How to evaluate an actor's acting skills in film and television works?

First of all, there are differences between stage performance and camera performance, and there are also differences between film performance and TV drama performance. Many TV plays are driven by lines. Many times, actors don't need much creation, just read the lines.

Movies need to create rich emotional experiences for the audience in a very limited time, which can't be done only by plot and lines. Actors are important creators, so I mainly talk about the acting skills in the film.

Good acting is to "drive" the plot and the audience's emotions through performance, and always be one step ahead.

Poor acting is "in line with" the plot and the mood of the audience, and it is lagging behind.

The audience will have complex psychological activities when watching film and television works, and will have a natural expectation to adjust themselves to the plot that will happen. For example, when we see a good man dying, we will make a sad expectation first. When he really closes his eyes, because we are ready to accept this fact, we will not be so sad and will make a discount.

Good acting is to solve this problem through certain acting skills, giving the audience something beyond expectations and without discount, which may be through time difference, expression, progressive order or emotional intensity.

However, it must be reasonable, which is the difficulty of performance.

For example, in a scene that everyone is talking about now, Maggie Cheung identifies the body in sweet honey.

0 1: 19

Break it down:

1. Maggie Cheung's first expression was actually a momentary smile, which was very unexpected to the audience, because everyone knew that it was her man lying down and was ready for sadness.

"Laughter" appears here unexpectedly, but combined with the plot, it is very real and reasonable. The witty audience has guessed what she saw through this expression. At that moment, the brain fabricated a flashback and walked into sweet memories with her. The slow-motion audience may be a little confused, but then the director will explain it through the lens and give huge emotional compensation.

I made a slight transition through my eyes. The second expression was looking around, trying to explain something, so I stopped talking and still had a smile on my face.

The character obviously realizes that her smile is inappropriate and a little embarrassed, trying to resolve it. The hand movements seemed just right, but later she gave up, because she found it impossible for people around her to understand, and no one else in the world could understand (but the audience understood, which made the audience more sympathetic to the role).

Her mood changed again, when she came out of her memories and began to face the reality. As soon as she frowned, she began to cry, and the more she cried, the worse she cried. You can count it. In the process, she tried to look directly at Brother Bao four times, and the word "Brother Bao" blurted out, but then she looked away or bowed her head.

Through a "laugh" and a "look" in front of them, the audience temporarily let down their guard, but at this moment of abandoning their armor, they cried, which was lethal.

The fifth time, I danced with tears in my eyes, and my eyes finally stopped, indicating that I have been able to face up to this sad fact.

The camera lost no time in giving it to Mickey mouse, and the scene was over. At this point, the audience, no matter how slow, understood the meaning of Maggie Cheung's previous expression and felt the same way.

A crying scene, through the actor's acting skills, shows multiple levels, showing every subtle change of mood. And through this process, it is not easy to "lead" the audience rather than "follow" the audience. A good actor should not only walk with his heart, but also use his brain.

If this is not the case, even if Maggie Cheung cries very vividly and howls with heartbreak, it is not called "good acting", because this is what the audience can expect.

20 19.2. 15 supplement

I don't know why so many people think that such an obvious performance design is a "laughing field". Where did this rumor come from?

The play kept Maggie Cheung in a state of performance from beginning to end, and did not appear at any moment.

You may not believe what I said. Well, director Chen Kexin said it himself. Do you believe it?

This is no joke at all. On the contrary, in director Chen's professional eyes, he still felt that the performance trace of "Laughter" was too heavy and dissatisfied, so he asked Maggie Cheung to take a lot of pictures.

The Dreamcatcher by Chen Kexin and Gu Yongqiang

v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNTYwMDU 1MjY0.html

I didn't care about the comments in the comment area at first, but it appeared again and again, which made me realize the problem:

That is, quite a few viewers still have no ability to distinguish between good and bad acting, but this is not because they are unprofessional, but because they are not confident: they can't believe that their eyes can capture enough details, and they can't believe that their hearts can touch the clear truth. They may have some ignorant ideas, but in the end they have to rely on an "authority" to interpret them. If not, they would rather believe the gossip in the gossip media, because even if they are wrong.

One more thing, when many people see a masterpiece, they will subconsciously look for its accidental and lucky elements, and then exaggerate it, which is essentially a fluke. For example, many people still think that the clown explosion scene in Heath Ledger is an "impromptu performance" after the remote control fails, and then it is blown into the sky. Improvisation certainly exists, and there are some examples of mistakes, but most of the excellent works we see are the result of careful design, repeated verification and repeated improvement by many people. It is really putting the cart before the horse to regard the exploration of these things as "over-interpretation" and the accidental and unrepeatable things as standards!