Can someone please explain why the French can act and we cannot?

Why is it that no matter how hard they try, mainstream American movie actors cannot act? They always seem painfully conscious of the fact that they are acting and never just dissappear into the character? I see this with both well-known and lesser known American actors. Feedback?

Ah, that's a more reasonable question. And I generally agree. I still think some great movies come out of Hollywood now and again, but generally speaking indie movies (not mainstream) definitely have much more raw appeal to me.

Hollywood movies are, I guess, a way to indulge in predictability, expensive special effects, and celebrity (you know how we love to base entire movies around a really popular actor, dress them up in a fancy outfit to show them off, give them a theme song...). Indie movies are usually more about movies as an art form, and I think this attracts actors who perform art, as opposed to actors who memorize lines.

I also think that European movies, in general, usually have a more tangible feel to them. I'm talking specifically about lighting, recording devices used... I don't know, I'm not in the business, I just know that most of the time I can immediately identify a foreign film by the way it's shot. It's just a cultural difference and while I suspect the previous poster might be partially right when they suggest that we like it because it's different, I think on top of that some people just prefer the style of movie produced by other countries.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

(I 'passed' on this film, by the way, after seeing the content advisory - however, your thread was irresistible):
Why can Hugh Laurie, Brian Cox or Helen Mirren, do an American accent, but American actors sound laughable when they try to do any European accent? this could probably inspire a whole book, but I will try to offer a few reasons. (I am more familiar with British actors than French - but it does seem that the French also 'cast' their characters with normal-looking people, rather than glamorous guys or gals with over-emphasized physiques!)

1. it seems that many Brit actors get their start in stage or theater - often, they emerge from the Arts Colleges, with excellent credentials. England is a tiny country with an enormous history in live theater (Shakespeare, G Bernard Shaw, etc.) - the ensemble acting in such presentations is NOT conducive to producing a 'star' culture, nor will it shield an actor with no real craft from looking like an idiot. there is also a sense of centuries of literary history in Europe i.e. Jane Austen penned most of her novels before the War of 1812, and the novels have been read and re-read by generations of British actors. Even if American actors read the same literature, it is doubtful that they will find a forum to hone the craft of portraying the characters and conflict.

2. British actors seem to understand how to transform themselves via makeup, costume, body language accent/dialogue, hair style, etc. into a role, even it is a secondary role. example: Brian Cox - in the Bourne films, he is a loud, corrupt American CIA officer; in Red Eye, he is an unhappy, retiring father of the story's hero, a Manageress of a resort hotel; in Red, he is a loquacious Russian spymaster. He looks and sounds different in each film, leaving you to wonder: is that guy Brian Cox? it's also hard to tell the age of his characters - but it seems that he has been playing roles of guys 40 to 60 forever, and could go on doing so for decades.
- Anyway, American movie stars look the same in every role they play - as long as they beat up the bad guy and seduce the love interest, they can keep working.

3. Actresses in Hollywood are 'done' at age 40. Producers are always looking for a 20-something glam-girl to co-star with Kevin Costner, or Matthew McConaughey. we hear complaints that there are no good roles for women in their 40's in Hollywood - wrong: there are only a few decent roles for a-n-y woman NOT named Meryl Streep.
In Europe, women (and men) keep acting til they die.

4. in Hollywood, the role of 'supporting actors' is dying, as is the idea of 'ensemble' acting. films are based on the star appeal of the lead actor, recycled clichés, and advertising. that might explain why Hollywood acting looks so shallow and wooden to you - and me. there are talented American actors, both supporting and lead, but the stories and cinematography are dismally lacking in craft. I loved Al Pacino's work in the Shakespearean re-creation Looking for Richard - 1996 - but how many decent roles has he had since?
- in European cinema, actors readily accept secondary roles, and produce a meaningful contribution with whatever that part offers, enriching the production. and-as I said at the beginning-the casting includes actors who look like real people: paunchy, balding, tall, short, disheveled, etc. quite a contrast from the Miami CSI mentality that infects Hollywood cinema, huh?


:-) canuckteach (--:

reply share

add reply

formatting help