What makes an actor good? In trying to decipher the nearly century old history of cinema and its actors, I find myself ambivalent. Face it, if being entertaining were a qualification we might say that Paul Walker and Vin Diesel are good actors. For that matter why not include Matt Damon and Ben Affleck? What if an actor has received rave reviews for a special performance such as Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart, but the rest of their career seems paltry at best? The only objective way to decode what good acting looks like is by contrasting it with bad acting, if such a term can be allowed into this discourse. The best way to go about this process is to ask provocative questions to help us draw conclusions.

     The first query that springs to mind is the Jeff Bridges conundrum. What if (in my estimation of course) Bridges has enjoyed a lengthy career at the expense of audiences worldwide? He can barely speak one line fluently and always seems out of place. He either looks puzzled or too happy in every scene, in every movie he has acted in. It is like beating a dead horse with the limb of another deceased animal. Still, for all of my criticism he won an Oscar this year for Crazy Heart. I joked that the only thing crazy about that is Bridges himself. So, the Hollywood elite believe he is all that and a bag of chips, at least in one movie. Does that erase his acting sins or allow his "lesser" films to be forgotten in the face of recent success? Can one great film transform the career of an actor forever irrespective of past, present and future blunders? Let’s look at John Travolta. Once the darling of Hollywood, other than a couple of recent films, he has had a decade long string of titanics. I believe he is a great actor but I would hate to go back and watch any of his films from 2001-2009. They are mostly horrible and embarrassing. How about Matt Damon? Good Will Hunting is a classic, there is no denying it. He starred in it and seemed destined for greatness. Every since he has become so annoying and devoid of talent he is like a cinematic black hole that keeps sucking us in against our will. How about the old guard? Max Von Sydow was once an incredible acting genius. During the twilight of his career he has ostensibly sold out for quick pay days. Tom Hanks enjoyed early success and since has bamboozled studios into paying exorbitant sums of money for inane pictures that leave us guessing where his personality went? Is it on vacation or lost in translation? Julia Roberts stole our hearts in Pretty Woman and then she ripped them away just as quickly with twenty years of compost. Even this question could involve hundreds of examples and possibly none of them are satisfying or definitive enough.

     Is a high grossing box office result indicative of an actor’s talent? Leonardo DiCaprio rocked Titanic and that is the second highest grossing movie ever. Viggo Mortensen led the Lord of the Rings trilogy to astounding box office success. Avatar’s Sam Worthington is the lead in the highest grossing movie of all time. I think his acting is insincere at best, flat-lined at worst. In an interesting twist, Johnny Depp has been impressive at times but in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (the fourth highest grossing picture of all time) I believe he is a fruitcake. He acts like a drunken moron who is flagrantly metrosexual, aloof and is frankly an eyesore. So it is unclear if box office success is a good barometer for measuring an actor’s talent, even if it often determines his financial/career success.

     Does an actor’s ability to utterly immerse himself into a character count as a qualifier? Absolutely, it must, but this often goes overlooked for reasons I will explain. In Valkyrie Tom Cruise is clearly Col. Von Stauffenberg and not himself trying to convince us otherwise. He is completely the character through and through. In Wonder Boys Michael Douglas plays Professor Grady Tripp, and looks exactly as Michael Chabon coveted in his bestselling novel. Meanwhile let’s look at the most recent Star Wars trilogy. Ewan McGregor becomes Obi Wan Kenobi while Hayden Christensen (I love the guy but please) failed to become even a fraction of what Anakin Skywalker is in writing. He simply blew it and his performance spoiled the series in many ways. In Sherlock Holmes Jude Law plays Dr. Watson to perfection. Sure, we realize it is Law but we see Dr. Watson’s personality and character unfold. The only apparent aspect of Law’s persona is that thick, throaty accent. Overall, it is clear this is a good question to ask, but one that is as ambiguous as any other given a viewer’s preference.

     Finally, there is one more question that must be raised. Does an actor have to be placed in a great movie to be considered great? The opposite is often true. Chris Evans in Fantastic Four? I like Evans but he is arrogant and flashy. How about Forest Whitaker? He is a brilliant actor who enhances films by his very presence. Still, his films (Vantage Point, Repo Men, Street Kings) have often been labeled mediocre by critics and the box office numbers confirm their diagnosis. Yet, his performances are top-notch if not brilliant without a single blemish. Jodie Foster dazzled us with Silence of the Lambs and The Brave One but Contact was horrendous. She is a great actor but cannot save every film. Is it the job of an agent and an actor to ensure they will star only in the films with the best written scripts? How can one really know for sure what the end result will be? Nicholas Cage brought the house down with National Treasure and then starred in the sequel which was more like a "Sqeakuel" if you ask me. Thus the question becomes convoluted. Does an actor have to make a film great by their performance alone? Or are they supposed to simply be a mechanism in the churning machinery that is a brilliant picture?

     Frankly, I could have taken any number of actors and substituted them for the ones I chose. I am not here to defend my choices, but the questions can go on for hours. Perhaps a better selection would have made more sense, that criticism I am open to and feel free to write to me if you like. When labeling who is/was/will be great, I try to take into account everything aforementioned. Shamefully, actors such as James Marsden are masters of their craft but remain unpopular and widely unnoticed. Some simply have box office appeal or have been anointed the chosen ones by movie studios. So I implore you before watching another film, take a moment, an hour, even a week and digest all of this. Decide for yourself what makes an actor special and try to apply your model to all future movies. That way rather than simply waiting to be entertained, try immersing yourself in an actor’s performance and enjoy the show for a new and better reason.