oliver9184

It seems to me that truly accomplished physical actors are few and far between. I don't just mean actors that gesticulate as they talk, I mean actors for whom physicality is AS IMPORTANT as what they say; actors that would have done well in the silent era.

Actors with a stage or dancing background like James Cagney and Fred Astaire were exemplary physical actors and other's weren't particulary rare in Hollywood's Golden Age but now physical acting seems to be something of a lost art: as a rule actors seem to act with their mouths but not with their bodies. I find it very difficult to point to more than a handful of modern-day examples. The best I can come up with is Daniel Day-Lewis, Heath Ledger and perhaps Nicolas Cage (on the strength of Leaving Las Vegas). Also Jim Carrey and to a lesser extent Robin Williams, though physicality is more inherently necessary for that sort of broad semi-slapstick comedy.

What other physical actors (male and female) can anyone think of? Citing specific films/shows for examples would help, thanks.

Baraka_Guru

William H. Macy as Jerry Lundegaard in Fargo.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

ironpham

Willem Dafoe as the Green Goblin/Norman Osborn

__________________
SIGNATURE.

Zeraph

By "physical acting" I assume you mean conveying their character through body language (but I'm not sure).

Heath Ledger I agree with, not familiar enough with the others though. Except I'd disagree with Nicolas Cage (though you have a point about leaving Las Vegas).

I think one of the best is actually Hugh Laurie. He uses subtle gestures (as opposed to angry hulk characters or slapstick) which is far harder to pull off. Watch him play House, he's constantly aware of his injured leg, and does it in a realistic, not an over-the-top way I'd normally expect from hollywood. He plays with his ball when people are talking to him, slightly slumped shoulders, face, eyes, etc. all convey his character's miserableness or superiority complex or intelligence.

You might think he's normally like that or something and that not much of it is acting, well then go watch him in something like Stuart Little where he basically plays the opposite type of character.

I'd also add Johnny Depp to the list of good physical actors.

oliver9184

I'm trying to think if there's anything else that made me think Cage was a good physical actor or if it's just Leaving Las Vegas. I seem to remember there was something he did in Matchstick Men or Adaptation but it's been years since I saw those so I can't remember properly.

Zeraph

Oh ya, Matchstick Men, he was pretty good in that though I didn't care much for the movie itself. He played a neurotic really well. Maybe he's the type that needs a specific kind of director to do really well.

What do you think about Hugh Laurie and Depp? Feel free to disagree, I'm hardly a movie/actor critic.

Jetée

Harrison Ford is a "physical actor"—he always seems to find himself chasing down baddies and rescuing family members. You have to be in shape to do that sort of activity, you know?

And how about Jack Nicholson? His hands, plus a wry smile, (and in combination with furreled eyebrows) probably say more with less than any actor before or after could ever accomplish.

__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.

—Mohandas K. Gandhi

oliver9184

The way this could be approached maybe is to consider which of these actors that are being suggested - Laurie, Depp, Ford and Nicholson - have a physical presence that seems almost to overwhelm what they're saying. What do you notice more, their physical actions or the words they say? When (if) you try to copy them what's harder to do accurately: their movements or their words?

Jack Nicholson acts with his marvelous face and voice but not really his body. I don't think he ever needed to because that was always enough. Harrison Ford, though he may chase down baddies and rescue family members fairly often, isn't a great physical actor. Plenty of actors do that. Sylvester Stallone does that but I wouldn't class him as any kind of actor - he's basically the opposite of acting, physically and otherwise.

I think it's interesting that Ford was suggested, because out of all the actors that do that sort of action movies I'd put him forward as one of the least physical actors. Is he ever flamboyant? No, he's always the opposite - reserved. Is his action ever unnecessary? Does he ever gesticulate or move his body more than is absolutely necessary? - almost all actors do at one time or another but Ford hardly ever seems to. He's a star but in a way he tries to deflect attention. It's what he's known for - he's a cool dude who gets the job done with minimum effort. Has he ever lost his temper? No, because he's the modern equivalent of Gary Cooper. Doesn't want attention, just does what's right because it needs doing and no-one else will. Compare him to Mel Gibson - another action star whose career has been roughly contemporary with Ford's. See the difference? It's my opinion therefore - and this not necessarily a positive or negative observation - that Ford is one of the least physical actors. The same goes for Robert De Niro I think - surely one of the most respected actors but one accomplished at the sort of acting that doesn't require physicality.

I can't make any informed comments about Hugh Laurie because I haven't seen him properly in House and I'm still trying to figure out Johnny Depp's physical merits. He's an odd one. I'll do so and report back later. In the meantime enjoy this clip of Jim Carrey being both Nicholson and De Niro!

Charlatan

I think Brad Pitt has the potential for this as well. Think of his roles in films like True Romance and 12 Monkeys. I think the trend of physical performance is something that we now associate with the theatre. It has to do with projecting to the back of the theatre. Styles of film acting have changed and become increasingly subtle. I would suggest this has a lot to do with a) Method acting and b) actors that didn't develop their skills in theatre but rather directly in film.

Out expectations as an audience, especially in dramas, is restrained acting. This is especially true of lead actors. I would suggest, however, that the physical style of acting is still alive and well in supporting roles (in fact both Brad Pitt roles I suggested above were supporting roles). Our expectation from the supporting cast is that they bring colour to the story. The supporting characters can be a little larger than life than the lead.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

oliver9184

I can sort of see your point about Pitt in Twelve Monkeys - though I found him irritatingly self-consicous in that role, something I wouldn't generally accuse him of elsewhere - but True Romance?! That's not a physical performance, he just lies on a sofa doesn't he?? But you may be right, he may have the potential to be a great actor, physical or otherwise. It just depends on whether he wants to try hard because it seems he just doesn't have to - he'll be loved by everyone regardless. He's the modern Robert Redford.

KellyC

I'm just gonna throw it in here. I thought Micheal J. Fox did a pretty good job with his physical acting in Spin City. He was very charismatic and lovable in the show. Certainly infinite times more entertaining than Charlie Sheen, whom I akin to a stiff piece of wood...

__________________
Him: Ok, I have to ask, what do you believe?
Me: Shit happens.