Do you believe its okay for a performance to be eccentric or surrealistic, or do you believe that the only way a performance can be "true" is if it is realistic (done in a way that closely reflects how people act in real life)? I was having a debate about this with someone today, and I just wanted to know what your thoughts were.
Do you believe performances should always be realistic?
- Thread starter cinematography
- Start date
I don't think I could have said it better myself, Clive.clive said:
For some strange reason, the person I was debating about this didn't agree. He believes that films are only for telling stories, and that even for fantasy films - the performances should be realistic. I have no idea why he would believe this. Maybe he has some kind of a strange prejudice toward experimental cinema and art in general. I’m not entirely sure. I say if you want total realism, go rent a documentary. 
Last edited:
Bah! I liked your last response better.Mr.Blonde said:
I feel kind of foolish even bringing this topic up for discussion. To us, its a common sense kind of thing. Realism is good for some stories, but we should never limit ourselves to realism. Why some people can't understand this is beyond me.
Mr.Blonde said:
Have you seen Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events? I've only seen previews, but from what I could see in those previews - it looks as if Carrey gives an amazing series of performances. That guy is becoming a great character actor. Johnny Depp also has this quality.
Johnny Depp needs to be nominated for an Academy Award already! What he does isn’t easy, and should be commended. I’m starting to loose my faith in the Academy anyhow. After Titanic won for best picture, and after Amelie was passed up for best foreign film, I don’t know about those guys.Mr.Blonde said:
His argument was that a movie can be fantasy as long as the performances are realistic, but I think we've just debunked that 100 times over in this thread with just a few replies.
Oh well. He just didn't know any better. At one time we all didn't know better.May this thread educate and spread Truth!
Not to mention there would be no Kill Bill.Mr.Blonde said:
The acting and visual style of that movie was surrealistic. Same goes for Natural Born Killers, another movie I enjoyed.
Actually, most of the people I know "in real life" are pretty surreal.
There it is, right there
Just wanted to comment, speaking of Johhny Depp, Edward Scissorhands were pretty surreal, but I found him a lot more "real" than hhis recent role as J. M. Barrie, which might be said to be a more "realistic" performance.
Also, wanted to mention Cate Blanchett's performance as Katherine Hepburn in Aviator, where she starts off kind of surreal in her first scene (in part, because this is how Hughes sees her) and then turns into a real person. I like that kind of stuff.
Brent
("animaguSURREAL")
Hi Guys, I had wanted to say more this morning when I posted, but I was getting ready for meetings with the banks about the new production company.
My take on this is that realism in film and within performance isn't really what people are aiming for in any production, otherwise we'd just turn cameras on and transmit hours of people sitting in cafes eating sandwiches and talking nonsense (Dear God, I've just invented reality TV, Oh the horror).
This means that every performance is stylised in some way, even one purporting to be aiming for realism. As a director knowing this is valuable because it means I can concentrate on creating stories that are emotionally true, believable and interesting rather than getting bogged down in chasing the impossible.
I think that one of the mistakes that many screenwriters make when writing dialogue is aiming for realism, instead of aiming for interesting. What makes characters interesting for me is the way drama magnifies reality, putting people in extreme circumstances and seeing the effect it has them.
So, the upshot is this posting is realism and the previous "No" is good dialogue.
My take on this is that realism in film and within performance isn't really what people are aiming for in any production, otherwise we'd just turn cameras on and transmit hours of people sitting in cafes eating sandwiches and talking nonsense (Dear God, I've just invented reality TV, Oh the horror).
This means that every performance is stylised in some way, even one purporting to be aiming for realism. As a director knowing this is valuable because it means I can concentrate on creating stories that are emotionally true, believable and interesting rather than getting bogged down in chasing the impossible.
I think that one of the mistakes that many screenwriters make when writing dialogue is aiming for realism, instead of aiming for interesting. What makes characters interesting for me is the way drama magnifies reality, putting people in extreme circumstances and seeing the effect it has them.
So, the upshot is this posting is realism and the previous "No" is good dialogue.
cinematography: Ask your friend how realistic he thinks Yoda is/was.. or Chewy for that matter!
The performance has to fit the story. Although that's not a written in stone rule, because having a "realistic" human character amidst a bunch of surreal characters can work too... think, Labyrinth, The Wizard of Oz, or Alice in Wonderland. Ultimately though I would have to say that the story dictates the performance, but a performance that is played differently than what the story calls for can work too. I guess it's personal preference, but like Clive said, in a word.... "No"
The performance has to fit the story. Although that's not a written in stone rule, because having a "realistic" human character amidst a bunch of surreal characters can work too... think, Labyrinth, The Wizard of Oz, or Alice in Wonderland. Ultimately though I would have to say that the story dictates the performance, but a performance that is played differently than what the story calls for can work too. I guess it's personal preference, but like Clive said, in a word.... "No"
I sent him a link to this thread. Hopefully he'll read it and see the error in his thinking. I'm pretty sure he will. We all make mistakes in judgment sometimes.Will Vincent said:
cinematography said:
I'm the friend that cinematography is talking about...
Lol, I read it, and agree with most of it - my buddy either misunderstood or misrepresented my point of view, me thinks...
I have no issue with "eccentric or surrealistic" performances at all. But I do claim that the acting which is most true to the human condition is the best, within whatever context the movie gives it. And I also claimed, to my friend, that Stanley Kubrick had his actors act like real people would in those given situations. "Eyes Wide Shut" is a great example. The reason I liked the film so much is because the people acted like people really do, IMO. People really do think about sex often, really do piss in front of each other, etc., etc.
As for Lemonie Snickets - within the context of that movie, the acting was dead on for Jim Carrey. Take the Dwarf from LOTR - within the context that the film setup, his acting was dead on, as were the little folk (I forget what they were, exactly) in Time Bandits.
I have no issues at all with non-realism. I love Fantasy and Sci-fi most of all. What I dislike is when people are made to act as real people would NOT in a given context. That's where my use of the world "real" was confused with "eccentric and surrealistic". As someone above said, people are strange and often behave that way - especially me, as my friend can vouch for
Take the, "lets all hug, make babies, and add each other to our holiday greeting card lists" BS in Independence Day, to give just a quick example. In the context given (the real world), warring nation states and their leaders would not act that way - I call this "non-realistic". "The Arrival" was another movie, equally fantastic, that I often compare ID4 too. A much better movie, IMO. Not nearly as grand as blowing up the white house, but no explosion can make up for the fake-emotion/acting in ID4...
My DP, in a discussion about our next project (which I will not be helming 
) last night made the comment that Lighting that looks normal is the hardest to do. I'd add that it's usually not aestheticaly pleasing.
I think the same thing holds true for acting. If an actor is shooting for a realistic portrayal of a person, the result is usually too difficult for the actor to pull off and it's more often than not boring.
Poke
) last night made the comment that Lighting that looks normal is the hardest to do. I'd add that it's usually not aestheticaly pleasing. I think the same thing holds true for acting. If an actor is shooting for a realistic portrayal of a person, the result is usually too difficult for the actor to pull off and it's more often than not boring.
Poke
Reality is boring, if it weren't there wouldn't be an entertainment industry.
Unless of course you are one of the people that truely believe there's anything REAL about "reality TV" then maybe YOUR reality isn't so boring, but for the rest of us, we need an entertaining escape from the dullness of our real lives.
Unless of course you are one of the people that truely believe there's anything REAL about "reality TV" then maybe YOUR reality isn't so boring, but for the rest of us, we need an entertaining escape from the dullness of our real lives.
I think you misunderstand my view about "real". Dr. Who was as unrealistic as it gets, and I loved the show. The Doctor certainly didn't act "normal" in some sense. For example, he would be captured by his enemies and would smile and offer them a jelly-baby (a British candy similar to a jelly-bean)...
However difficult, his (Tom Baker, probablly the best loved of the many actors taking that role) acting seemed "real". He seems like an eccentric chap that I might actually meet (aside from the fact that he's a Time Lord, not human, has two hearts, 7 lifespans, etc., etc of course).
Bill Pullman's acting and/or his role in ID4 wasn't "real". In the universe which that movie takes place in, people like Bill do not exist - certainly not as American presidents. If that's the type of escape I'm seeking, I can watch kid's shows like Barney. the fake "niceness" of the kids on Barney is just a bit more tolerable than Jar-Jar Binks and Pullman in ID4, IMO.
Warf on Star Trek abides by a set of conservative values from an alien race which does not exist, yet his acting is more "real" than Pullman's, IMO. And no, I do not mean "better". The man who plays Warf is not actually a terrific actor, IMO...
I also loved, "My Neighbor Totorro", from the genius that made, "Spirited Away". There is certainly nothing "real" about a very small kid that runs away, sneaks into a hole in a tree and falls asleep on the belly of a large beast. This movie without a plot, I think, would bore most American viewers, but I always watch it with my kids - it beats "Barney kids" acting by a mile...
However difficult, his (Tom Baker, probablly the best loved of the many actors taking that role) acting seemed "real". He seems like an eccentric chap that I might actually meet (aside from the fact that he's a Time Lord, not human, has two hearts, 7 lifespans, etc., etc of course).
Bill Pullman's acting and/or his role in ID4 wasn't "real". In the universe which that movie takes place in, people like Bill do not exist - certainly not as American presidents. If that's the type of escape I'm seeking, I can watch kid's shows like Barney. the fake "niceness" of the kids on Barney is just a bit more tolerable than Jar-Jar Binks and Pullman in ID4, IMO.
Warf on Star Trek abides by a set of conservative values from an alien race which does not exist, yet his acting is more "real" than Pullman's, IMO. And no, I do not mean "better". The man who plays Warf is not actually a terrific actor, IMO...
I also loved, "My Neighbor Totorro", from the genius that made, "Spirited Away". There is certainly nothing "real" about a very small kid that runs away, sneaks into a hole in a tree and falls asleep on the belly of a large beast. This movie without a plot, I think, would bore most American viewers, but I always watch it with my kids - it beats "Barney kids" acting by a mile...
Last edited:
*hiss* I hate you more than canned ham!davros said:
Not necessarily. Take the pot smoking scene. What couple do you know of starts talking about human evolution while smoking weed? That movie was very unnatural, which is why I enjoyed it so much, and made it such a standout. Eyes Wide Shut is a perfect example that goes directly against your argument.
Art should not be confined by too many restrictions, Davros-chan.
LOL! Well... You do have a point there.
Last edited: