Did you know that since 2004 that the Academy has awarded 8 Best Actor awards and 5 Best Actress awards to people who have portrayed real people? That’s 13 awards in 13 years. With Gary Oldman already being tipped as an Oscar favourite for this year’s awards, I would like to throw this question out there – Is portraying a real person really acting or just being a good mimic.
To begin, allow me to remind you of those recent awards that fall into this category. In the Best Actor category, we have Jamie Foxx for Ray Charles, Philip Seymour Hoffman for Truman Capote, Forest Whitaker for Idi Amin, Sean Penn as Harvey Milk, Colin Firth as King George VI, Daniel Day-Lewis for Abraham Lincoln, Matthew McConaughey for Ron Woodroof and Eddie Redmayne as Steven Hawking. In the Best Actress field, you have Reese Witherspoon as June Carter Cash, Helen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth, Marion Cotillard for Edif Piaf, Sandra Bullock as Leigh Anne Tuohy and Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher.
It is fair to say that some of these characters would not be known to the general public and so comparing the actor to the real person would not have been an issue. However, with youtube, it is possible for the actor to listen to the character’s speech and see their mannerisms thus allowing them to mimic them. In some cases, such as Gary Oldman’s Winston Churchill, the makeup and prosthetics make him look so much like the real person that I wonder how much acting is required to have the audience accept him as the role he is playing.
Interestingly during the same period of time, only 3 biopics won the award for Best Picture, The Kings Speech, Argo and 12 Years a Slave. So apart from The Kings Speech, the strength of the actors/actresses who won the best acting awards was not strong enough to carry the story to also earn the best movie award. So to my question, does it take great acting to portray the role of a real person or can anyone who is a good mimic be able to carry it off. Look forward to your comments.
anonymous
23 Jan 2018Hmmmm. Well, what is good acting if not just convincingly pretending to be somebody else, whether an actual historical figure or the figment of a writer’s imagination. I like good acting (eg: almost everything Anthony Hopkins has ever done) but I often wonder how hard it could be, really. Maybe I could have been a good actor? After all, a lot of actors are (counterintuitively) somewhat introverted. Then I’ll witness some truly awful acting in some b grade embarassment and be reminded that there may be some talent and skill involved after all.
As regards Garry Oldman’s portrayal of Churchill, I’d call that pretty good acting. I also liked John Lithgow’s somewhat more nuanced portrayal, but not to take anything from Oldman’s interpretation. Unless you actually knew the subject personally it’s pretty hard to gauge somebody else’s take on a character. As for Oldman, his preceeding body of work confirms him as one of the better actors for me (eg: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Professional, etc). Previous work often plays into a sentimental Oscar gong when the contest is tight. And fair enough. A dozen outstanding performances by a veteran have to count for something against what could be a singular youthful career best, no?
Scott
25 Jan 2018I like your response and have to agree with your comment on Anthony Hopkins. However i did watch part of Bram Stokers Dracula the other night and I think both Anthony and Gary Oldman would both like to take this movie off their CV’s. 🙂