Browse: Home / Taco Break: The Five Tools of Acting (from Babalugats)

Menu

Skip to content
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • About
  • Privacy
  • Contact Us
  • Login

The-SoluteLogo

A Film Site By Lovers of Film

Menu

Skip to content
  • Features
  • Reviews
  • Long Reviews
  • News
  • Articles and Opinions
  • Other Media
  • Blaming Women
  • Guest Review: James Williams on JOHN WICK: CHAPTER FOUR
  • Film on the Internet: COLD IN JULY
  • New on DVD and Blu-Ray
  • Local 32-Year-Old Man Successfully Expands His Taste In Music

Taco Break: The Five Tools of Acting (from Babalugats)

Posted By The Ploughman on November 12, 2020 in Short Articles | Leave a response

Preamble

When I was a child some of the first movie arguments I would get into, after whether or not “this movie was cool” or whether or not “this movie was on” was whether or not “this actor was good.”  These arguments were always long and fruitless, and eventually we settled on a sort of truce. If an actor had been in three good movies (with some caveats, bitterly negotiated over) you couldn’t say they were a bad actor. This rule turned out to be surprisingly useful, both as a way of settling arguments and as a way of thinking about and discussing acting.

First, it was good at focusing an argument on the thing in question, whether there was an actual performance we disagreed on or whether or not we’d even seen the same movies. But also, looking at an actor’s career through the lens of their three best films helps illuminate what they’re really good at. Instead of trading back and forth good Nick Cage performances and bad, you say “Raising Arizona, Moonstruck, and Bringing Out The Dead” and now you see a serviceable dramatic actor with great comedic timing and the ability to anchor a film without edging out the other performers. But more than anything else, this way of looking at art – that good artists are artists that make good art, and that criticism is not a way to determine if art is good but a way to articulate why and how it is good – has been a healthy and helpful way of looking at not only acting, but art in general.

But this also means that I have to admit that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a good actor. And if I want to understand acting, I have to understand it within the context of Arnold Schwarzenegger being good at it. And, because nothing can be truly understood if it can’t be expressed with complicated baseball metaphors, I began thinking about the five tools of acting.

The Five Tools

Range: The ability to play a wide variety of parts, to do accents, or to disappear into a role. When most people talk about acting they really only talk about range. But range is actually the least important skill for an actor to have. Hugh Laurie can do a flawless American accent, but so can 320 million other people. Hugh Laurie doesn’t get work because of his accent, but because of the other things he brings to a performance. It’s very rare that any particular role will demand range, and most actors have far more range than people generally realize. They just aren’t often asked to exercise that range, because they keep getting hired for the kinds of roles they’re best at.

Depth: While range is about showing a wide variety of character types, depth is about showing a wide range of emotions. In particular, the ability to communicate multiple emotions at the same time. Can you say ‘I love you’ like you really mean it? Can you say it like you don’t? Or like you aren’t sure? Or like you’re trying to convince yourself? Or like you’re realizing it’s true only now as you say the words? Like you’re ashamed, or angry, or joyful, or hopeless, or heartbroken? Those are the actors that have depth.

Charisma: Is the actor interesting on screen? Can they carry a movie? This is the least respected tool, but it’s the one that makes money and sustains careers. A good casting director can work around range. A good director, a good script and cinematography and score, can fudge depth. But you can’t fake charisma.

Self-Awareness: How much is an actor aware of their own screen presence, their strengths and weaknesses? How well can they match the tone of a film, and how good are they at seeking out roles they are right for and avoiding roles they are wrong for?

Taste: Does the actor even want to make good movies? Or, more to the point, is the actor interested in making the kind of movies I like? To be perfectly honest, Taste is only on here because baseball has 5 tools. But I think it’s useful to keep a bit of humility around the subjectivity of all of this. And also to remember that an artist’s output can be determined as much by commercial considerations as it can by their own talent.

For many years, the fifth tool was just smoking.

So what do you all think? Do you agree with the five tools? Can you think of something better than taste? Is it fair to judge an actor by their overall output, or should we look at individual performances outside of the context of the films that contain them, and is that even possible? What makes a good actor? What makes a good performance? What tools define your favorite or least favorite actors?

Posted in Short Articles | Tagged Actors and Acting, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nicholas Cage, Taco Break

About the Author

gemofpurestray@gmail.com'

The Ploughman

Related Posts

Taco Break: GENERIC CHRISTMAS MOVIES→

Pro Tip: Plug your nose to lose one of your senses and enhance your hearing.TÁRco Break: The Unexpected Identification (by Miller)→

It's a real tragedy that Gene Hackman was born too late to play a computer nerd character that is told to "hack, man!"Taco Break: Favorite Nonsense Lines that Make Sense→

This is why I hard boil the fuckers.Taco Lunch Break Link: THE KILLING OF AN EGG and Accidental Nightmare Fuel→

  • Comments
  • Popular
  • Most Recent
  • j*****@yahoo.com'
    mr_apollo on Year of the Month: Mon OncleWonderful piece, Sam. It's made…
  • j*****@yahoo.com'
    mr_apollo on Year of the Month: Mon OncleFellow heretic here. I've never…
  • n***********@gmail.com'
    Ruck Cohlchez on Film on the Internet: AN AMERICAN CRIMEI wouldn't have called it…
  • j***********@gmail.com'
    Son of Griff on LIFE ITSELFGlad to hear back from…
  • n*********@gmail.com'
    Jake Gittes on Film on the Internet: AN AMERICAN CRIMEThis is the single most…
  • “The End” of SAVAGES

    33896 views / Posted November 10, 2014
  • What the fuck did I just watch? SPHERE

    27465 views / Posted March 19, 2015
  • The Untalented Mr. Ripley: The Craft of Standup Comedy and the Non-Comedy of TOM MYERS

    25100 views / Posted June 26, 2018
  • Scenic Routes: SHOWGIRLS (1995)

    20110 views / Posted November 20, 2014
  • Yvonne, or: CASABLANCA In One Character and Three Scenes

    11152 views / Posted August 21, 2014
  • One person in this image is at least trying

    Blaming Women

    March 29, 2023 / Gillianren
  • Guest Review: James Williams on JOHN WICK: CHAPTER FOUR

    March 29, 2023 / Sam "Burgundy Suit" Scott
  • Film on the Internet: COLD IN JULY

    March 29, 2023 / ZoeZ
  • New on DVD and Blu-Ray

    March 28, 2023 / Greta Taylor
  • Local 32-Year-Old Man Successfully Expands His Taste In Music

    March 27, 2023 / Tristan "Drunk Napoleon" Nankervis

Last Tweets

  • Blaming Women - https://t.co/UlNPyxzQsA, 7 hours ago
  • Guest Review: James Williams on JOHN WICK: CHAPTER FOUR - https://t.co/luSXZmy1EQ, 9 hours ago
  • Film on the Internet: COLD IN JULY - https://t.co/jXq2wsmCy5, 13 hours ago

©2014 - 2016 The-Solute | Hosted, Developed and Maintained by Bellingham WP LogoBellinghamWP.com.

Menu

  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • About
  • Privacy
  • Contact Us
  • Login
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!