the character they are playing in order to portray them. They have no
choice but to place themselves inside that character's mind. They have to become the character in
order to act it out!
Acting is an art form. There is no nonsense surrounding it at all. Imagine watching a film where the
actors express nothing at all. Very dull and pointless. There wouldn't be any story to tell or
anything remotely interesting if an actor didn't become the character. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It is a must for an actor to understand the character from his inner self and put himself in the
character’s shoes. Unless any actor becomes the character himself the entire work loses the pace
and essence and as a result co-actors tends to fall short of their artistic level. If an actor
remains in his own self and never tries to become the character then from the viewers’ perspective
it creates a false interpretation in their eyes about the character. They get the wrong notion about
the character that the actor is portraying and as a whole the entire story lacks the spirit. Thus it
is very much required of an actor to get to the grass root of a character, understand it and then
become the character himself. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes. Becoming you character is fundamentally what you must do to act convincingly. Look at Captain
Jack Sparrow. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Acting is about being someone your not if jonny deep acted modern jonny deep rather then a pirate
this not a good movie so lie wont do it. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I think it is a bad idea, remember heath ledger. Because he tried to become his character he went
crazy and was put under medication then died because of it! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think it really depends on the role and stability of the actor....... Ask Keith Ledger. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There is a difference between getting into character, focusing your energy on how the character
would deliver a line, move or speak, and "being" a character. I think that some people take it to
far. Being your character 24/7 while you are working on a production is just plain weird. Acting is
not being. Famous actors are not their characters, they are creating a character and leaving them on
the set. I think great actors spend a lot of time outside of the set, working on their character.
But the character and yourself should always be separated, or else we would fall into the bottomless
pit of acting a character in the same way as the person before you did. And if that is theatre then
i wouldn't take part in it anymore. Acting is about developing and discovering, not being. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No because an actor should ACT not BECOME the character. They should entertain me but not be like
that always. That is why it's called ACTING not BEING. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The word act means to take action, it doesn't mean to become someone else. The modern usage
referring to acting seems to have been influenced by Stanislavski and other theorists. An actor
cannot 'become' the character, there is no character, they are not a real person, they are not even
a person, they are a collection of lines and stage directions in a play or script that when read
give the impression of a fictional or fictionalised person. They are no more real than the
characters in a novel, who exist inside ones head alone.
Character is the sum of characteristics, in other words, what we do and say is who we are. The
'say' of a character is created by the playwright, the actor provides the doing. This together
creates the illusion of character, a very pleasing illusion for the audience, but unlike the
audience, the actors have no need to believe in the illusion, as they are the ones whose technical
skills must create the illusion itself.
There is really too much nonsense surrounding acting, even actors have bought into the nonsense,
feeling the part, that's like suggesting that a plumber has to 'feel' his wrench to use it.
Actors who obsess with becoming the character use it as a means of deflect the real task of the
player, which is to perform the play as written to the best of their abilities. All the rest is
work avoidance. Not to mention the fact that it is physically and psychologically impossible to
become someone other than you are. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
11 Dec 2007 17:08
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
