MovieChat Forums > You Don't Know Jack (2010) Discussion > SAY WHAT YOU MAY ABOUT PACINO'S OVER ACT...

SAY WHAT YOU MAY ABOUT PACINO'S OVER ACTING, BUT

posted 14 years ago by califor123
17 replies | jump to latest

Say what you may about the occasional over-acting by Al Pacino, but when he nails the role, he nails it 100%; as he did in this movie.

His acting, the nuance of his moves, his reading of the lines, everything, was dead-on. As Kevorkian, himself, said, "no other actor could have played this part."

Kudos to Pacino, especially for his upcoming Emmy.

Truly, the best performance of his life.

------

The four others in supporting roles were also great. And Houston looked more like Fieger, than Fieger.

-------

And as an artist, myself, I think Kevorkian (a true Renaissance man) is amazing. His rendering, his technique, his ability to create realism is nothing short of outstanding. I would be proud to own any of his works.

[–] pacinoyes 14 years ago

I would argue the people who say Al Pacino "overacts" are kind of not getting it in the first place though. He rarely "overacts" if you think about it deeper.

That kind of criticism would be more on target if he was playing shy librarians. What he does however is take these larger than life guys and play them that way. He plays "big" characters in a "big" way. It's appropriate acting (usually), not overacting.

You can argue that he plays too many of the same kind of parts, but the argument that he "overacts" them is off-base. He plays them right (usually), the issue is that he plays them too much and those kinds of roles (rather the performances) are too similar.

Anyway, "Jack" is his best performance since "Angels in America" and is up there with his best work - certainly his later work. The only issue would be how high is it on that impressive list.

The other things is......you rarely see actors, even great ones at the age of 69/70 do work that can stand with their all-time best. That's quite an achievement I think - that he can still persuade you after 40+ films and a 40 year career.

[–] califor123 14 years ago

I missed "Angels in America," and I'm hoping to catch it in the future.

We'll just have to disagree. While 'Jack' is the best work I've seen from him, period, I've caught him acting in more than one film. And I'm hardly the only one to point that out. There are even jokes about it.

Sometimes, when he is playing those larger than life roles, he wants to make absolutely certain you know they are larger than life. I'm not counting films like "Scarface," or "Dick Tracy," which are both cartoons to begin with.

And after being introduced to him in Godfather, where his subtlety is the *reason* he's so scary (like only hearing the shark music but not seeing the shark, in 'Jaws'), seeing him overacting in other roles becomes obvious. I mean I almost didn't even know it was Pacino in "Carlito's Way," he was so under control. And I will say that his acting in "Scent of a Woman," creeps right up to the demarcation line of over acting, staying on the right side by less than a millimeter.

"Author, Author," "The Devil's Advocate," "Injustice for all, ;-)" give me a break... Sometimes I think he's a twin and we just don't know it.

[–] pacinoyes 14 years ago

"And I'm hardly the only one to point that out. There are even jokes about it."

The fact that you're not the only one to point it out doesn't mean it isn't a misconception though. The jokes about it are in the sense that you see him yelling a lot in films....and that's because he stupidly chooses the kinds of roles which lend themselves to being acted that way.

"And after being introduced to him in Godfather, where his subtlety is the *reason* he's so scary (like only hearing the shark music but not seeing the shark, in 'Jaws'), seeing him overacting in other roles becomes obvious."

You're kind of condensing a lot of things in a way that isn't really representative of a career. The Godfather was 40 years ago - a lot of roles since then, some subtle, some grand, some good, some not.

""Author, Author," "The Devil's Advocate," "Injustice for all, ;-)" give me a break... Sometimes I think he's a twin and we just don't know it."

The reason for his greatness, and let me make it clear : THE reason (capital letters), is that he can go big or smaller depending on the role. Most actors can't do that - very few actors can go big at all actually without losing detail. Even fewer of them are American (it's much more common with Mastroianni, Depardieu, Finney, etc. - actors who Pacino has the most in common with).

I'm not a believer that "subtle" is better. It depends on the role. Some of Pacino's best work is his biggest and loudest......he's had a complicated career. Sometimes "subtle" is equivalent to boring.....

Of the 3 films you listed, I'd say he's pretty freakin' great in "And Justice For All" (Oscar nominated), good and slyly amusing in Devils Advocate.......Author Author is my least favorite Al Pacino performance however. He's faking it there, all the way through.

[–] califor123 14 years ago

I don't think your comments add anything new to the discussion.

I truly enjoy watching Pacino on the screen, large or small. I'm watching Godfather right now as I write this.

I just like him better when he's more in control of himself, and not emoting to the point which borders on ridiculousness (which he does at times). It's as much over-emoting as over-acting. Sometimes he fills a five pound bag of emotion with fifteen pounds. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

You wrote: "
The fact that you're not the only one to point it out doesn't mean it isn't a misconception though."

Pleeeeeeze.

[–] pacinoyes 14 years ago

Point 1 : "I don't think your comments add anything new to the discussion."

Don't you kind of sort of think they do, since they are taking a viewpoint in contradiction to what you've already said is a common viewpoint? By definition, my comments are adding something new to the conversation.

Point 2 : "I truly enjoy watching Pacino on the screen, large or small. I'm watching Godfather right now as I write this."

Yeah, underrated little film.

Point 3 : "I just like him better when he's more in control of himself, and not emoting to the point which borders on ridiculousness (which he does at times). It's as much over-emoting as over-acting. Sometimes he fills a five pound bag of emotion with fifteen pounds. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't."

Ok, fine, you like him better a cerain way. My point was that the skill level often in those broader performances is as impressive as in the quieter ones. It often isn't overacting like you're labeling it, it's merely playing to the role (appropriately, most of the time, but playing the same type of role too much).

"....And Justice For All" and "Scarface" are big performances but they aren't ones where he isn't in control of the performance. So what it seems "you" like is when he is in control in a quiet way. That's cool....but if he was playing some of those roles he takes that way, he'd be playing them wrong.

Point 4 : "Pleeeeeeze."

Please what? Please tell you that some commonly held assumptions aren't accurate? Please tell you that this a message board of converging opinions, not a consensus where if you just kind of spew generalities someone might disagree? Please tell you that majority of people couldn't really distinguish between a great piece of acting, and one that they "like better".

You don't really disagree with me much at all I think - we just disagree on how often he truly goes over the top to the detriment of a character in his career.

I'd call Scarface, And Justice For All, Heat, Scent of A Woman, Angels in America career peaks - and they're all big performances from different eras .........I'd call Scarecrow, Carlito's Way, Donnie Brasco, Merchant of Venice and You Don't Know Jack career peaks too and they're all more inward performances from different eras.

[–] gabby_bm 14 years ago

Part of the reason he's cast in these roles is his ability to "wolf it up" without losing his essence. Take the street scene in "Devil's Advocate" where he's looking for the chicken, or in the subway. Nicely done scenes which aren't quite subdued but sedate in comparison to the final scenes where he was able to summon up thousands of years of rage and resentment.
There are not that many people who can rant and rage like Pacino and retain their character, well alone their dignity and (most importantly) believability.

I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

[–] califor123 14 years ago

You wrote: "I'd call Scarecrow, Carlito's Way, Donnie Brasco, Merchant of Venice and You Don't Know Jack career peaks too and they're all more inward performances from different eras."

Really? I didn't realize his rational acting in The Godfather was in THAT era, too...

You wrote: "Please tell you that some commonly held assumptions aren't accurate?"

These are not 'assumptions.' They are the repeatable truth, IMHO. All you have to do is look at the films...and voila...ten pounds of acting in a five pound bag. But not in all his films. In some, his emoting just gets the best of him, as I wrote.

Again, I truly enjoy watching the man. And maybe the other guy is correct in a way, that they choose him because he can mostly stay on the right side of over-acting...by, as I wrote, a millimeter, in many of his movies.

In some, like The Insider, he is in total control of himself. In some, Glengary Glen Ross, he's even brilliant. And it's in those movies where he doesn't over use his facial expressions, and doesn't run around flailing his arms and acting like a chicken with its head cut off.

And the BOTTOM LINE is that what we write here are just OPINIONS. I think you don't understand that. And yours is not any more correct than mine. I mean on this site, there are so many who get so offended that not everyone shares their opinion. They make this place, a heaven for psychoanalysis, so very easy to find the patients.

[–] pacinoyes 14 years ago

"And the BOTTOM LINE is that what we write here are just OPINIONS. I think you don't understand that."

Don't you find it kind of ironic that you're accusing me of not understanding that when you wrote this sentence :

"These are not 'assumptions.' They are the repeatable truth, IMHO."

That doesn't sound like a contradiction to you? :

"repeatable TRUTH, imho".

Is it a TRUTH or is it your opinion? Right, it's your opinion, which doesn't make it a "truth" which makes my point about "assumptions" entirely accurate.

Anyway, you offered an opinion on times he goes over the top. I offered a counter-opinion, on why I think you're coming to a (much) too easy conclusion that doesn't look at the totality of his career. I didn't say you didn't have a right to your opinion did I? No.......of course you do.

".......And it's in those movies where he doesn't over use his facial expressions, and doesn't run around flailing his arms and acting like a chicken with its head cut off."

Acting is meant to reveal truth, it isn't meant necessarily to be "rational" at all (an adjective you used earlier referring to The Godfather). There are people in real-life, that if you saw them in a movie, you would think they were over the top, and hysterical, with broad facial gestures and flailing arms. They exist.....in the world, and in the world of movies.

Trust me. I work with them in the real world

Some of his greatest performances are his biggest, loudest, and most "irrational".....that's all I'm saying .......

[–] califor123 14 years ago

I previously wrote: "These are not 'assumptions.' They are the repeatable truth, IMHO."

Yeah, I thought about that when I was writing it, but said, "What the hell, the guy probably has brains enough to understand what IMHO means," regardless of the 'repeatable truth' ...meaning that it's there for all to see again and again.

You wrote: "Acting is meant to reveal truth, it isn't meant necessarily to be "rational" at all"...and "Trust me. I work with them in the real world"

TRUST YOU??? LOL...YOU WORK WITH THEM IN THE REAL WORLD??? LOL...WELL, I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO BRING THE ARMY WITH ME AS YOU TRIED, HOWEVER, having been friends with George C. Scott, his wife Trish (also an actor),Steven Young, Paul Stevens, John Ritter, several other actors, and several top producers, writers, and directors... and, having been married to a successful television comedy writer and having shared times and meals with, and been around countless other actors from Jack Lemon to Erick Estrada (if that's not A to Z for you...)... acting to reveal truth??? again, Pleeeeeze (as in 'give me an effing break'). It's a paycheck, not a religious calling. Not that they don't take their jobs seriously, but let's not get carried away with this 'truth' business. The good actors will tell you that they put themselves in the moment and try and 'react' to what the other person is saying. And that could be interpreted three ways by three different actors. That's a far cry from 'truth.' It's only their personal reaction; which the director will try and take away if it doesn't match the reaction they want. Sometimes they will say lines in front of a video camera or mirror a hundred different ways until they find one they like. Truth? No. Trial & error, experience, intuition, context, direction, accident, coaching, etc.

Scott once told me a story of the time he was on the set of "The Hustler." Near the end of the movie he says the line, "Eddie, you owe me money!" It's an incredibly dramatic reading. He said he really liked the way he read that line, but Rossen didn't, and kept making him redo the line until HE liked it. Scott said he did the line 54 times, camera rolling, exactly the same way, with exactly the same inflection, because he liked it and didn't want to give in to Rossen. So, Rossen finally gave up, understanding that Scott wasn't going to budge. I never heard the word 'truth' in the story. It wasn't a quest for the truth of the situation, it was simply how he wanted to say the line for "dramatic effect," not 'truth.' You might think that's the 'truth,' but I look at it as what Scott thought the scene called for, especially since it was at such a dramatic point in the movie. But Rossen thought it should have been a completely different reading. If it were about truth, they probably would have both thought it should be read at least in a similar way; but Rossen wanted it read in an entirely different manner, which is why he kept rejecting the way Scott said the line. And let's not get into any "well, it's his personal truth," or any b.s. like that. Let's stay on the planet Earth.

You wrote: "Some of his greatest performances are his biggest, loudest, and most "irrational".....that's all I'm saying ......."

...and all I'm saying is that some of his his biggest, loudest, and most "irrational" roles are, again, ten pounds of acting in a five pound bag...that's all I'M SAYING.

He's an actor, not a god. He's nowhere near the incredible over-actor Mel Gibson (fifteen pounds of acting in a five pound bag...all of the time), but he can get close on occassion.

[–] pacinoyes 14 years ago

Um.....when I said I work with them in the real world, I was just referring to people who are over the top in real life .......I wasn't talking about famous actors just larger than life people. No need to go all caps wacky.

"It's a paycheck, not a religious calling. Not that they don't take their jobs seriously, but let's not get carried away with this 'truth' business."

We disagree here far more than on anything else.

It's a craft. When done exceptionally well it's an Art, and the fact that you can get a paycheck for it doesn't change that.....and yeah I actually do think that Rossen/Scott story you told is an example of "personal truth".

"Yeah, I thought about that when I was writing it, but said, "What the hell, the guy probably has brains enough to understand what IMHO means,"

Hey, don't blame me for that, you didn't express something very well, that's not my problem. In addition, you were expressing something that was false - that I didn't recognize that you had the right to your opinion.

"He's an actor, not a god."

If you want me to discuss which performances of his fail, and why, I certainly could.

I've enjoyed some of the back and forth on the original point in the thread anyway.

[–] Movie-Jay 14 years ago

To me, over-the-top or "overacting" is fine. As long as it's truthful. That's the magic with Pacino: he starts from where the truth is and pushes out from there. It's all inside/out with him even when some of the characters he plays are very mannered or prone to fits of rage.

My favorite "subdued" perfs by him would have to include "the Insider", "Donnie Brasco", "Scarecrow", "Insomnia", "Chinese Coffee", "the Godfather" of course, and the unfairly neglected "People I Know" that contains one of his best-kept performances ever.

But then he's able to tap into very mannered, frantic, busy characters who have a lot on their plate, like "Dog Day Afternoon", where Pacino plays every single important primary relationship there is to play in one role; father, son, sibling to his partner-in-crime, lover, and husband. And then in roles like "Scarface" or "Dick Tracy" or "Glengarry Glen Ross" or "Scent of a Woman", and now as Jack Kervorkian, he just lets loose.

Thankfully with the art of acting, the only two rules that matter are 1) to be interesting, and 2) to be able to create intimacy.

Al Pacino never fails on either of those levels. He can swing between being classical music or a rock anthem by Journey, and sometimes he does it all in one role or in one scene.

I'm glad he doesn't play it safe. Any other actor would have made Kervorkian a lot less interesting. That scene where he's outside talking to Danny Houston and shooting a toy gun at those geese is glorious to watch, because we're seeing an A-lister check his ego at the door and just clown around within a role, instead of being all stoic and boring like a thousand others would have been as Dr.Death.

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 9 years ago

They are the repeatable truth, IMHO.

That seems like a contradictory statement.

And the BOTTOM LINE is that what we write here are just OPINIONS. I think you don't understand that. And yours is not any more correct than mine. I mean on this site, there are so many who get so offended that not everyone shares their opinion. They make this place, a heaven for psychoanalysis, so very easy to find the patients.

You say that and yet insist that YOUR opinion Is TRUTH which corresponds to the idea that people who disagree with you are FALSE.

Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

[–] pawposytek 14 years ago

"And as an artist, myself, I think Kevorkian (a true Renaissance man) is amazing. His rendering, his technique, his ability to create realism is nothing short of outstanding. I would be proud to own any of his works."

You mean Pacino?

Kevorkian never made movies and his work was somehow different. How could you own any of Kevorkian works? Do yoiu mean you would like to assist people with their death??

I am sorry but your post sounded kind of Funny, try and read it yourself once....

[–] califor123 14 years ago

I'm sorry, but you didn't understand my post, obviously.

Kevorkian, not Pacino, is the Renaissance Man. A doctor, a musician, and a painter.

Aside from what anyone thinks of his euthanasia, he is an excellent painter and artist.

What was there not to get in that earlier post?

And I would cherish one of his paintings to own. I have incredible respect for the man. And he was dead-on (pun intended) on assisted suicide.

Are you telling me that you think he was wrong in assisting those ill people in their suicides? What's wrong with you? The man was 100% correct. Thank goodness states like Oregon, Washington and Montana have sense enough to legalize assisted suicide. The rest of the nation is too easily led by religious idiots. I mean look how the Mormons (and their sacred underwear) put in all that money to defeat the gay marriage rights in California (which will probably be defeated in this coming election). America gets dumber with each Sunday.

Gosh, do you mean to tell me that the bible, the actual word of god, states that Jonah lived in a whale, and that two of every living animal species fit on a big boat...and you don't take that as fact?

See what I mean. You have to be missing the logic part of your brain to believe that crap.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Imthemanonthesilvermountain 14 years ago

Insomnia is one of his best peformances.

But if you want to list all of his "subdued" roles, be my guest.

I like Batman Begins AND TDK! Anyone else?

[–] Imthemanonthesilvermountain 14 years ago

Well?

I like Batman Begins AND TDK! Anyone else?