The Script

On the silver screen, is it really all about the performance?  I often find myself wondering why some actors seem to always end up in good movies and others have hits and misses.  Think about it: folks like Tom Hanks, Leo DiCaprio, and Meryl Streep almost always hit it out of the park.  (No, this isn't an exhaustive case study--it's a blog.  I realize not every single film these guys have been in has been cinematic art, but it's a very high percentage.)

And why do some really good actors/actresses end up with a lot of ups and downs in the theater?  Samuel L. Jackson comes to mind.  (Snakes on a Plane...seriously?)  So do Halle Berry (Perfect Stranger) and Robin Williams (Flubber, et al).

We've seen all of these people in great roles in great movies.  So, why are some winning percentages much, much higher?  It can't be all about the performance.  Because even a great actor/actress can't save a bad script.  

So often critics or fans make excuses for these flops: "Oh, he got some bad advice on that one."  "I can't believe her agent would let her take that part."  Or..."He must really need the money right now."

But doesn't the buck ultimately stop with the performer?  At some point, don't they have to read the script and either take the gig or pass?  I think the great intangible skill--that can't be taught at any acting school--is the ability to read a script and visualize first, the role, and then ultimately, the film.

Right now, Leonardo DiCaprio has 27 projects "in development" on IMDB.  Halle Berry has four.  Tom Hanks is signed on for "How Starbucks Saved My Life," based on a true story about a fired corporate who takes a job at Starbucks.  Robin Williams has something called "Wedding Banned."

I'm not saying DiCaprio and Hanks are better actors than Berry and Williams.  I'm just saying, to be a great actor, it takes more than great acting.