Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook

Jan Holmberg: the Year Guldbaggegala is amatörernas evening

What distinguishes a good actor? My views on directing, script, photography, editing and many other aspects of a film can be overconfident, but the acting is a

- 11 reads.

Jan Holmberg: the Year Guldbaggegala is amatörernas evening

What distinguishes a good actor? My views on directing, script, photography, editing and many other aspects of a film can be overconfident, but the acting is a mystery. And not just for me. There is a fascinating discrepancy between how important and admired the actors ' work and the total ignorance about this among people outside the profession, including filmforskare and critics.

In a column (DN 4/1) wrote Johan Croneman about how unimpressed he is by all the aspects of the tv series, except for one: ”the Showman, the acting – not so a little inconsistent, perhaps, given that I have always seen just the acting that is the weakest link in all forms of drama.” The contradiction in Cronemans attitude is typical, I think, at least I recognize this. On the one hand, the where the unconditional idoldyrkande fascination; on the other hand, a critical distance bordering on disdain.

in reasoning about precisely what interests me here, skådespelarkritik. Croneman go out hard not only against the Swedish actor ”in completely the wrong place” but also against their colleagues who can not judge their actions. ”If an actor you feel like you can have exactly what opinion”, he writes.

Shortly thereafter, he demonstrates the anatomy of this. Apropos of some recent tv series blames the he Adam Pålsson for ”bad games” and Alexander Skarsgard of ”no games at all”, but celebrates the Ia Langhammer for that she is ”wonderful”, and Mikaela Button that she is ”wonderfully sharp and skewed” as well as Jens Hultén, that he is ”a really good actor”. Opinions, who told, what at any time.

Now is their peak season with Awards and academy awards, and claim to have cracked the code of what makes a good skådespelarinsats (and I am not!) so I want to at least point out some pitfalls. I myself have fallen into them, and have not kravlat me up either. But I hope to be able to convey which complicated the work we have to do with, to perform and to analyze.

Read about all Guldbaggenomineringarna here

we make is to mix up the actor with the role she plays. Are the characters well-written (composed, credible, interesting) has the actor a simpler task than under opposite conditions. Even with this in mind, it is really not easy to judge what is what, but it is the acting itself that is to be assessed, as should more prizes be awarded to the actress who fight on in bad movies – something that never happens.

another mistake is to confuse the actor's work with the director. Where it becomes even harder, for there is so much we do not know. Maybe the operator is instructed to talk like that, move like that. But this we can be fairly certain: that when non-professional actors get Awards, so would the price at least just as well have gone to the director. Which does not makes the bet worse.

for Quite some time, I had the perception that of all the film's elements and belöningsbara categories so was the acting the least interesting. For my filmvetarstudenter quoted, I like Alfred Hitchcock's view of actors as ”cattle”, including the director's clarification when he received criticism for his statement: ”I do not mean that they are cattle but that they should be treated like cattle.”

and in keeping with Hitchcock's aesthetics: his movies are brilliant descriptions of things in life, a kind of phenomenological investigations of real world surface. Therefore it is not an actor in Hitchcock's films plumb up some depth in their rollfigurers inner life, and even less in their own. Any attempt by the actor to ”understand” his characters were dismissed by the director.

When one of them asked what she would feel when she walked through a room, he should have responded that she would not feel anything at all but go through a room. Actors in Hitchcock films are often highly skilled but in cooperation with him, they are less artists in their own right than they are subject. As well as the properties in which they move, they should convey a message which can be quite sophisticated, but sometimes no more (or less) complicated than to arouse the viewer's desires.

the Acting is the interpersonal relationship the best equipped laboratory and the most accessible location, but our assessment instruments are dull.

My previous idea of acting has changed dramatically and nowadays, I agree the acting for one of the most fascinating human phenomena whatsoever. To be another! Not least, that the spectator knows this and goes with it. The acting is the interpersonal relationship the best equipped laboratory and the most accessible location, but our assessment instruments are dull.

from relative indifference to deep fascination for the art of acting began with an embarrassment. Embarrassing for what happened, but also that it required your own experience that I would learn something so essential for my profession. For a number of years ago, I was asked if I wanted to play a role in a feature film. A small role, but a real, with story lines and everything.

I took me on the role (the role I would play, but even more the role of actors) with great enthusiasm and no knowledge. Remembering my few lines went on. But to look like I meant them, to pronounce them so that it was heard but not to articulate too much, to touch me without seeing that I thought about it ... All this and much more – at the same time.

After recording, boasted I the face of my environment that my role was small, but central; the film was entirely built around the scenes in which I appeared. Shortly before the première, the director and announced that they had written about the whole story. Therefore I had unfortunately been truncated. He assured that it was for the best, and not had to do with me. It was nicely said. Directors must be able to lie.

Well, the whole thing was the funniest lesson in humility I have received, in addition, gave the experience to me the deepest respect for acting. For a profession, it is, but one in which amateurs are allowed to participate.

is a bad example: the more obvious is the year Guldbaggenomineringar, where three of the four nominees for best actor are amateurs (Fredrik Dahl for ”Amateurs”, Sebastian Ljungblad and Joakim Sällquist for ”Goliath”) and two of the women (Léonore Ekstrand for the ”Top of nothing” and Zahraa Aldoujaili for "Amateurs").

It is also something of a tradition in the Swedish film that the acting of the amateurs are highly valued, sometimes not more than (several times debutants has been thought to be for this year's main achievement). And one of the world's best paid actor right now, Mark Wahlberg, lack of formal acting. To call him amateur is well although very short, he has by now a long experience and a broad range. Wahlberg, and several Swedish amatörinsatser in the years and in the past, also shows the difficulty in the assessment. They are good! Or if it is regin? Or the script?

In the discussion of the acting, to the extent that serious such at all occurs, have the authenticity, the authenticity and the like almost always take precedence over professional expertise and versatility. It is amatörernas evening throughout the week. A successful amatörpolitiker appeared in the year also have ambitions amatörkritiker, when he after the Academy awards, wrote on Twitter: ”the Lowest rated Oscars in HISTORY. Problem is, we don't have Stars anymore – except your President (just kidding, of course)!”

that there is a lot of Donald Trumps analysis. Not so long ago, Bruce Willis or Meryl Streep to be the sufficient reason of the (likely different) audience segment to see a movie. But it was then. Since some time has filmskådespelarnas efforts devalued, and I mean literally: their artistic and economic value has dropped in a film culture where the title is more important than the star. ”The Avengers” or ”Star Wars” sells movies, not individual actor.

I am not a critic but filmhistoriker, and adds no value in the development from the stjärnkult to the franchise (both of them have their pages). I do not want to claim that professionals, by definition, is more reliable than the amateurs. But regardless of training and experience to perform the actor's work that can be assessed. Just as filmkritikerns or filmhistorikerns efforts, whose analysis was be sharper than the opinions of ”lovely” or ”lousy”.

Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.