I don't really care how much the latest superhero film took at the box office, although I'd probably know if you asked me. When I watch a film the main thing I am looking for is a good story. I like it when I look up at the big screen and can see a part of me staring back at me. More than anything, I am still looking for Jimmy Stewart and Jack Lemmon and Billy Wilder in every film I see.
"Apathy is a solution. I mean, it's easier to lose yourself in drugs than it is to cope with life. It's easier to steal what you want than it is to earn it. It's easier to beat a child than it is to raise it. Hell, love costs: it takes effort and work."
It's not often you hear the word 'subtle' next to 'American' - but when it comes to acting the Americans know how to do it. Whether it's a little indie film or a big Hollywood blockbuster; by and large, the actors know how to stay within the context and the reality of the film they're in. Films are the American art form, they're experts at it.
In England of course; the history is one of theatre. And it's something that bleeds onto the television screens in everything we do. Rather than be a role the British tend to act the role. This concerns me because in my experience most of the young actors I meet don't watch a lot of films, but they are quite up on their television.
And as I discuss 'good acting' with actors - we both have an idea of what good acting is; but they're based on different models. My idea of a good screen actor is someone who becomes the role. Someone who doesn't act with a capital A. They just submerge into the part. On British television however, you see the actors acting the role. When the script calls for them to be sad, they pull a sad face. Whereas when you watch a great Hollywood actor; they just access the sad within themselves, they internalize it. They instinctively know that if they can find the emotion within themselves it'll be released into the ether - the camera will pick up all the subtleties. It reminds me of when I was watching the 'Making Of' documentary on the 'The Green Mile' DVD. Frank Darabont was talking about how he had to keep the camera on Tom Hanks because so much was happening; even though nothing was happening, he was just looking at and reacting to Michael Clark Duncan's character. But that is what good acting is - listening and reacting in the moment.
When I look at British television; be it the soaps or the one hour dramas - the acting is all very laboured, very false. The actors are not attempting to find the reality; they are merely acting the emotions on a outward level. Their facial reactions and tone of voices change just like when you were made to do drama exercises in school. But when you watch this on screen; it is not in any way believable.
Now, this is generally fine. I don't really care about television in the UK. It's not important to me how people act on these shows. However, the problem for me is when it influences the films in this country and in the actors we produce in the UK. And it bothers me because they are influenced by the people they watch the most - on the television. When upcoming actors look at who is successful and doing a lot of work; their frame of reference is the people they see on TV. Therefore it is understandable that they see these in-work successes as models of how to be an actor.
So now we get to the split between what I want and what a British actor wants to do. When I am casting I see Morgan Freeman in my head. But the actor sees the guy who plays Phil Mitchell in 'Eastenders.' The PROBLEM with this - is simply that we are both aiming at different points. I can be the best director in the world; but the level of truth and performance I lead them too can't be like Morgan Freeman, because that is not their reference for good acting. They don't see him as the role model; they see television actors. Therefore when the actor is at their VERY BEST; they could potentially be as good as the guy from 'Eastenders'; but that is no good for me as it is not what I view as good acting.
This is a difficult thing to fix. Our country is steeped in the history of theatre. Of ACTING. Performers have a tendency to get anxious about their screen performances if they are asked to do less.When you give do less as a direction it tends to make the actor quieter or their actions change slightly; but they are still doing a role rather than being the role. And it's a fundamental difference.
What I love about American actors is that when I audition them I can never hear what they're saying. Why? Because they're not 'acting' in auditions, they're just mumbling away like their character realistically would. And that's when you know you have a great actor, when they are comfortable enough to be unnoticable. When they can just be real. It's priceless.
Of course there are exceptions to these rules - I know many fabulous British actors. However, as a generalisation - I think it would be great for actors who are training or recently finished training to really define WHAT good acting is to them. Find a frame of reference. Therefore - you know what you're aiming for. And I don't mean to act like another actor; I just mean that you need to know what good acting looks like to you. Not so you can imitate it, because that would be disastrous.
As for my frame of reference - I leave you with a clip of Morgan Freeman in 'Shawshank Redemption.' In a scene packed full of pain and emotion, Morgan plays the moment perfectly. There isn't even a blink of an eye out of place; he literally IS Red (his character) -- and every beat, every frame, every mannerism is completely in the moment. I think this is possibility the finest and most subtle acting I've ever scene.
So, I finally got around to seeing 'The Mist'. I wanted to see it when it was on the big screen but due to a variety of factors I never did. I've been looking forward to it for a very long time. Why? Because It's Frank Darabont. But I've also been concerned about it. Why? Because It's Frank Darabont.
As a Director, Frank Darabont made one very big mistake - that mistake was making 'The Shawshank Redemption'. The problem with doing so is that he Wrote & Directed what is, quite possibly, the greatest film of all time - the type of film that he will forever be judged against. The impossibility of this situation is that no film will ever come close. Except, one film did. While many worried that it was going to be too similar to Shawshank, Darabont returned to action five years later with the wonderful 'The Green Mile' - a film that would probably be deemed as one of the finest movies of all time if Shawshank hadn't come before it.
As a Director - having those as your last two films is going to put you under a lot of pressure. You can't go from making two masterpieces to Directing mediocre Eddie Murphy flicks. Luckily, Darabont didn't do that. He followed 'The Green Mile' quite promptly with the low-key but enjoyable 'The Majestic' - a film that was charming enough to please his fans but certainly not as big an achievement as his previous efforts.
Some years passed. Now, I'm not sure about everyone else - but I had certainly been strongly anticipating whatever was to come next from Frank Darabont. When it was announced that he was adapting another Stephen King novel I was over the moon. But 'The Mist' was unlike anything Darabont had tried before. It's a genre piece. In fact, very Stephen King-like (which Shawshank and The Green Mile really weren't).
Tonight, I finally got around to watching it.
What it would be like to watch this film objectively, I don't know. I couldn't help but be aware that Darabont was at the helm. So I was disappointed right from the beginning - when Thomas Jane and his family's acting was rather wooden, which was unexpected as there is NOT A SINGLE moment that isn't authentic and true in 'The Shawshank Redemption'. That alone is strange - how can a Director get absolutely flawless, groundbreakingly natural performances in one film, but then below-average performances in another?
'The Mist' is mildly entertaining throughout - but there's no tension, at least not in the manner that Darabont no doubt intended. It tries for a similar mood to 'Signs' (M. Night. Shyamalan) or 'War Of The Worlds' (Steven Spielberg) but falls way short. It's not helped by really poor CGI. The Monsters are embarrassingly unrealistic.
The characters are not believable, often diving headfirst into cliché - and many of the events seem entirely unrealistic. Of course, John Coffey's magical powers in 'The Green Mile' were not realistic for a second -- but as an audience we BELIEVED IN THEM ENTIRELY because of the journey Darabont led us on. Unfortunately, 'The Mist' was merely a genre piece - and one without a scare, without surprise and without notable characters.
For any other filmmaker an average film every now and then is to be expected. But seeing one from the man who up until now dealt only in masterpieces, it's almost a little heartbreaking to see. According to IMDB, Darabont has no films in pre-production (not counting films he's Producing) - I can't help but wonder what is next for him. I do hope he Directs again, and I hope even more that it's a masterpiece.
When I look at British television; be it the soaps or the one hour dramas - the acting is all very laboured, very false. The actors are not attempting to find the reality; they are merely acting the emotions on a outward level. Their facial reactions and tone of voices change just like when you were made to do drama exercises in school. But when you watch this on screen; it is not in any way believable.
This is a difficult thing to fix. Our country is steeped in the history of theatre. Of ACTING. Performers have a tendency to get anxious about their screen performances if they are asked to do less. When you give do less as a direction it tends to make the actor quieter or their actions change slightly; but they are still doing a role rather than being the role. And it's a fundamental difference.
