Reading through some of the recent posts, I have to wonder if we're confusing originality with personality.

When two competent actors perform the same role in the same play or movie, following the same script, it never comes out the same because the actors are different people and the directors may have a slightly different take on the character. They're playing the same character in the same circumstances, but there are differences in the interpretation of the role due to the actors' and director's own contributions. That's not "originality" in the sense of doing something new and different.

Can you imagine Jack Nicholson or George C. Scott playing Vito Corleone? Or Marlon Brando playing Patton? James Caan auditioned for the role of Michael Corleone in The Godfather; the clip from his audition (included in the anniversary set of all three movies) shows a completely different Michael.

So maybe the question isn't about originality, but about personality?

I'm gonna be interested in following this thread. Very interesting OP ...

George:

I like it. But, consider that an actor can play the same part in dozens of different ways him or herself. The Robin Williams in the Fisher King was different from his characterization in Dead Poet's Society, etc. It "seems" to me that two actors playing the same part can use their talents on top of their personality to be "original" in the part. Consider an actor so made up for say a sci-fi part that you don't even know who the actor is that's playing the part.

People use the phrase, "Hey, what an 'original' personality," to mean, generally a sort of fixed set of characteristics, but the 'talent' of the performer can extent past that to morph into something more.....I think....LOL....

Hi, Brad,

I think we're saying a lot of the same, but that ol' nemesis language keeps getting in the way.

Robin Williams in "Fisher King" was a completely different character than in "Dead Poets." Robert DeNiro was a different character in "Taxi Driver," "Godfather Part II," "Frankenstein," "Deer Hunter," "Angel Heart," and many others. Yet we saw a bit of Robin in his movies and a bit of Robert in his.

One of the saddest things in theater is to hear a director, or a critic, or an audience member, talk about a play and mention that the guy playing a given role was just trying to copy some other guy who did the same role. "The King and I," "Fiddler," and "Man of La Mancha" immediately come to mind. Usually what they mean is that there was no soul in it (the character didn't come alive), there was no contribution, the actor didn't do anything except try to copy the other guy. Yet the parts are scripted, the music is what it is, and even some of the blocking and choreography are essentially the same because they're necessary to tell the story. There's no real room to be "original" -- as in new and different -- here, but there's lots of room for the actor to use his own personality to evoke the character instead of copying another actor's interpretation. I used to hear the same thing about a lot of guys who copied Channing Pollock's act: they were bad carbon copies.

You mentioned talent. Okay, "talent" can be open to lots of discussion too but maybe that's something to consider along with this question of originality vs. personality.

Olivier said in his autobiography that actors must steal. Unless they find a new way to understand the character that makes better sense of him/her and the story, they are obliged to follow the best interpretation they can discover among the best actors. To create something new that is not as revealing and meaningful as what has gone before would be bad art.

Steal, yes, absolutely. Actors do it, writers do it, set designers and art directors do it, advertising people do it. But "steal" in the sense of studying the other guy's work as inspiration and for understanding, not as gospel. An "actor" who sits there and watches, say, Olivier's Hamlet over and over and over and copies every move, every nuance, every facial expression, every beat, and so on, is not an actor: he's a robot. And the director, if he's a good director, is going to have serious words with him.

But to sit there instead and go, "Oh, okay, I understand why Olivier had a beat between 'to be' and 'or not to be' -- like you said, something revealing and meaningful -- is to do your homework and take your art and your craft seriously.

I don't want to get off on a discussion about stealing other people's material but, I guess what I'm saying in the context above, is that, sure, study other material and be inspired by it, but understand what it means and why the other guy did it that way. Then make it come from you. From yourself. Thatr's where your personality comes in.

Be sure and put a new coat of paint on it, and scrape off the VIN.

I wasn't talking about stealing the expressions, vocal tones, etc., nor was Olivier. Being a bad thief--one who doesn't know the value of what he steals and sells it all for a tiny part of what it is worth--is not what is meant. Good thieves know what they are stealing and where to sell it, or how to make best use of it.

He meant that if the actor sees an interpretation of Iago, such as Kenneth Brannagh's, in which for the first time you understand the motivations of the character in a way that makes sense of the story, you can't just choose some other interpretation in order to be "different." An artist must interpret the character in the way "most true" to his own understanding of the character and story. He is obligated to steal, or to come up with an original interpretation that is even more revealing and "true." Unable to do that, one is obligated to steal from his betters.

LOL!


I know you weren't, Whit. Just trying to make sure the meaning of "steal" wasn't misinterpreted.


There's a lot of work involved in doing that, and it does pay off.

Here's an example: Anthony Hopkins taking something from Katerine Hepburn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fqwo13g6GI