Do you think a good actor/actress is the one who is involved in all the film making?

[kitty71]

or a good actor is the only who only acts and have a great preformance and that is all.

There are actors who are directors, writers executive producers, and are involved in many things behind the camera and they just not act for the sake of acting period, they want to be involved in all: budgets, scripts, etc. For me that is a good quality performer. The ones who only act for hte same of starring and that is all, I believe that is not a good entertainer. I also like the actors who dont mind to take risks and are not typecast in certain movie roles. I like the ones who can pull of being a assasin, villain, comedian, etc who can play many roles. There are some entertainers that you know are only hired to play a certain type of role and they are typecast with those roles mainly, for me that is not being a good performance (Jennifer Aniston, she only is hired to play almost the same character over and over again, she ain't good actress on the big screen, she was good on Friends that is all.

I like actor Chris Pine, the guy not only is super handsome and good looking, but he has starred in TV, Big screen, he had been the producer of some of his own TV films and TV shows, he also is a writer, he can sing, he can play funny characters but also serious characters, he is very versatile.

[Amy10223]

Some actors are typecast because of looking a certain way or having being cast in many roles that have him or her play a certain kind of character. Matthew McConaughey is an example, playing romantic comedies until he got tired of them and refused to play that kind of role for a year, and was finally offered a more serious type of character role in a new film.
But in answer to your question, I do like an actor who is as cooperative as possible with the directors, and takes suggestions, risks, and even offers his or her own suggestions as to what can be improved. However, that’s where I think directors draw the line and want the actors to do exactly what they want them to do, and I personally feel actors should fill that mold 100%, and let the directors take the lead. Unless it’s for a very good reason and they refuse, giving the director something they can both work on. It’s good to have an actor on the set who is willing and able to accept whatever part or scene he has to do, and not one who refuses to take direction and argues a lot. It’s easier for everyone working on a set.

[Pinay_ako]

A good actor is one who immerses himself into his role. Listen to what the director and writer say so he can fully understand what the role is about. Also he can input to make it better. Study his role. Also, able to convince and deliver his audience that he isn’t acting. That the role was meant for him. Let the directors and writers do their job, and do yours. That’s what a good actor is.

[kitty71]

what about those who have pother jobs in the fiml making like i said producers writers directors those taks not every actor does it

[Havthrills]

It all depends on the actor/actress. Like Seth Rogan did some decent films and he helped with a few but he's not in The Boys and he's part of the writing and producing. Awesome show. Benedict Cumberbatch helped some with Sherlock but not much with Dr Strange. It all depends.

[UnknownSwede]

I think you have both. Some are good actors but need someone to direct them to do a good job. Without a good director you won't get a good result with them.

I can't think of anyone from the top of my head, because I suck at remembering names of actors/actresses.

[MarkRet]

It varies on how much skill an actor has. Those are all different jobs. Clint Eastwood is an actor who can do everything really well. Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz were good at doing everything. They're about the only ones I can think of.

[pizzalovershouse]

Just her role above thoughts on how to portray

[jimmy2]

Yes that helps