Here's something you might be interested in.
Is there a difference between acting and impersonating? Yes, I think so but the lines are starting to blur.
When Jim Carrey portrayed Andy Kaufman in the movie “Man in the Moon”, he wasn’t nominated for best actor even though he was incredible in the role. One of the reasons given was that he was merely impersonating Kaufman instead of acting.
I understand that. However, since then the Oscar has been given to a number of impersonators. Jamie Foxx won as Ray Charles. Cate Blanchet won as Audrey Hepburn as best supporting actress in “The Aviator.” Phillip Seymour Hofmann won as Capote. Sean Penn won as Harvey Milk. Helen Mirren won as Queen Elizabeth.
This year’s front runner is Colin Firth as King George VI in The King’s Speech. I’ve always liked Colin Firth but in this movie, the climactic monologue is the speech the king made in 1939. This speech was broadcast over radio and is still available to be heard.
Is this an issue? Yes, I think it is. There is no acting here. The climax of the film is a “line reading”. A line reading is when a director tells an actor how to deliver a line. In this case, the actual character is telling the actor how to deliver an entire scene.
If we start to follow this line of thinking, an Elvis impersonator from Vegas could be considered a great actor. Or perhaps he would be edged out by someone playing Cher. The issue there is best male or female actor?
Do I think the Academy Awards are prestigious? No. Do I think they’re less prestigious now then just ten years ago? Yes.
If the best screen performances are now impersonations, I’d much rather go see a stage production. The quality of screen acting is more consistent because the actors have several takes to get it right and the director can manipulate the tone of a scene with editing. Some of the best actors in Hollywood are directors—but that’s a separate issue.
Stage acting varies but it is purer than screen acting and more honest about the actor’s abilities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAhFW_auT20
Is there a difference between acting and impersonating? Yes, I think so but the lines are starting to blur.
When Jim Carrey portrayed Andy Kaufman in the movie “Man in the Moon”, he wasn’t nominated for best actor even though he was incredible in the role. One of the reasons given was that he was merely impersonating Kaufman instead of acting.
I understand that. However, since then the Oscar has been given to a number of impersonators. Jamie Foxx won as Ray Charles. Cate Blanchet won as Audrey Hepburn as best supporting actress in “The Aviator.” Phillip Seymour Hofmann won as Capote. Sean Penn won as Harvey Milk. Helen Mirren won as Queen Elizabeth.
This year’s front runner is Colin Firth as King George VI in The King’s Speech. I’ve always liked Colin Firth but in this movie, the climactic monologue is the speech the king made in 1939. This speech was broadcast over radio and is still available to be heard.
Is this an issue? Yes, I think it is. There is no acting here. The climax of the film is a “line reading”. A line reading is when a director tells an actor how to deliver a line. In this case, the actual character is telling the actor how to deliver an entire scene.
If we start to follow this line of thinking, an Elvis impersonator from Vegas could be considered a great actor. Or perhaps he would be edged out by someone playing Cher. The issue there is best male or female actor?
Do I think the Academy Awards are prestigious? No. Do I think they’re less prestigious now then just ten years ago? Yes.
If the best screen performances are now impersonations, I’d much rather go see a stage production. The quality of screen acting is more consistent because the actors have several takes to get it right and the director can manipulate the tone of a scene with editing. Some of the best actors in Hollywood are directors—but that’s a separate issue.
Stage acting varies but it is purer than screen acting and more honest about the actor’s abilities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAhFW_auT20