Why Acting Matters (Why X Matters Series)

This is an occasionally interesting look at film acting by a prolific film critic and historian whom I've always found to be only occasionally interesting. He makes much of the impact film has had on acting -- that it was the camera that scaled down the more theatrical acting styles of the past -- but doesn't actually say much about the impact of acting on film. And even at its meager length (not enough physical book for the price, by the way) it still managed to go on too long for me. Sorry not to be more enthusiastic.

“I warn you the more strenuously ‘real’ a play or movie claims to be, the morebored I become The only honorable reality is that of pretending, but that is sufficient reason why acting matters beyond all differences in style, pay grade, or how ‘good’ the process is…” He goes on a page further “Acting is so essential or inescapable that Iteasily absorbs and welcomes bad acting. So let us toss out that old chestnut that the play or the actor may help us ‘to live better.’ There is no help…The purpose of acting is to evade such considerations.” And the actors? Thomson introduces them: “…actors must retain a child’s appetite for mimicry, for demanding attention, and, above all, for playing. They must see with a child’s heart, innocent of judgement.” This work is divided into four acts: Towards the End of the Day, Twilight, A Moment Later, and That Night plus Epilogue. These chapters contain such discussions as one of Laurence Olivier in The Entertainer, a play written for him by John Osborne and the”lowest life he had ever played.” Olivier made the role “supreme.” Thomson writes The Entertainer speaks “to a moment in British history when the imperial bedrock was cracking and a famous actor felt the appealing risk in discarding his own heroic aplomb. And when he bumped into a writer prepared to teach him a lesson.” This author is entitled to make such an observation with his many published biographies and histories of film and the theater folk which are listed in the opening pages of this work. From his analyses of the”empty splendor” of the smile of William Holden and his admission at one point thathis observations on Philip Seymore Hoffman were written on the day of his death, Why Acting Matters fascinates.

This book is a disappointment. One of the first things he mentions is an incident between Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh, taken from Olivier's autobiography. Olivier clearly states that what happened was that Leigh told him she was no longer in love with him. But Thomson gets it backwards and says it was Olivier who fell out of love. He quotes Olivier to support his wrongheaded view. But of course the quote makes no sense since Thomson misapprehended what it refers to. This really cuts into my trust of Thomson's reporting and his ability to access what he sees. Also, reviews suggested the book is focused largely on Olivier and Brando but it isn't. I would find it more interesting if it was...

Delightful book. Brings acting into daily life; we all do it either consciously or unconsciously.

Good book, loved it, love acting

My husband an "actophile" can't get enough insight about the acting profession. This added immeasurably to his understanding and enjoyment

I am not sure my actor friends would appreciate everything David Thomson has to say about them. BUT having spent many years working in theatre...so much is true. Most enjoyable.

It was a very scholarly book, and Thomson, being English , centered more on those actors , particularly Shakespeare, which is not my great interest. I agreed with those he felt were the greatest actors, but I would have liked more about the American actors I valued, Tracy, Peck,etc.But the profession and what it calls for does highlight the obsession necessary to pursue such a life-style where one can lose themselves so one asks whose the real person behind the roles.

Thompson is a film buff's film buff. It is clear that his knowledge of films comes from personal experience more than book-learning. It's clear because all his personal anecdotes about watching films push this point (though surely this can't be entirely true?). His knowledge is (literally) encyclopaedic, but worn lightly and never wielded to show off or overpower the reader. That's all on the plus side.But, I find his anecdotal style a bit hard to make sense of. He digresses and wanders down memory lane and its all charming and entertaining but I end up not being able to see the wood for the trees. What exactly is he saying? I'm not sure it really matters that I can't remember why he thought acting mattered - i still enjoyed reading this book. But, at some level it jars that he is not more 'to the point' and that the detail never quite sums up clearly. It is a bit odd that the title of the book is super-clear but I can't answer it after reading the book.Oddly, I have this reaction to most of his books, though. After reading The Big Screen I can't remember what movies did to us (the subtitle). I can't remember what 'The Whole Equation' was (I remember who said it, but not what it meant). How did Hitchcock teach America to love movies (specifically)? And so on. But clearly, I do keep reading his books and I am happy to accept this is more my issue than Thomson's.

There's no question nowadays that David Thomson is the best cinema critic alive, and one of the best ever. He has two essential books on cinema (the monumental Dictionary and "Have you seen...?) that total around 2,000 pages, not only of deep knowledge, but of fun to read. On top of this, Thomson writes so he is clear, fully understood. No jargon, posing or fake artistry - he merely wants his readers to enjoy the movie as much as he does. Recently he has published a very good book on the history of television and has included recent series in his criticism - Breaking Bad, Ozark. Plus he writes very, very well - his prose is very elegant (he has published several novels).This one book, Why acting maters, can be consider "minor" in his output, not only because is short but because it is rather a long essay on the charm and talent of the great cinema performers in relation, and interaction, with the audience. It complements perfectly his longer (and more systematic) works.Perhaps not for everyone, not a "must", but rather a worthy "another, very personal angle" to read and enjoy by cinema lovers.

Great acting can be a transformative experience for an audience. David Thomson gives the reader his own response to this magical craft.

As a screen actor, writer and producer of many years standing I would say that, in my opinion, this is the best book ever written about actors. That is not to say that it is in any way the definitive work on how to be an actor or how to act. However, no work that I have ever come across in my long career has so clearly and definitively analyzed what it is to be an actor and what constitutes the chemical balance in thatrare and indefinably exciting animal - the actor. Whenever I come across a David Thomson book, be it fact or fiction, whether on actors or a critique of movies I grab it, sometimes physically and sometimes in digital form. Anyone who considers themselves a fan of movies, movie stars and movie making MUST read this book in order to better understand what constitutes the magic that so captures and holds us with those fleeting figures of the silver screen.

Brilliant.

Good