What? A Performance? -- Misplaced Faith In Actors

Is it me or are we placing too much faith in actors these days? Judging from the current list of Golden Globe nominees, it would seem so.

Granted this year was quite possibly the weakest year for movies on record. It's hard to pick the good from the bad when you only have the mediocre. Still there are films like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK that are receiving heaps of praise. Yes, these films feature some of the year's best acting, but the films themselves are either good but not great (BROKEBACK) or seriously flawed (GOOD NIGHT).

Actors, while being very key to the success of a movie, are not the only element that needs to work in order to achieve "best of" status. There's writing, directing, cinematography, editing, etc. All these crafts should meld together to make a whole. This year, however, the actors have been garnering the most attention because they are the only ones holding up their end. Writing is especially lacking for reasons that would take a whole other blog entry. Writing by committee, lack of story development and just plain bad writers (I'm looking at you Akiva Goldsman) all contribute. On the technical side, all films look good these days (given the level of digital technology, there really isn't any excuse for a film that looks bad), so the next step is for the director and his craftsman to shape their work to support or compliment the actor and the story.

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN comes the closest to this. The problem is that it's a ho-hum story. It doesn't really stay with you afterwards or offer any keen insight into how country folk deal with sexuality. According to the genre known as "gay cinema", cowboys are just as intolerant as most everyone else when it comes to love between same sexes. Yes, it can be destructive. It can alienate. We know this. I'm not trying to say that, just because a story has been told once, we shouldn't sit through another point of view (that would invalidate the countless Shakespeare and Austen variations (many of which are excellent) not to mention the theatre arts that thrive on new interpretations of old plays). I simply wish BROKEBACK wasn't so stoic in depicting the damage intolerance can cause.

As for the other offerings this year, acting is the only thing that brought most films attention. Felicity Huffman in TRANSAMERICA. David Strathairn in GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK. Kong in KING KONG. Philip Seymour Hoffman in CAPOTE (well, that film was actually good all around - how'd people miss this?) But are good performances enough to earn awards?

They surely aren't enough to win box office. Hollywood for the longest time has relied on actors to translate into success. That's why they're so perplexed when a star heavy film fails (like most of the films this summer). The reason is that actors are only a part. A vital part, but only one of many.

To praise mediocre films just because the acting was believable is kind of like saying the chicken was bland, but the sauce made the meal. Okay, that wasn't the greatest of analogies, but we in Hollywood have got to start focusing on the whole dish. (Now that's writing!!)