There’s More to the Mix Than the Actors’ ‘Seasoning’

In response to Al Stephans Scaglione’s assertion that a certain actor “had no business making that movie because she wasn’t ready for it,” I assert that certain movies just aren’t going to make it no matter what actor is in them. Furthermore, based on my experience, I cannot agree with Scaglione’s assertion that actors who take classes or do stage are better suited for some roles (“Even Stars Need Some Seasoning,” Calendar, May 13).

Meaning no disrespect to the craft of acting, what it boils down to is God-given talent. And I must defend those actors he mentioned, for I believe that Demi Moore, Sylvester Stallone and Sharon Stone do indeed possess that talent. They are stars because they not only can act but have that mysterious quality that the camera has hugged in others like themselves for decades.

If “Scarlet Letter,” “Oscar” and “The Quick and the Dead” were flops, it was not due to their talents or supposed lack thereof. It was based on either the public disliking the movies or just not being interested in seeing them in the first place. Is it possible that any of those films would have been better received if Sally Field had sinned the great sin, Robert De Niro had played the goofy gangster or Meryl Streep had been a pistol-packin’ gunslinger?

Not!

As a former acting coach and current writer-producer-director, I knew an actor some 20 years ago who really loved acting--it was his passion. I know, because he was in a class I taught. Week after week, he’d come in better “prepared” than anyone else for scene work and week after week, his lack of that natural quality, not ability, was sad. I even thought it might have been my failure. Luckily, he left for New York to study with Jose Quintero (one of the best teachers ever). When he returned, he invited me to a showcase--and nothing had changed. Nothing. And unfortunately for his dream, he was never hired professionally and finally gave up.

Of course, many very talented people don’t make it either, due simply to luck.

However, I myself am drawn to actors with theater experience. But not because I assume they are better. What they seem to possess is the humility that hard work, memorizing lots of dialogue, working in dank caverns and facing a live audience night after night brings to their personalities. They also have less ego. But the best combination is stage experience along with talent.

It’s in their eyes when they walk in the room.

There are big stars who aren’t very good, no question. But I can’t agree that one has to study to be good. Performance is so personal, so tiny a thing, that no observer can create what’s not there to begin with.

And who is to say that Moore, Stone and Stallone don’t study in their own way? How about the first “Rocky”? Could any actress have been better than Moore in “Ghost”? And remember, Al Pacino’s immense talent did not save “Cruising.”

And let’s not forget Pacino and Gene Hackman’s brilliant work in “Scarecrow,” which nobody saw. Or Streep’s heartfelt work in “Plenty.” Another flop.

Bottom line: If audiences aren’t interested in seeing the movie, a great actor or lousy actor has little to do with it.

It’s the material. Remember Laurence Olivier in “The Jazz Singer”? He was always prepared, he was arguably the best. But that movie was an embarrassment for him.

And now there’s “Twister.” Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton. Grand performances, I think. Gee, they must have studied their “craft” real hard for that one. What’s it matter? Bottom line: People want to see that story.

And that’s the movie business.