Deep Dives: Acting
Welcome back to our Deep Dive series on The Rubric. I’ve been avoiding this particular entry for a while because it’s such a broad topic, with so many different approaches and ways to think about it. So if you’re wondering why the entries for these Deep Dives go out of order, the answer is laziness. Nevertheless, this is an obviously important aspect of filmmaking that we need to examine.
Acting can truly make or break a film. You can have a great script, a perfect soundtrack, and excellent cinematography—but if your actors cannot bring the characters to life in a believable way, the audience will struggle to anchor themselves in the story. There are a lot of different facets when it comes to acting, and we’ll try to hit at least all the highlights, but we should probably start at the beginning.
What Is Acting?
There is no shortage of definitions for “acting,” ranging from pedantic to overly simple. For our purposes, we’ll do the classic move of stealing from Wikipedia. Acting, then, “is an activity in which a story is told by means of its enactment by an actor who adopts a character.” Sometimes this means an actor assumes a fictionalized character, helping generate that character from scratch with the script serving as an important reference. Other times, it means taking on the task of portraying an actual person, either through direct impression or loose inspiration.
As for what makes good acting versus bad acting—that’s a more elusive question. On a basic level, it’s one of those things you may not be able to directly define, but “you know it when you see it.” That said, I also think there’s a deeper layer to this particular element of our rubric. There is a lot of subtlety in acting, and without formal training, many of the things an actor is doing may not be obvious to most audience members.
I also think people—critics included—often fall into the trap of equating “good acting” with the most dramatic or expressive performances. We see this almost every year during awards season, when dramatic actors tend to receive the most recognition. If a large part of an actor’s approach is defined by the genre or tone of the film, then it stands to reason that we should see a greater variety in “Best Actor” nominations each year.
Origins of Acting
The roots of acting, as best we can tell, goes back over 2500 years ago in Ancient Greece. In fact, the word Thespian comes from one person in particular - Thespis of Icaria. Thespis' performances first took place during celebrations of the Goddess Dionysis. Thespis' performances originated in simple recitations of lines of dialogue, but quickly grew into characters differentiated by use of linen masks. As the art of performance quickly began to evolve, what is considered the first play The Persians, was written by Aeschylus in 472 B.C. Soon, others would follow Aeschylus' lead and competitions were held where playwrights pitted their plays against one another.
Nevertheless, acting would still have a long road before becoming what we know it as today. As time moved on, performances continued to be an art form passed down and across empires. As the Roman Empire began to grow, so too did performance. Not only did the playwright style of Greece persevere, but other forms began to grow including acrobatics, nude dancing, theatrical shows and street performances. As the Roman Empire began to fade, the rise of the Byzantine Empire was notable for its preservation of Ancient Greek theater and texts. However, as the world evolved into the Medieval era, acting began to form into two major factions. The rise of Catholicism across Europe meant that large amount of performances focused on religious liturgies. At the same time, Pagans were responsible for more light-hearted fare with performances usually involving jesters, troubadours and festival celebrations. Later, during the High Middle Ages, the first iterations of acting guilds emerged, both as local troupes and traveling companies.
Still, it wouldn't be until the 16th Century that the acting we think of today would start to take a near final form. The guilds which originated in the High Middle Ages began to coalesce into an actual profession with companies of players inhabiting Elizabethean theaters. This was also a social shift for acting as theaters became a place where Aristocrats and peasants came together in order to watch the latest plays from Shakespeare or Marlowe.
Over the next 400 years, theater evolved in countless ways based on location, culture, and artistic movements. Genres shifted, methods changed, structures developed, and performances grew more dynamic. However, the biggest shake-up came in the late 1800s and early 1900s, when new technologies like radio, television, and film began to emerged. Acting was once again on the verge of major transformation.
The Evolution of Film Acting
Despite posing a major threat to the storied history of theater acting, films first major era was a silent era. Without the ability to utilize sounds of both dialogue and environment, early actors had to overcome the challenge of non-verbal acting. This particular era was marked primarily by the physicality of acting with heightened facial features and large amounts of body language. This style may seem silly or melodramatic by today's standards, but this actually was a fairly easy transition from those with stage backgrounds. Both dramatic theater and the more lighthearted Vaudevillian acts of the era were already using those skills to one degree or the other. It is also an era where we get the first 'stars' of Hollywood with people like Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Mary Pickford becoming household names.
As new sound technologies emerged, acting transitioned into the era of the talkie. Just as audiences began clamoring for films to be more realistic in nature, the advent of sound effects and dialogue allowed for audience to experience acting in a new way. The only problem being that most actors were coming from theater heavy backgrounds. The strengths that once made the transition in the silent era easier, was now making the move towards naturalism more difficult. As such, most early films of Old Hollywood were known for over-the-top performances and the curation of the Transatlantic accent (that distinct speaking style you imagine when you think of old films used by actors like Audrey Hepburn and Orson Welles).
The Golden Age was also a time of rapid evolution for how films were made and how acting changed. Not all actors who made the jump to film during the silent era were able to transition into talkies. And even for those that were able to make the transition, early technical shortcomings required actors to minimize movements in order to effectively capture sound - leading to what audiences would interpret as a 'stiff' performance.
Still, visionaries like Orson Welles saw the immense possibilities that film could allow for. In his film Citizen Kane, Welles received near universal praise for pushing film to new heights - a sentiment that still survives to this day. While Welles pushed for technical breakthroughs in filmmaking, others saw the same potential for revolutionizing acting. Acting teachers like Konstantin Stanislavky and Lee Strasberg offered more emotional techniques that they felt could help actors connect better with their audiences (but more on them later).
As the Golden Era came to an end by the 1960's, a push towards naturalism began to take hold. Audiences were growing less and less satiated by acting styles they felt were too artificial. Again, technology offered a path forward in this regard as handheld cameras allowed for more versatility in the way movies could be made. A more realistic and improvisational approach to acting was starting to unfold, but it would take time for the profession to embrace it. Finally though, the 1970s and beyond gave audiences what they wanted - the ability to viscerally feel the emotional vulnerability of the actors.
As what we might call the modern era unfolded in the 1990s and beyond, technology advanced at a breakneck pace. Digital effects presented a new challenge: actors now had to perform opposite tennis balls and green screens rather than physical environments. While this proved difficult for some, it allowed others—like Andy Serkis—to redefine what acting could be. Those who embraced the technology found new creative spaces, while others discovered that imagination had always been central to their craft.
Although it may feel like the end of the road in terms of the evolution of acting, the profession has always had to adjust alongside technology. I wonder then, as we continue to change technology wise, how will actors and audiences change in the coming decades.
Types of Acting
In addition to acting evolving as a whole throughout time, there are many different 'types' of acting we could talk about.
Let's start in a more traditional sense - what type of acting or actors exist in a modern film? Starting from the top of the call sheet, we should talk about the lead actor, or star, of a film. Lead actors are the most prominently featured actor in a film and often represent our protagonist. Films may have several leads, but once the number grows too plentiful you are probably better off thinking of it as an ensemble piece instead. Lead actors are the central figure of the movie and play a pivotal role for the audience, but also as a professional on set. They also likely possess a high degree of ability and acting skill, while also having a certain X-factor. For directors that X-factor probably means having a particular charisma and presence on screen. For studio heads the X-factor is probably that they have the ability to make the movie money due to their notoriety with audiences. Point being, this a role that is likely equal parts talent and luck.
Next on the call sheet would be the supporting actors. This can be a fairly large list of roles depending on the movie, but will encompass everyone from principal players (characters with prominent roles just below the level of lead) or minor roles (such as the quirky friends that pops in for 1 or 2 scenes before disappearing). This is also a good place to bring up the term 'character actor'. While everyone on a film is usually playing a 'character', character actors is almost slang for a particular breed or flavor of actor. If you've ever been watching a movie or show and notice a particular actor you've seen in 50 different things with absolutely no ability to think of their name - that's what most people are talking about. This isn't meant as an insult either. Character actors are some of the most respected professionals in the industry and, without the burden of stardom, seem to be better at disappearing into roles for the audience. The potential list would be massive but think of people along the lines to Margo Martindale, Judy Greer, John Carroll Lynch, or William Fichtner.
Below support, you may find roles considered 'bit parts'. These are actors who typically receive less than five lines of dialogue or maybe even none at all. However, this is typically differentiated from 'extras' who are background actors that don't get any lines of dialogue and really only serve to create a sense of a lived-in reality or to fill a large scene. Background actors often have little or no acting experience compared to the rest of the cast.
Outside of the call sheet, we could also consider different 'types' of acting as things like motion capture. I mentioned Andy Serkis earlier and can think of no one more well known for doing performance capture as him. His two most prominent roles, Gollum in The Lord of the Rings and Caesar in the Planet of the Apes, represented massive milestones for the industry and the underlying technology behind it heralded in a new era of filmmaking. The use of motion capture is far reaching as well. Video games in particular have embraced this as a means of capturing realistic performances from actual actors. The video game industry even has its own acting stars with names like Troy Baker and Nolan North becoming household names.
More prominent than motion capture, voice acting has become a major component of various industries. Before film, the development of radio allowed voice plays to reach audiences far and wide, and from the comfort of their own home. As Hollywood's silent era began, so did animated films. They then naturally followed the way of the talkies and started incorporating sound. For Hollywood, animated films may not the cheapest to make, but they have shown to have reliable returns both at the Box Office and in Merchandise. For video games, VO became a vital narrative tool. And in commercials, there has always been a smaller subset of actors that can make a living providing voice work. Even consumer goods provide opportunity with the creation of digital assistants and AI systems that need a more human touch. Even the 'Trailer Voice Guy' Don LaFontaine made an entire career for himself just through providing the narration for the next big movies coming to a theater near you.
Sadly, if I had to guess, voice acting is particularly vulnerable to just being about the money. Studios seem happy to just pack their films with as many names as possible to sell the film to audiences. Video game developers also seem all to eager to force a celebrity cameo into their game and take away a job from a less notable voice actor. That's not to say there is no meritocracy to voice acting, but let's not pretend that Chris Pratt was the clear and only choice to voice Mario in the recent Super Mario Bros Movie.
Overly long point being, there is no shortage of 'types' of acting. Each may have its own flavor, but the principals and techniques are largely transferable as technology and audience tastes continues to evolve.
Techniques of Acting
When it comes to the actual practice of acting, there is a wide variety of approaches and techniques. There are also many great acting schools and programs in the world, such as Juilliard, Berklee, and NYU. However, there is no singular way to study or practice acting. Plenty of working actors today never went through a formal program or received traditional training at all. For our purposes here, we will take a quick look at some of the more famous approaches.
1. Stanislavsky System
As mentioned earlier, Konstantin Stanislavsky is a major figure in the history of acting. After co-founding the Moscow Art Theatre, he sought to instill in his actors the ability to tap into the human soul of a character. “The System” he developed was designed to help actors uncover a character’s motivations in every moment.
Instead of simply pretending to be a character, Stanislavsky emphasized experiencing the actual emotions of the character in a given moment (or at least an emotion analogue to them).
Stanislavsky’s approach, despite originating in the early years of film, remains relevant today. His methods have evolved as they’ve been passed down through generations, but many modern actors continue to cite him as a major influence, including Meryl Streep, Al Pacino, and Daniel Day-Lewis.
2. Lee Strasberg and "The Method"
Once a disciple of Stanislavsky, Lee Strasberg is famous for expanding The System into a deeper psychological exploration of character. However, Strasberg was not alone in this effort. Method acting can trace its roots to the Group Theatre in New York and later to the Actors Studio.
Strasberg, along with fellow teachers Stella Adler and Sanford Meisner, developed techniques to help actors understand and embody the psychology, behavior, and sociology of a character.
While Strasberg, Adler, and Meisner disagreed on what “the Method” should be, the core idea remained the same: actors attempt to fully internalize the experiences and emotions of their characters. How they achieve this depends largely on their training and personal process. Not all Method actors send their co-stars live rats like Jared Leto or grind down their teeth like De Niro did for Cape Fear. Many simply keep journals or develop detailed backstories for their characters.
Nevertheless, method acting has grown to have a fairly negative reputation over time. While many actors find it helpful to get into the mind of their characters, the extremes they go through can be off-putting or even dangerous. I particularly like one anecdote about Dustin Hoffman from the set of Marathon Man. In the film, Hoffman's character stays away for three nights in a row. As a method actor, Hoffman decided that he too must stay awake for 72 hours straight prior to filming. When Hoffman told his co-star, and acting legend, Laurence Olivier about his extreme preparation, Olivier simply asked "My dear boy, why don't you just try acting?"
3. Spolin Technique
While many acting teachers—such as Adler, Hagen, and Meisner—developed techniques derived from Stanislavsky, others pursued a different path toward naturalism. Viola Spolin, for example, created a series of “Theatre Games” designed to encourage improvisation and presence in the moment.
Rather than focusing on psychological analysis, Spolin’s exercises emphasize spontaneity and play. Her technique became especially influential in comedy, and her son, Paul Sills, was instrumental in founding The Second City improv group.
4. Practical Aesthetics
A more modern approach to acting was popularized by David Mamet and William H. Macy, who dubbed it Practical Aesthetics. Unlike the more cerebral teachings of Stanislavsky’s followers, this method simplifies acting into two core components: actions and moments.
An action refers both to what the character is literally doing (walking down the street talking with a friend) and what they want beneath the surface (seeking connection or advice). Similar to Uta Hagen’s teachings, actors relate these actions to something from their own personal experience.
If the action is what a character is doing, the moment is how they do it. This aspect of the technique encourages actors to remain present and reactive, grounding their performances in honest, spontaneous behavior so that actions unfold naturally.
5. Chekhov
No, not that Chekhov. Michael Chekhov, nephew of the famed Russian Playwright, is another offshoot of Stanislavsky. However, his 'psycho-physical' approach to acting focuses more on physical gestures in order to ground an actors emotions. For instance, he encouraged students to practice yoga and do aerobic warm-ups to get in touch with their bodies. He also advocated for a practice of 'radiating' whereby you share your essence and energy with scene partners. The overall goal of his approach was to help actors attune to their senses in a given moment in order to honestly portray a character.
The Influence of Genre
Beyond an actor’s general approach, genre can heavily influence how the craft is applied. Certain genres may require skills that some actors struggle with. Performers known for dramatic work don’t always transition easily into comedy, while others move effortlessly between styles. Robert De Niro is a great example of this. He’s iconic in the dark, intense Taxi Driver, yet equally memorable as the tightly wound and comedic Jack Byrnes in Meet the Parents.
To what extent then does genre effect acting? I think it really just changes the style of a performance more than the skill set. Dramas require an actor to deftly layer a character's emotions - often starting from a relatively neutral place and then driving the portrayal to an apex towards to the film's conclusion. On the other hand, a comedy may require a different type of layering. The performance may stay at the same emotional level throughout the film, but instead of emotions, the layers are the different deliveries of comedy such as deadpan, absurdism, and/or even through physical comedy.
Action movies mostly require a similar approach to dramas. The characters are often serious in nature and are facing deadly circumstances - all of which will require an emotional and somewhat muted facade. At the same time, the physicality will also be a major component of this type of performance. Now an actor also needs to convincingly embody the dangerous movements and abilities of a character such as Keanu Reeve's well documented turn as John Wick.
Stemming also from a more dramatic beginning, horror acting will often require a very dramatic turn from an actor - just heightened to an extreme. Most actors and audience members have not actually experienced the reality of being chased by Michael Myers, but the actor still has to find a way to convey the absolute terror of a situation convincingly like OG Scream Queen Jamie Lee Curtis. 
Even things that aren't strictly considered a genre can change an actors approach. Soap Operas, for instance, are known for their melodrama and ridiculous narratives. Some people look down on Soap Operas as daytime TV slop. And though they may not be my personal cup of tea, I recognize that Soap acting is more nuanced than it appears. Not everyone can convincingly sell the shocking return of their dead husband and the revelation that they've actually been living with his evil twin. In the same respect, not all actors may be comfortable performing in front of a live audience. The rhythm and skills of a great sitcom actor may not come very naturally to a film actor who is used to quiet sets and controlled environments.
Notable Actors/Scenes
Before I wrap this up, what would be the point of going through all this without actually taking a look at the work of some tremendous actors. This will by no means be a 'greatest performances of all time' type of list. I am just going to introduce a couple clips and give a little context if needed.
1. Heath Ledger- The Joker
I have a feeling more than one villain may appear on this list, but let's start with one of the more recent and iconic antagonist performances. Heath Ledger famously passed away prior to receiving his Oscar for Best Supporting Actor as the chaotic and unforgettable Joker. This wasn't the first time the Joker has been depicted on screen with both Jack Nicholson and Mark Hamill being at least two other very talented actors to have taken up the mantle. However, Ledger seemed to have tapped into something extraordinary in his performance and has set a bar for superhero villains which may never be surpassed.
As for the actual performance, Ledger truly disappears into the role. His voice, the makeup, the physical mannerisms, his laugh - all of it was transformative. After his death, people sensationalized his preparation as 'method acting gone too far'. Rumors circulated that he locked himself in a room and drove himself into insanity. But I think time has proven that the actor simply struggled with drug use and depression in his personal life for a long time. Those who were actually there and knew him suggest that this was just a role and he was very much the same wonderful person he had always been off camera.
2. Anthony Hopkins - Hannibal Lecter
Earlier I mentioned that supporting roles can have a pretty wide variance in screen time. In the case of Anthony Hopkins as the psychotic cannibal Hannibal Lecter, that amount totaled just about 16 minutes of actual screen time. Yet 16 minutes is all it took the famed actor to create one of the most iconic performances of all time - oh, and win an Oscar for it. Everything about Hannibal, from his off putting physical movements, to his wide but vacant eyes, to the way he chews every word of dialogue, are brilliant and compelling choices - including an absolutely diabolical reading of "fava beans and a nice chianti".
3. Denzel Washington - Alonzo Harris
I promise I'm not trying to only choose villains here. In fact I'd argue Alonzo isn't really a villain, but that can wait for the actual review of Training Day when I get to it. For now I will just point out that this is an outstanding performance by Washington in a career full of outstanding performances. But what makes Training Day feel special to me is how complete Alonzo feels. It really feels like Denzel just understood the character on a deep level - even the lies he tells himself. On top of that, the scene I chose below is, allegedly, very improvisational with Washington basically just channeling the characters true reaction to the film's conclusion.
4. Lupita Nyong'o - Patsey
I probably could've kept up the antagonist trend and use a clip from Us instead, but the role that first brought Lupita Nyong'o to public consciousness was undoubtedly 12 Years A Slave. Oh, and netted her an Oscar as well. It may not be the easiest watch to stomach, but it is an important one.
5. Will Ferrell - Ron Burgundy
I wanted to end on a lighter note and there is certainly no shortage of great comedy performances to choose from. However, Anchorman was a cultural phenomenon that I'm not sure has really been matched fully since its release. Not only is the entire ensemble hilarious, but Ferrell managed to tap into something iconic when he curated the legendary Ron Burgundy. Ferrell has plenty of 'better' performances in his filmography, but this was just special.
Final Thoughts
Since our earliest days of telling each other stories we have been searching for how exactly to connect with the audience. It may have gone through many different iterations and technical approaches, but at the end of the day acting is really just the attempt to compellingly convey the thoughts and emotions of a character. I doubt many of you walked into this not knowing what acting was, or lack the ability to differentiate good and bad acting - but hopefully this paints a bigger picture for you. There is plenty of nuance we didn't get into here so maybe there will be more follow ups in the future. For now, keep an eye out for the more Deep Dives!
Comments
Post a Comment