Advertisement

Why Do Critics and Scholars Dismiss Blockbuster Performances?

  • Daniel Smith-Rowsey
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Screen Industries and Performance book series (PSSIP)

Abstract

In this introduction, Smith-Rowsey establishes his book’s rationale, countering the conventional wisdom that “special effects are the stars” of modern blockbuster films. Formal strategies of blockbusters—for example, green screens, kinetic action, rapid-fire editing—are thought to result in “artificial” or “cartoonish” performances, but here the author counters that the acting in influential big-budget films is better and more appropriate than its reputation suggests. Entering into longstanding debates about screen performances, Smith-Rowsey questions the nature of taste and the term “bad acting.” The author examines a variety of definitions of “great acting” as well as “blockbuster,” concluding that the blockbuster mode is sufficient to encompass and attenuate several genres, whose generic codes inform and are informed by performances. Smith-Rowsey posits that filmic performances have three leading determinants: the script/genre, the actor’s choices, and the director/editor’s choices. The author pays particular attention to the interplay between actors (“ensemble acting”) and the double standards that accrue to women in leading roles in blockbusters.

References

  1. Austin, Thomas. Hollywood, Hype, and Audiences. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  2. Bode, Lisa. Making Believe: Screen Performance and Special Effects in Popular Cinema. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
  3. Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson. Film History: An Introduction. 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.Google Scholar
  4. Carnicke, Sharon Marie. “From Acting Guru to Movie Star: Lee Strasberg as Actor,” in Contemporary Hollywood Stardom, edited by Thomas Austin and Martin Barker, 139–159. New York: Bloomsbury USA, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. Cornea, Christine. “2-D Performance and the Re-Animated Actor in Science Fiction,” in Genre and Performance: Film and Television, edited by Christine Cornea, 148–165. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
  6. Corrigan, Timothy, and Patricia White. The Film Experience: An Introduction. 3rd Edition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012.Google Scholar
  7. deCordova, Richard. Picture Personalities: The Emergence of the Star System in America. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. Giannetti, Louis, and Scott Eyman. Flashback: A Brief History of Film. 6th Edition. Boston: Pearson Books, 2010.Google Scholar
  9. Mast, Gerald, and Bruce Kawin. A Short History of the Movies. 11th Abridged Edition. Boston: Pearson Books, 2012.Google Scholar
  10. Seitz, Matt Zoller. “Stay, little Valentine: Philip Seymour Hoffman, 1967–2014.” Rogerebert.com, Feb. 2, 2014. Accessed February 1, 2018. https://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/stay-funny-valentine-phillip-seymour-hoffman-1967-2014.
  11. Smith-Rowsey, Daniel. Star Actors in the Hollywood Renaissance: Representing Rough Rebels. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Vidal, Belén. Heritage Film: Nation, Genre, and Representation. London: Wallflower Press, 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Smith-Rowsey
    • 1
  1. 1.Saint Mary’s College of CaliforniaMoragaUSA

Personalised recommendations