Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
You mean it's a bad thing I got a high score?
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Re: Quiz: Movie "twist" endings
Rem, remedy that asap. Jeeze, what a film, what dialogue, what evil, what characters, what an ending. P.Remec said:
G
Guest
Guest
Yes it is. P.Svenskaflicka said:You mean it's a bad thing I got a high score?
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
That's the thing about quizzes, P. You don't need experience or knowledge or insight, you just need to be able to make lucky guesses.
Just-Legal
Goth Flufflet
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2001
- Posts
- 4,075
You scored 5 out of a possible 10
Like a 7-year-old at a wedding, you love twists. They make you all giggly. But one twist too many and you completely lose your bearings. And from there on in, the plot's horribly predictable. Orange-squash coloured vomit all down your party dress. Tears. Tantrums. And a half-robot alien cat woman who's been stage managing the whole thing. Called Katie.
Like a 7-year-old at a wedding, you love twists. They make you all giggly. But one twist too many and you completely lose your bearings. And from there on in, the plot's horribly predictable. Orange-squash coloured vomit all down your party dress. Tears. Tantrums. And a half-robot alien cat woman who's been stage managing the whole thing. Called Katie.
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
So what is the opposite of a 'character' actor then? Not just 'the lead' because lots of leads are just names they never change character just their character's name. (unless they play the character with no name)
OK.
John Wayne, Clint, Will Smith. I'd call these character actors, in that they are always Wayne, Eastwood and Smith with different names in different films. (except spaghetti westerns obviously)
I'd say:
Gene Hackman, Johnny Depp and Kevin Costner were the opposite. (You don't have to agree) I just mean that when they are acting they don't play the same character (to me)
So what is the opposite of a character actor?
Gauche
OK.
John Wayne, Clint, Will Smith. I'd call these character actors, in that they are always Wayne, Eastwood and Smith with different names in different films. (except spaghetti westerns obviously)
I'd say:
Gene Hackman, Johnny Depp and Kevin Costner were the opposite. (You don't have to agree) I just mean that when they are acting they don't play the same character (to me)
So what is the opposite of a character actor?
Gauche
G
Guest
Guest
Gauche,
You have an interesting outlook there. I get your meaning but I don’t believe it’s the norm. My take is that character actors are very rarely “lead” actors (leading/major characters in the story). Character actors are not often known by name but if you see a photo of them you’ll recognize them.
Wayne, Eastwood and Smith are not character actors per the above, though I understand what you say about them. Actually, I would not call them actors at all, but that’s another topic.
Hackman, Depp and Costner have mostly been “leads”, though I think Hackman did some “character” work before becoming established. Of these I don’t believe Costner is an actor.
I don’t know that there is an opposite to a character actor. A “lead” is a very different thing, has its own status (usually a "moviestar").
Perdita
You have an interesting outlook there. I get your meaning but I don’t believe it’s the norm. My take is that character actors are very rarely “lead” actors (leading/major characters in the story). Character actors are not often known by name but if you see a photo of them you’ll recognize them.
Wayne, Eastwood and Smith are not character actors per the above, though I understand what you say about them. Actually, I would not call them actors at all, but that’s another topic.
Hackman, Depp and Costner have mostly been “leads”, though I think Hackman did some “character” work before becoming established. Of these I don’t believe Costner is an actor.
I don’t know that there is an opposite to a character actor. A “lead” is a very different thing, has its own status (usually a "moviestar").
Perdita
G
Guest
Guest
p.s. to Gauche
Think of the term as in, "Boy, that old guy's a real character." "Character" roles are the nextdoor neighbor, the postman, the boss, the ex-wife, the buddy who is not the star, etc.
Perdita
Think of the term as in, "Boy, that old guy's a real character." "Character" roles are the nextdoor neighbor, the postman, the boss, the ex-wife, the buddy who is not the star, etc.
Perdita
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
I'm surprised they didn't include "Sleuth", with Michael Caine and Sir Lawrence O. That was the twistiest movie I've ever seen, and very satisfying.
No mention either of the Scooby Doo cartoons, where the ghosts always turn out to be the new owners of the house/amusement park/trailer camp/whatever. Astonishes me everytime.
---dr.M.
No mention either of the Scooby Doo cartoons, where the ghosts always turn out to be the new owners of the house/amusement park/trailer camp/whatever. Astonishes me everytime.
---dr.M.
G
Guest
Guest
Mab./Zoot: you win my "off the wall" post award for today.dr_mabeuse said:
Perdita
The Mutt
Cunnilingus Ergo Sum
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Posts
- 22,265
Some twists have been used so much they aren't even twists anymore. They are cliches. Example:
The killer stands over the fallen hero. He points his gun. It is certain death for our hero. A shot rings out. The killer looks surprised, then falls over dead to reveal the sidekick or girlfriend who has just shot the killer in the back.
*Yawn*
The killer stands over the fallen hero. He points his gun. It is certain death for our hero. A shot rings out. The killer looks surprised, then falls over dead to reveal the sidekick or girlfriend who has just shot the killer in the back.
*Yawn*
tolyk
Checked out
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2004
- Posts
- 45,663
The Mutt said:Some twists have been used so much they aren't even twists anymore. They are cliches. Example:
The killer stands over the fallen hero. He points his gun. It is certain death for our hero. A shot rings out. The killer looks surprised, then falls over dead to reveal the sidekick or girlfriend who has just shot the killer in the back.
*Yawn*
Damn it, you just gave away the ending of my novel!!!
*grin*
poohlive
Silly Ole Bear
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2000
- Posts
- 11,389
I don't know if there is a specific opposite to a character actor... at least, not one that has a name or anything.
A character actor can be a leading man though. I think your examples were great, gauche. Those are examples of people who can only play one kind of person (themselves) and do it well enough to earn a paycheck.
I guess the only term I myself can come up with are well rounded actors. These are people (like those you mentioned again, lol) who can play a variety of roles. Tom Hanks can go from a gay business executive to a mentally challenged southern millionaire, and he's believable in both (of course, this all depends on your take of him as an actor and his performances, but those roles both got him oscars, so it couldn't have been that bad).
Johnny Depp can go from a Swashbuckling pirate to a serious novelist trying to figure out a mystery, and he's makes you see that he is really living both of those lives, for that time on the screen.
Pauly Shore can only play Pauly Shore. He's never been anything more or less. Keanu Reeves, while trying to take himself seriously, and has enjoyed a variety of roles over his career... hasn't really been all too convincing in most of them. My honest opinion, he should have stayed Ted in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, and stuck with those character roles. He was good at playing a california surfer with no brains. Look at Point Break, he was great in that movie. Why? Cause he was a naive surfer boy who was trying to figure everything out just as we were.
And the Matrix. He was great in that movie... cause he didn't understand anything, and went through half of it with that frustrated look on his face. It worked perfectly for the role. His other roles have left something to be desired though.
I don't think it's as simple as leading role or supporting role, cause each movie has different requirements for its leading role. Take Punch Drunk Love, a great movie. Adam Sandler is the lead, and I know he hasn't been in a really good movie since... what, Happy Gilmore? But in this movie, it works so well, cause the director knew that Sandler would be perfect for the part. It's a quiet guy, who doesn't like confrontation, and every once in a while lashes out in total rage (did someone nail Sandler? Ha ha) It was character work, nothing more, but it was just so brilliant.
There were people like Robert Deneiro and Kevin Bacon who can play the leading male in one movie, the villan in another, the helping scientist, or the professor, or even a friend who's offering support. They have range in their craft, and each time it's different.
Of course, it all depends on your opinion, and outlook of the person and their acting. PErdita doesn't think they are actors, and I can understand where she's coming from. It's hard to call someone an actor if they stand up there and deliver lines as themselves.
Especially Costner. If he's an actor, I'll just eat my hat right now. There are some people who should have gotten out of the movie business the first time they make a bad movie... no use making three more and bringing down wonderful movie studios with them.
Even rats desert a sinking ship!!! Come on!!!
(Costner, sulking in the corner, "I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!!!")
A character actor can be a leading man though. I think your examples were great, gauche. Those are examples of people who can only play one kind of person (themselves) and do it well enough to earn a paycheck.
I guess the only term I myself can come up with are well rounded actors. These are people (like those you mentioned again, lol) who can play a variety of roles. Tom Hanks can go from a gay business executive to a mentally challenged southern millionaire, and he's believable in both (of course, this all depends on your take of him as an actor and his performances, but those roles both got him oscars, so it couldn't have been that bad).
Johnny Depp can go from a Swashbuckling pirate to a serious novelist trying to figure out a mystery, and he's makes you see that he is really living both of those lives, for that time on the screen.
Pauly Shore can only play Pauly Shore. He's never been anything more or less. Keanu Reeves, while trying to take himself seriously, and has enjoyed a variety of roles over his career... hasn't really been all too convincing in most of them. My honest opinion, he should have stayed Ted in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, and stuck with those character roles. He was good at playing a california surfer with no brains. Look at Point Break, he was great in that movie. Why? Cause he was a naive surfer boy who was trying to figure everything out just as we were.
And the Matrix. He was great in that movie... cause he didn't understand anything, and went through half of it with that frustrated look on his face. It worked perfectly for the role. His other roles have left something to be desired though.
I don't think it's as simple as leading role or supporting role, cause each movie has different requirements for its leading role. Take Punch Drunk Love, a great movie. Adam Sandler is the lead, and I know he hasn't been in a really good movie since... what, Happy Gilmore? But in this movie, it works so well, cause the director knew that Sandler would be perfect for the part. It's a quiet guy, who doesn't like confrontation, and every once in a while lashes out in total rage (did someone nail Sandler? Ha ha) It was character work, nothing more, but it was just so brilliant.
There were people like Robert Deneiro and Kevin Bacon who can play the leading male in one movie, the villan in another, the helping scientist, or the professor, or even a friend who's offering support. They have range in their craft, and each time it's different.
Of course, it all depends on your opinion, and outlook of the person and their acting. PErdita doesn't think they are actors, and I can understand where she's coming from. It's hard to call someone an actor if they stand up there and deliver lines as themselves.
Especially Costner. If he's an actor, I'll just eat my hat right now. There are some people who should have gotten out of the movie business the first time they make a bad movie... no use making three more and bringing down wonderful movie studios with them.
Even rats desert a sinking ship!!! Come on!!!
(Costner, sulking in the corner, "I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!!!")
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
The opposite of a character actor is 'face actor.' (someone hired for there face or look, rather than there character) I don't know if that's the right word, but it fits.
My understanding of a character actor is that they are more like 'real people'. They are usually not movie stars, nor are they necesarily good looking or glamourous or young or thin. and they do not have to be made to look glam either. They play characters with a different roll than looking good and being glamourous. Most of the people on Northern exposer (besides Maggie, Joel. Shelly, and Chris where character actors. They looked like real people)
thats what I think anyway. that character actor is basicly a polite way of saing 'not leading man/lady material' but sometimes they get lucky and get the lead anyway.
My understanding of a character actor is that they are more like 'real people'. They are usually not movie stars, nor are they necesarily good looking or glamourous or young or thin. and they do not have to be made to look glam either. They play characters with a different roll than looking good and being glamourous. Most of the people on Northern exposer (besides Maggie, Joel. Shelly, and Chris where character actors. They looked like real people)
thats what I think anyway. that character actor is basicly a polite way of saing 'not leading man/lady material' but sometimes they get lucky and get the lead anyway.
gauchecritic said:
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
according to hyper dictionary.com, a character actor is:
an actor who specializes in playing supporting roles
which seems to suport what I was saying.
an actor who specializes in playing supporting roles
which seems to suport what I was saying.
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
on the other hand I found this:
A Note on "Character Acting"
Actually, all serious actors are "character actors" — a "serious" actor being someone who is interested in exploring how deeply and broadly they can mine their own experiences and sensibilities to exploit them creatively in the acting craft. This, as opposed to performers who primarily tap into a single public personality for every role they play (many movie stars), or performers who mimic and do caricatures that have little to do with their own sensibilities (many comedians). Which is not to denigrate either class of performer - they can be very entertaining.
The old-fashioned term "character actor" used to refer to those who enjoyed putting on heavy makeup or thick accents. They tended to play oddballs or criminals with polished physicality. The great Bert Lahr prepared for his roles primarily by watching himself in the mirror.
Today's audiences (and stories) demand more personalized, more authentic, more dangerous "characters." At the same time, "straight" roles, have become more idiosyncratic and multidimensional. This trend has been progressing for several decades, but regional actors are having a hard time catching up. I see a lot of "method actors" who are quite believable as long as their characters are close to home, but they have a hard time when the text requires a stretch. Often the result is a performance that, while generally believable, ill serves the story. By the same token, I see a lot of "character actors" who are only able to barely scratch the surface of authenticity.
I'm using the term "character acting" to apply to all "serious" acting because, no matter what the role, it's helpful to embrace the concept that a character must be built. The notion of building a character is not synonymous with false acting. In fact, if you don't build your character, consciously, as a manipulative artist, you are liable to harm the story. But you can (and should) build a character using authentic pieces of yourself. The main thing is to have clarity about which pieces are helpful.
http://home.earthlink.net/~actorsroadmap/pages/12.htm
Although they seem diametrically different, they both seem to point to 'character actors' as being different from 'movie star actors' Its all in the POV, I guess if you look at it as a compliment or not.
A Note on "Character Acting"
Actually, all serious actors are "character actors" — a "serious" actor being someone who is interested in exploring how deeply and broadly they can mine their own experiences and sensibilities to exploit them creatively in the acting craft. This, as opposed to performers who primarily tap into a single public personality for every role they play (many movie stars), or performers who mimic and do caricatures that have little to do with their own sensibilities (many comedians). Which is not to denigrate either class of performer - they can be very entertaining.
The old-fashioned term "character actor" used to refer to those who enjoyed putting on heavy makeup or thick accents. They tended to play oddballs or criminals with polished physicality. The great Bert Lahr prepared for his roles primarily by watching himself in the mirror.
Today's audiences (and stories) demand more personalized, more authentic, more dangerous "characters." At the same time, "straight" roles, have become more idiosyncratic and multidimensional. This trend has been progressing for several decades, but regional actors are having a hard time catching up. I see a lot of "method actors" who are quite believable as long as their characters are close to home, but they have a hard time when the text requires a stretch. Often the result is a performance that, while generally believable, ill serves the story. By the same token, I see a lot of "character actors" who are only able to barely scratch the surface of authenticity.
I'm using the term "character acting" to apply to all "serious" acting because, no matter what the role, it's helpful to embrace the concept that a character must be built. The notion of building a character is not synonymous with false acting. In fact, if you don't build your character, consciously, as a manipulative artist, you are liable to harm the story. But you can (and should) build a character using authentic pieces of yourself. The main thing is to have clarity about which pieces are helpful.
http://home.earthlink.net/~actorsroadmap/pages/12.htm
Although they seem diametrically different, they both seem to point to 'character actors' as being different from 'movie star actors' Its all in the POV, I guess if you look at it as a compliment or not.
Huckleman2000
It was something I ate.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Posts
- 4,400
Re: the ususal suspects
As George Burns said, "The key to good acting is honesty. If you can fake that, you've got it made."
Oh, 10 of 10, and I've never seen 6 of the films.
perdita said:
As George Burns said, "The key to good acting is honesty. If you can fake that, you've got it made."
Oh, 10 of 10, and I've never seen 6 of the films.
Huckleman2000
It was something I ate.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Posts
- 4,400
Character actors
I'm a character actor. I'm bald, and can look Jewish, Hispanic, Dark Celt, Indian, Arab... I've played lead roles, but never "leading man" roles. In Guys & Dolls, I was Nathan, not Sky.
The quintissential character actor is Steve Buscemi, the guy with bug eyes and fish lips who's been in everything from Fargo to Armegeddon. He's got 86 films listed on IMDb.
The key to being a character actor is being able to give and take focus. Usually, you're either comic relief, the freaky weird guy, or a plot device. You need to present a fully-developed character in about 3 lines, so it's definitely a combination of skill and unique looks.
From an actor's point of view, what most of you have been discussing is the difference between an Actor and a Movie Star. Movie Stars are just kind of larger-than-life personas. John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, definitely.
There are lots of good "Star" actors who specialize in versatility, and who may not have classical good looks - Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman - and others who are able to play against their type, such as Johnny Depp. While they use many of the same skills as a character actor, there's still something about them that enables them to carry a lot more of a film or play.
I'm a character actor. I'm bald, and can look Jewish, Hispanic, Dark Celt, Indian, Arab... I've played lead roles, but never "leading man" roles. In Guys & Dolls, I was Nathan, not Sky.
The quintissential character actor is Steve Buscemi, the guy with bug eyes and fish lips who's been in everything from Fargo to Armegeddon. He's got 86 films listed on IMDb.
The key to being a character actor is being able to give and take focus. Usually, you're either comic relief, the freaky weird guy, or a plot device. You need to present a fully-developed character in about 3 lines, so it's definitely a combination of skill and unique looks.
From an actor's point of view, what most of you have been discussing is the difference between an Actor and a Movie Star. Movie Stars are just kind of larger-than-life personas. John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, definitely.
There are lots of good "Star" actors who specialize in versatility, and who may not have classical good looks - Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman - and others who are able to play against their type, such as Johnny Depp. While they use many of the same skills as a character actor, there's still something about them that enables them to carry a lot more of a film or play.
The Mutt
Cunnilingus Ergo Sum
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Posts
- 22,265
It is important to remember that we are talking about two different things: Acting and Being a Movie Star.
Lead actors in movies are rarely chosen for their acting ability. They are chosen by their ability to deliver a big opening weekend.
It is taken as given that they can act. (Mistakenly, often.)
Character actors (like me) are required to make a lot out of a little-- To bring a character fully to life without any help from the script.
This is why you often get such horrendous casting choices as Micheal Keaton in Batman, John Travolta in Urban Cowbay and Keanu Reeves as John Constantine.
Lead actors in movies are rarely chosen for their acting ability. They are chosen by their ability to deliver a big opening weekend.
It is taken as given that they can act. (Mistakenly, often.)
Character actors (like me) are required to make a lot out of a little-- To bring a character fully to life without any help from the script.
This is why you often get such horrendous casting choices as Micheal Keaton in Batman, John Travolta in Urban Cowbay and Keanu Reeves as John Constantine.
Huckleman2000
It was something I ate.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Posts
- 4,400
Ahh! Mutt! A fellow thespian! Hail and well met!
I actually liked Michael Keaton as Batman, although probably it had more to do with Kim Basinger and Jack Nicholson.
Not to hijack the thread even more, but can anyone explain what it is about Jack Nicholson that is sexy? He's not physically attractive, he seems cantankerous - I don't quite get it. Ladies? A little help?
I actually liked Michael Keaton as Batman, although probably it had more to do with Kim Basinger and Jack Nicholson.
Not to hijack the thread even more, but can anyone explain what it is about Jack Nicholson that is sexy? He's not physically attractive, he seems cantankerous - I don't quite get it. Ladies? A little help?
Virtual_Burlesque
Former Ecdysiast
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Posts
- 4,083
Charisma, ability, and legend.Huckleman2000 said:
The Mutt
Cunnilingus Ergo Sum
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Posts
- 22,265
Can anyone explain why people seem to find Julia Roberts so sexy? She's got a lower lip where her upper lip should be and a nose like a two-car garage.
Guys? Little help?
Hi, Huckleman! I'm 6'5" 230, so it's villians and monsters for me, tho I did get to play Macbeth.
Guys? Little help?
Hi, Huckleman! I'm 6'5" 230, so it's villians and monsters for me, tho I did get to play Macbeth.
Last edited:
BlackShanglan
Silver-Tongued Papist
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Posts
- 16,888
Yeesh, did the people making that quiz even watch "The Crying Game"? "Twist ending"? It's revealed no more than halfway through the movie. Don't mess with my Jordan, it makes me cranky.
"The Game" was a good movie for twist movie. That is, it whipped around so often that even when the credits were rolling you were waiting for one more sudden reversal.
Shanglan
"The Game" was a good movie for twist movie. That is, it whipped around so often that even when the credits were rolling you were waiting for one more sudden reversal.
Shanglan
Similar threads
