The Difference Between Acting and Adam Sandler

[Squeaksx]

Why do I say Adam Sandler isn't an actor? He never, ever, ever, ever does anything beside behave as himself

You mentioned this a few times in your post, I assume you know him then?

Seriously, unless you are his close friend in disguise how can you make this statement, you don't know how he acts in real life, you just know his typecasted role. If he carries on this role, he gets paid (alot), people get entertained. Why bother taking the risk of trying a low cost production film as you stated.

Theres always going to be a large audience for the simple laughs films like his bring. I assure you, folks like you who complain for seemingly no reason (what have you got to gain here?) are in the minority.

How can I tell? Because he's not a recluse, he goes out, he goes to parties, he's interviewed by various talk show hosts. I know how he behaves, or at least how he behaves in public.

Exactly, you know how he acts when a camera is around....

Oh, -indeed-, I'm sure he puts on an elaborate facade when he is, in fact, a scholar and master of the arts. Someone to rival Albert Einstein or Wolfgang Amadeus in terms of jarring dedication, inspiration, effort, and skill to his craft. He just puts on the facade of a blue-collar everyman to fool us mortals into thinking him different of who he really is. His true self might rival that of Allister Crowley even!? He could be the next Bill Gates even! Oh how much of a fool am I to believe that how he behaves in public is remotely similar to his true personality.

Calm down, its the lowest form of wit you know.
All I'm saying is the face he puts on around a camera isn't necessarily how he would act around friends and family. If you sincerely believe what you see of celebrities on the red carpet/in interviews or even when they're caught 'off guard' at parties is a true representation of their personalities, then you're a lot more naive than I first thought.

Wow, two attempts at insult within a single statement. No, I didn't say he was exactly the same in interviews, but to say that it's little more than a more socially acceptable, filtered version of his true self is to give him too much credit for something he probably doesn't care too much about. If it was Robin Williams or Steven Colbert then I would believe you, but it's not, it's Adam Sandler.

 

[Undo]

Reign Over Me makes this thread loose its credibility. Sandler was fantastic in that, and made me cry in a scene.

Agree, that movie was great and caught the mood perfectly. You could really see into the state of his characters mind.
Now Keanu Reeves is one who really can't act. He plays one role, which consits of not moving any face muscles at all while looking cool.

But good acting gets rarer in all movies. How is it acting, when people can hardly remember or play one line at a time? One reason I was quite impressed by Fail Safe (2000 tv flic with Clooney and Keitel); a full length live acting movie. And to think such used to be standard practice.

 

[Squeaksx]

Reign Over Me makes this thread loose its credibility. Sandler was fantastic in that, and made me cry in a scene.

Agree, that movie was great and caught the mood perfectly. You could really see into the state of his characters mind.
Now Keanu Reeves is one who really can't act. He plays one role, which consits of not moving any face muscles at all while looking cool.

But good acting gets rarer in all movies. How is it acting, when people can hardly remember or play one line at a time? One reason I was quite impressed by Fail Safe (2000 tv flic with Clooney and Keitel); a full length live acting movie. And to think such used to be standard practice.

Well here's the thing, I didn't want to use an actor who is universally disregarded as a hack (Keanu Reeves); I wanted to choose someone that at least a few might disagree with as to bring rise to intellectual debate. It would be boring if every person just agreed in line like a bunch of sheep.

 

[Danzaivar]

Hugh Laurie, Sir Ian McKellen, Sir Christopher Lee and Will Smith are the three actors that immediately come to mind when I think 'Good Actors'. I'm in half a mind to include Patrick Stewart as well, but he does seem to just play the one role so yeah.

I would just like to point out that I think 3 of those 4 are classically trained British Actors rather than your American actor who was just trained to do movies, and they're amazing because of it. Will Smith is an exception, but by in large most American actors just seem to be the type-casted temper-tantrum proned morons that only play the one role.

I mean the self-absorbed temper tantrums a lot of actors have are in itself a pretty good sign of a bad actor, actors should be able to control and channel their emotions to be in the perfect state of mind for a performance. Not getting a coffee or whatever shouldn't ruin it for 'em.

 

[Iron Mal]

Mhm, and I have the right to say that if he follows that path then he is ,more or less, an embarrassment to the art of acting because he does not utilize his talent and instead reverts to mechanisms and cliche to get a chuckle instead of inspired creativity and honest effort. To be fair I would say that he's more of an embarrassment than a bad actor because at least a bad actor can make the excuse that he or she simply lacks the skill and talent, but someone with such talent like Adam Sandler should be put under harsher scrutiny because of his talent.

I know from my own personal experience (I did drama at GCSE level, not quite professional 'artist' level but it's still acting none-the-less) I know that being pushed into performing a role that you don't particularly like or associate with is not only extremely demotivating but it can be stressful and difficult (come back and tell me about 'job satisfaction' and 'embarassment' when you have to portray the role of a rabidly fanatical and humourless preacher in front of a hall full of people who will judge you for every last movement and facial expression).

You declare that the man is an embarassment to acting as a whole but I've got to ask you, who are you? Why should I trust your opinion on what is 'art' and who is a great 'artist'?

Are you a great actor? Director? Critic? Composer? What exactly?

It's all very well to stand back and say that you're ashamed of this actor for not fufilling their potential etc. until we realise that as far as we know you haven't achieved anything of your own either (in other words, 'who are you to judge?').

In my opinion (feel free to disagree with this as you wish), the quality of all 'arts' are subjective and personal, what one person considers to be absolute crap or boring might hold deeper meaning or insight to another person (both Brutal Legend and Silent Hill 5 have recieved plenty of flak for various reasons yet both hold great significance to me due to their narrative, setting and characterisation).

Fine, you don't like the actor in question, but you do not represent the opinion of greater majority of the public so trying to be 'high and mighty' by claiming to have higher standards is naturally going to be met with skepticism and discredulation (and dressing your arguements up in poetic and emotive language, while phonetically pleasing, doesn't add any extra weight or validity to your arguement, in fact, it potentially can and will be used against you as futher evidence of being biased and elitist).

 

[Squeaksx]

Hugh Laurie, Sir Ian McKellen, Sir Christopher Lee and Will Smith are the three actors that immediately come to mind when I think 'Good Actors'. I'm in half a mind to include Patrick Stewart as well, but he does seem to just play the one role so yeah.

I would just like to point out that I think 3 of those 4 are classically trained British Actors rather than your American actor who was just trained to do movies, and they're amazing because of it. Will Smith is an exception, but by in large most American actors just seem to be the type-casted temper-tantrum proned morons that only play the one role.

I mean the self-absorbed temper tantrums a lot of actors have are in itself a pretty good sign of a bad actor, actors should be able to control and channel their emotions to be in the perfect state of mind for a performance. Not getting a coffee or whatever shouldn't ruin it for 'em.

As Stanislavsky said "If you have to spit, do it outside the theater". The theater is no place for misbehaving children who can't control their behavior. I would also like to concur with your choices and applaud you on a very effective selection. I personally am inspired by the amount of skill Hugh Jackman has put into his musical roles, such as that of Gaston, Curly, and Joe (Beauty and the Beast, Oklahoma, and Sunset Boulevard).

 

[A Pious Cultist]

Adam Sandler only plays one character? Next you're going to tell me the same thing about Ben Stiller or maybe even Ricky Gervais. As if

 

[Squeaksx]

Adam Sandler only plays one character? Next you're going to tell me the same thing about Ben Stiller or maybe even Ricky Gervais. As if

Hey guys, I just realized that grass is green.

Actually it gets brown or yellow depending on the seasons and how starved it is for water. With that I think this conversation has died, if not I'll be surprised.

 

[MrGFunk]

I implore you to comment.

I think a lot of actors do this - usually early in their career. It just takes longer for some to move on and gain confidence to get out of their safety zone. As you've picked Adam Sandler I suggest you check his more recent films and reassess. If you've seen Reign over me and Funny People and still believe his of little worth just avoid his films.

I quite like where his choice of films is taking him. Important films like the two above and some simple films for his kids like Bedtime Stories.

I'm not saying they have the same calibre but check out Tom Hanks early films. What do you think of him now?

 

[Squeaksx]

I implore you to comment.

I think a lot of actors do this - usually early in their career. It just takes longer for some to move on and gain confidence to get out of their safety zone. As you've picked Adam Sandler I suggest you check his more recent films and reassess. If you've seen Reign over me and Funny People and still believe his of little worth just avoid his films.

I quite like where his choice of films is taking him. Important films like the two above and some simple films for his kids like Bedtime Stories.

I'm not saying they have the same calibre but check out Tom Hanks early films. What do you think of him now?

I'll be sure to look at Adam Sandler's more recent work, many people are bringing it up so now I feel that I must. If he is indeed doing so then I will retract my statement once he proves that he can continue this streak and not fall into his same old comfort zone.

 

[Kurokami]

Hahahaha, I'm sorry I don't have anything to contribute having read only the title and all, but it definitely put a grin on my face. Lots of actors aren't good at acting though, and many who are good just irritate the hell out of certain people for no reason. (I suppose we all want to see some of those high up fall down again, don't we?)

 

[Squeaksx]

Hahahaha, I'm sorry I don't have anything to contribute having read only the title and all, but it definitely put a grin on my face. Lots of actors aren't good at acting though, and many who are good just irritate the hell out of certain people for no reason. (I suppose we all want to see some of those high up fall down again, don't we?)

Um, thanks for your comment? It was very insightful.

 

[Kurokami]

Hahahaha, I'm sorry I don't have anything to contribute having read only the title and all, but it definitely put a grin on my face. Lots of actors aren't good at acting though, and many who are good just irritate the hell out of certain people for no reason. (I suppose we all want to see some of those high up fall down again, don't we?)

Um, thanks for your comment? It was very insightful.

I'm glad you took something out of it. =]

 

[Archemetis]

So let me get this straight...

Adam Sandler is a less credible actor than De Niro because he is typecast into his own movies, for which gain fantastic cult following?

And a man/actor can only be scrutinised on the sum of his work, but if you pick 9 films of a specific genre (this case being outlandish comedy) out of the many, many others he's been featured in then it's perfectly fine.

I'm not saying that Adam Sandler doesn't play himself a lot in movies, he's admitted it many times, but to say that his work is not credible in the least for it, well that's just unfair.

Let's further analyse the example movies here.

So you've basically named all of the earlier movies in Sandler's repertoire, the ones where he plays the some-what loveable moron with a tendency to lash out in rage.

And then two other movies, Little Nicky and Waterboy.
Where he seems to play an unlearned nice-guy.

Now, you're asking why there is no established or 'real' character present in these examples.
I would go as far as to say that, oh it might be because they're characters suited to the style of outlandish comedy I mean did you somehow forget that Little Nicky was about the son of the devil? Realism? Oh wait it's not present from the start!

Waterboy, a movie where in a guy who was sheltered all his life from education and the outside world by his overbearing mother who lives in a swamp working as a 30 year old waterboy for a local college suddenly finds that his anger-- OH GOD why am I describing this, we know it's all in the realm of fantasy by this point...

Adam Sandler has made the majority of his career making movies about the most unlikely of characters, finding themselves in just as unlikely scenarios... The main thing to take away from this is regardless of whether it's your cup of tea (which you've made painfully clear it isn't, well done, job done.) to a particular audience he brings these characters alive.


I mean let's pick out a movie that De Niro wasn't very good in say, 'Meet the parents' or 'meet the fockers' ( a movie in which De Niro AND Hoffman lose credibility in my eyes)

Simple fact is, I acknowledge that not every actor today is capable of believably portraying a character all of the time, some can't even do it some of the time. (I'm looking at YOU Christian Bale...) and yeah,the sole purpose of movies isn't entertainment... Wait, what am I saying? Yes it fucking is!
Sure you can get arty-flicks or movies with a message attached or something that pushes the boundaries of yadda yadda yadda... But when it comes down to it, movies are about two things, money and entertainment.
And believe me, I studied this stuff for two years to become a Teaching assistant for a Media Production Course.

Adam Sandler manages entertainment in his own way, just like Robert De Niro...

 

[mjc0961]

All this really is is complaining about an actor you don't like.

Agreed. I get the feeling that he'd be better off just watching the AWESOME-O episode of South Park and laughing at the bits where Cartman comes up with thousands of movies for Adam Sandler to star in.

 

[Bigeyez]

I think this has less to do with the actors themselves I(in this case Adam Sandler) then with Hollywood falling into the rut of always type casting the same person for the same role. Anytime you need Happy Gilmore type humor, hollywood automatically turns to Adam Sandler. He acts relatively the same throughout all those movies, because thats how people want him to act, and thats why he is hired for those roles.

So it's not so much that Adam Sandler plays himself or the same character in all the movies he's in, and moreso a thing of him simply getting casted for the same roles in all the movies he's in. As for the movies he's been in charge of himself; well why change things up when he has success doing the same thing he always does?

You could apply that to a lot of actors who end up getting casted, because they are expected to play the same or similar roles.

Edit: To clarify. If you took say Al Pacino and ONLY ever cast him in "Scarface"-esq roles you would end up saying the same thing about him. While the man behind the acting certainly has a lot to do with it, actors, in my mind, are more of a product of the roles they play then anything else. If Al Pacino had been dragged into that rut of only playing gangster types like in Scarface would he be as celebrated as he is today?

 

[Matt-Allan-ca]

all I have to say is who gives a shit? alot of actors nowadays are type cast and the familiarity is...well...it doesn't matter. one of the best actors is Johnny Depp, he usually plays the freak, but can play it in many different ways and has even played seemingly normal roles like in "public enemies".

Obviously I give a shit or I wouldn't have posted this article, for one. For two Johnny Depp has the problem of Tim Burton. Don't get me wrong, I love him as a director, but he relies on Johnny Depp way too much as an actor and I think that hinders Johnny Depp more than anyone else. I personally think that some of the actor's best roles were in films NOT directed by Burton (Duke from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean). Now don't get me wrong, Johnny was also great in Burton's films: Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood, but I think Burton really needs to take the risk of hiring new talent.

*raises one eyebrow*
I have thought about this topic alot over the past years, especially with actors like Adam Sandler and Jim carrey, but it just comes down to "do you really give a shit?". They release funny movies not to touch the heart yet they always have a heartfelt moment at the end, it's brilliant in it's simplicity, the topics they use are awesome and the emotion they really do put in their roles, while repetitive, always induce laughter and honestly I thought we were talking about the difference between acting and comedic performances (adam sandler) so whats all that stuff said about Burton? He makes brilliant films and chooses Johnny Depp, because he's a brilliant actor, if it works then why not? if it was failing well yeah...but it isn't.

I see you're point involving type casting and I think Vince Vaughn is one to look at if anyone, Adam Sandler is a comedian and his movies tend to be about the situation more than the character itself, but he has made fantastic movies and all of them I could watch a number of times and still laugh, the problem with type casting is if you change that type than people will be pissed (just like in "Funny People", great movie BTW).

Sorry if I worded this post bad or had terrible grammar, I am very tired right now.

 

[ChocoFace]

Shorter is what is mutual, and answer is NOTHING

...What? Can someone add a bit of clarification to this? I have no idea what I just read. I'm not being a jerk, I honestly can't understand this statement.

He was making a poor attempt at a joke because you're comparing Adam Sandler and acting.

Sort of like:

actually the difference between acting and Adam Sandler is that one is a verb while the other is an actor(a noun).

But much less obvious and still terrible and adding nothing at all to the topic. Bumping post counts is fun, no?

so is being a hater, apparently.