Was it real acting in "Ray"? How about "Patton"?

[a6m5]

I hope I'm posting this in the right forum. If it should be in the "Opinions" forum or something like that, please move it for me. Thanks.

Did you guys see "Walk The Line" or "Ray"? I had discussion with my coworkers last week about those movies. I was pretty impressed with Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles in "Ray". I watched "Walk The Line" about Johnny Cash, and was impressed with the portrayal of Johnny Cash by Joaquin Phoenix also.

Here's the problem: My coworkers believe that their performances in those movies are not real acting. If you are like me, you are going, "what!?". I told them that if anything, it's even harder form of acting, because you will be compared to the original model/character. Their argument was that in real acting, you have to create your character, and you are not able to model after examples. It really doesn't make any sense to me. If you are pretending to be someone else, that's acting to me.

Anyways, if these coworkers of mine were just anybody, I wouldn't even take them seriously, but they both happened to be as big of a movie buff as I am. One of them also claimed that George C. Scott turned down a Best Actor Award for "Patton", because he didn't want to be awarded for pretending either. I googled little bit on this. While it is true that he turned down a "Best Actor" award, I didn't find anything that mentioned Scott having problem with the acceptance of the award for what my coworker was claiming.

 

[niky]

Whether or not it's easier really depends on the role. I voted "just acting", but I should have said "harder".

For fictional characters, some authors write certain characters with a real person in mind. If the author/screenwriter is available for consultancy during production, or has written or talked about the real person involved, it makes it easier to model yourself after that character. But with fictional characters, there's often some leeway for interpretation.

With real life people, either you do them right, or you're obviously faking it. It's much harder, and there's very little room for improv.

In essence, fictional characters are like Jazz... you can insert a whole bunch of improvised notes as long as you keep the beat. Real life characters are like classics, get one note wrong and the whole piece is ruined.

Of course, this doesn't count for characters from so long ago that no one really knows what they were like (Alexander?)

 

[Kylehnat]

I'm not sure if the acting itself is harder--after all, actors are always playing someone other than themselves--but there is more pressure on them if they are playing someone real, because comparisons are inevitable. Playing a real person means that there is a model to follow, with little room for creative license. If an actor can pull this off successfully, it sets them apart from the others. Jamie Foxx and Joaquin Phoenix have done this, so they definately deserve recognition.

 

[tait]

I feel it's a bit subjective to the actor and his character as his own person. If the actor can relate to or finds himself simliar to who ever he's portraying, whether it be fictional or real, he's obviously going to have an easier time acting in contrast to someone that has no idea how to be the character they're supposed to be (wow that sounded confusing, and it was a hell of a run on sentence). I do agree with Niky, he summed up how I feel about it all; it just depends on who you are to begin with and what you're supposed to be. I haven't seen either movies, but that's my 2 cents.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

I'm going to have to say harder, simply because its their performance from studying the real person, usually from video's, that makes or breaks the movie with the audience.

But should we then also include those who play characters in movies that have been based on or written from books? Although the character isn't real, those who have read the book do have someone to compare the acting too. Many fans of certain books have dismissed some movies simply because of the poor acting or character portrayall, not always because of the adaptation, the same way a true Ray Charles fan would have slammed Ray if Jamie Foxx didn't bring an exact replica to the screen.

 

[Anderton Prime]

It's easier, because you don't really have to create the character yourself as an actor; you simply have to look at the real-life person and emulate him or her as much as possible. Now, if the real person you're portraying was alive when there were no videocameras, that's harder because you have to get your info from books and such.

 

[Dave A]

I'd say it's pretty simialr overall to creating a new character. The pro's of creating a new character are the con's of having to act like someone already around and vice cersa. It is acting either way.

 

[Zardoz]

No, its definitely tougher to have to bring a real person to life. A fictional character can be anything you want it to be.

For the record, many pundits feel that George C. Scott's portrayal of General George S. Patton is the greatest single acting performance in the history of motion pictures. Watch the movie and you'll easily understand why so many feel that way.

Scott never met Patton, yet those who knew Patton best all say Scott somehow absolutely nailed him. The actor studied his subject and became him.

 

[Gabkicks]

it takes alot of studying and hard work to make people believe you are someone else that actually exists. I dont know about it being harder but it certainly is a different challenge from a fictional character.

 

[Anderton Prime]

I guess you guys have a point, but I personally think if I was presented with a fictional character and told to act it with no reference whatsoever, I would find it a lot harder than if I were able to study video footage of a real person and mimic their habits and mannerisms.

 

[Gabkicks]

it depends on the actor thats why i think that one isnt harder than the other. It would take an incredible amount of talent and studying to pull off some roles wether they be a fictional character made up for that specific movie or based on a real one. i mean it would probably be a bit more difficult for me to play a lesbain asian woman than some black action hero. i dunno it might be easier for me to play the lesbian asian

 

[a6m5]

Looks like most of us do consider portrayal of real life character as a "real" acting. Agree or disagree, I'd love to get more opinions on this though. Thanks for your input, guys!

i mean it would probably be a bit more difficult for me to play a lesbain asian woman than some black action hero. i dunno it might be easier for me to play the lesbian asian

I'm Asian, and I also prefer women. You sounded ridiculous at first, but actually, I'm almost there!

 

[Delphic Reason]

I'd say it's pretty simialr overall to creating a new character. The pro's of creating a new character are the con's of having to act like someone already around and vice cersa. It is acting either way.

That about covers it...

a6m5... Your coworkers are morons...