Fellwanderer

Do you find that there are some actors with whom you always seem to empathise, whatever the role?

The ones who stand out for me are Robert Donat, John Mills, Peter Ustinov and Michael Kitchen. Somehow, I can never see them as the out-and-out baddie. They always seem to give off an air of honesty and decency - though PU could often looked a bit shifty or cunning.

Strangely, with one obvious exception, I don't have that problem with the ladies and can take them as wicked, evil, duplicitous. Even when Jenny played a 20000 year old vampire queen whom she described as "mean, seductive - she's Tessa gone completely mad", I was still rooting for her survival if not victory!

All the best
FELL

A signature is no substitute for a life

batman

Check out Michael Kitchen in The Last Contract in which he plays an ice cold professional hitman. His performance is a revelation.

Sista kontraktet (1998)

Donat and Mills definitely but I always find PU to be a bit shifty even in his more likeable roles.

Errol Flynn, Cary Grant and Randolph Scott from Hollywood films are in my empathy zone along with Tom Conway. In Brit films Michael Redgrave, Ralph Richardson and Stanley Baker (even in baddie roles) find me on their side.

I wish I had claws.

CaptainWaggett

Even when Michael Kitchen is playing the Devil and has furry Hobbit-feet?

Fellwanderer

I'd forgotten Redgrave and Richardson - and should certainly have included Richard Todd and Kenneth More. Don't want to make the list too long though!

All the best
FELL

A signature is no substitute for a life

lupinpooter

For me it's Michael Redgrave (perhaps because The Browning Version had such an impact on me) and - perhaps oddly? - Laurence Harvey, who always seems to have a vulnerable quality on screen which makes him very appealing (to me, anyway).

Non-Brits: Gerard Depardieu; Charles Aznavour; Bette Davis; Joan Crawford.

batman

I'd agree about Laurence Harvey .... although I am sure we are in a minority.

I wish I had claws.

Dame Starry

I must be in a minority here.......(not unusual!)

If a viewer can empathise with a nasty character just because of who the actor is then, surely, that actor isn't very good?

DS x.

batman

It's not just about who the actor is, it's about the way the actor plays a particular role. Any actor has to approach his role with the view that his character is justified in his behaviour, no matter what that behaviour is. If he doesn't, the character is not believable.

Empathy is about understanding the reasoning and motivation behind a person's behaviour. To be able to communicate the motivation behind nasty behaviour, and to then get an audience on your side is good acting. Kirk Douglas was a master at playing this type of character.

Bad acting is where the actor is totally unable to gain empathy for a character, especially a 'worthy' character .... ie imagine an actor playing Jesus in a faithful re-telling of his story and you end up hating the character's guts. That IMHO would be a bad performance, regardless of who the actor is.

Actors like Redgrave, Mills, Todd etc always seem to be able to project that inner belief, therefore making their characters easy to empathise with. This is one of the main reasons actors become popular.

I wish I had claws.

Dame Starry

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't seem to work for me for some reason - I must be stranger than I thought!
I can have empathy with a character (as per your explanation above), but not just because of who is playing the part.

DS x.

batman

We are closer to agreement than you think.

It's not simply because of who the actor is ... but also because of his skill in portraying characters.

I will give an example ... Boris Karloff made The Monster in Frankenstein a richly empathic character by using his skill as an actor. People believed and empathised in this character, but it had nothing to do with who Karloff was (at that time he was virtually unknown) but it was due to his acting skills.

Roll forward 60 yrs and we have Robert De Niro, regarded by many as the greatest screen actor of his generation. His attempt at playing The Monster, eagerly anticipated by his fans, fell flat on it's arse because he was unable IMHO to bring any of the character's inner being to the surface, therefore preventing the audience from having empathy with his deeds and actions. He was simply a shambling hulk.

I hope that makes sense.

I wish I had claws.

Dame Starry

Yes, it makes perfect sense, thank you.
I've always empathised with Frankenstein's Monster - because nothing he did was his fault, was it? I haven't seen De Niro's portrayal, but I'm not a fan of his anyway.

THAT could be the problem.......there isn't really a movie actor who I could say I'm that big a fan of.

DS x.

lupinpooter

I agree. It's a mark of great acting skill to be able to portray a rounded, complex, fallible character in such a way that we understand that character's inner logic, we empathise and we are moved. Such performances have the power to leave us with a better understanding of ourselves and others, more so when the character is obviously 'bad' or flawed. I certainly felt that way after seeing Redgrave's Crocker-Harris ... or Davis' Margo Channing ... or Harvey's Raymond Shaw (or his Pte Bamforth!) ... or what about Dylan Baker in Todd Solondz's Happiness?!

batman

Harvey's portrayal of Raymond Shaw is often dismissed as 'wooden' or 'typical of Harvey's cold persona'. I disagree, I think Harvey got under the skin of Shaw and was able to get across the inner turmoil of the character with great skill. His 'cold persona' actually worked against him and he had to fight even harder to gain the empathy of the audience. I think it is a really good performance by a very under-rated actor.

I wish I had claws.

silverwhistle

Which film was this, please? I'm very curious…

I generally like vampires, anyway, and tend to sympathise with them.

"Trust me, I'm a doctor...!"

silverwhistle

Yes! One has to remember that every human being sees him/herself as the hero of his/her own story – few people, however badly they behave, actually regard themselves as 'villains' and consciously set out to 'be bad'. People can do dreadful things through what they regard as good motives, or because they are too damaged to perceive the effect on others.

Or it can be bad writing. If a writer fails to convince you of a character's motivations in the script, to the extent that the actor cannot transcend it (some actors can work wonders with thinly-scripted characters, but it's not always possible), then you will not believe in them.

Yup. I think Peter Egan's excellent for this, too: see A Perfect Spy, in particular. Although you can see where it's leading, and that there really is no other way out, the ending is emotionally draining.

"Trust me, I'm a doctor...!"