Who contributes more?

[ChD]

Right, I've been wondering this for quite some time now, and I'd like to know everyone's opinion on it.

 

It's about the Oscars... and mainly the actor/actress category.

 

I've seen many people read scripts ahead of the movie coming out, or even before its pre-production, and I've seen them claim that certain roles were awards worthy. Sometimes, they were right, and the actors or actresses that played that role got nominated, or even won.

The question is: Who contributes more to that. The actor or the writer? I mean, people obviously claimed that certain roles were awards worthy without seeing the actual actor take on that role.

 

We've seen before that actors that aren't fit for a certain role, take on the role and win Oscar afterwards (Heath Ledger coming to my mind first). This would give some people the idea that the writer does the dirty job and the actor only needs to follow the instructions and magically lands a Best Actor nomination and maybe a win.

I know it does matter how the actor himself decides to say the lines, or perform the actions his character does, but in the end, HOW MUCH did he actually do to deserve the praise he got?

[Jared Miller]

I think the script is probably a little more important than the actor/actress. A great actor can't do much with a bad script, but I feel like a great script can bring out the best in what otherwise may be mediocre actors. I think that's why we see some actors who are terrible in some films (think Star Wars) but receive wide critical acclaim for other films. Both are definitely important, but I would weigh in favor of the writer, because the script has to be good before the actor can be.

[dashrendar44]

For me, it's equal. A good script doesn't give you every single tiny bits of how you must deliver your lines and rightfully expressing the feelings the character experiences with your body. It give you a sense of who is the character and his motivations but it all boils down to the actor's chops to bring it alive. The script gives you a great character arc and broad strokes of traits to work with but if the actor does not have the chops to pull it off in every single scene adding the nuances a script can't describe in words, the script goes nowhere fast.

 

I mean Steven Seagal could not bring the greatness out of Raging Bull's or There Will Be Blood's character script because he does not possess the acting chops and the subtlety/intensity required to elevate the brilliant material on paper and bring it to life.

Edited July 4, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Hatebox]

It's impossible to answer as it varies case by case, but there's no doubt that writers don't get nearly enough credit from audiences. Or the industry for that matter: I remember Charlie Kaufman saying he wasn't even invited to the Cannes premiere of being John Malkovich.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Hatebox

[Moviedweeb]

There is no black and white answer. It differs from project to project. Sometimes the writing elevates a performance, sometimes a performance elevates the writing. Quentin Tarantino can make many competant actors seem brilliant (and often they truly are) whereas others actors, such as Deniro in Raging Bull or Heath Ledger in TDK for example, give such great performances that it transcends the material they are working with.