How do you 'rate' an actor/actress?

How do you 'rate' an actor or an actress? what in ur opinion are the essential factors that an individual needs to be given the name of actually being a good actor or actress?

Alot of actors/actresses get called names for overacting or whatever, or some are given credit or hyped to the skys for their acting talent even though some say their appears to be a lack of it - what's your criteria as a viewer - what fits your description of someone to be a rated actor or actress?

An actor/actress needs audience,unless he/she is standing in front of a mirror.

The bigger the audience,the better 'rated' ,the actor.Without their acceptance they are nothing.The people have to pay or it is curtains for their act!They can't just perform for a dozen critics and cronies LOL .

My criteria is the actor should appear as the character in the movie. I should not see the actor in the movie i.e. Sharukh Khan the star in Om Shanti Om, but rather his character. For me it depends on the way they enact the character, and the manner in which the character is portrayed. Body language, expressions, speech - I hold everything in account. Also, I rate an actor/actress on the diversity of their roles, and I don't like watching an actor in similar type of roles, since that limits their scope.

Originally posted by: Gossip Girl

My criteria is the actor should appear as the character in the movie. I should not see the actor in the movie i.e. Sharukh Khan the star in Om Shanti Om, but rather his character. For me it depends on the way they enact the character, and the manner in which the character is portrayed. Body language, expressions, speech - I hold everything in account. Also, I rate an actor/actress on the diversity of their roles, and I don't like watching an actor in similar type of roles, since that limits their scope.

Agree with everything you said. I "rate" an actor based on whether I am convinced by the character they are playing. A performance shouldn't look laboured either. You should see the actor transform themselves into the character they are playing.

ajooni: what you describe is a star or an entertainer. not an actor.

1) being able to be the character of the film...from dialogues to body language to clothes to hair...everything has to speak the character...and at the end of the movie the character will stay with me... regardless of the person acting...my likes dislikes everything.

2) over a period of time the actor has to play various characters and not just stick to what he/she is good at....versatility is very imp!

3) screen presence...must light up the screen or capture your attention when they are on the screen...if the actor puts you to sleep...that's no good! lol!

Ajooni: I think what Lifeolicious was trying to say was that your criteria can be used to judge who is a bigger star (some stars are good actors, some are not), but not a good actor.

In the overrated/underrated thread I said the same thing about people like Konkona or Abhay Deol and the like. That they are not popular but they do have their own loyal following and have received a lot critical praise/awards with more credibility than filmfare, zee etc. So to me those actors are not underrated.

Whenever I like a film I hope it works commercially not because commercial success is a barometer of talent or quality, but so that more films like that can be made. This is the same reason that I will watch an SRK film on a DVD or when it is aired on TV, but I try to watch an Abhay Deol/Kay Kay Menon film in the theatre.


PS: I think Rahul Bose is extremely overrated as an actor, but I did have a Konkona avi and Naseeruddin Shah and Abhay Deol sigs till not that long ago. But I don't see how some people supporting a "Star" means that we should change what we think counts as good acting.

Originally posted by: ajooni

Like voting in a democracy.. majority decides who are the leaders..big leaders and small leaders,depending on the numbers.

Yeah but once they are chosen it's not like they are all competent. There are also ways you can win a election that may not reflect the majority voices. 😆 Besides some leaders do well some don't. Hence you cannot judge an actor by their star power.

And stars don't have to be actors...Sachin Tendulkar is still the biggest star in India I think and he is not an actor.

@Ajooni
Yes we are the part of the audience and every member of it has a right to their own opinion and each opinion is legitimate. I don't see what being from IITs or IIMs has to do with the kind of films you like. Judging films is a very subjective exercise. And so there can be no absolutes and we can only offer our opinions.

I was just trying to explain my thought process when watching films and perhaps it does not conform to how the majority of the Bollywood audience views films, but my "rating" or criteria for rating is just as legitimate as the majority's.

Honestly I am not even sure I get what you are trying to say.

I guess that is where the problem lies. I rate actors based on whether they exhibit good acting or not. And I thought that is what this thread was about. You seem to have a different interpretation of what the question is.

Edit to add: For me acting is acting - whether it is bollywood or tollywood is pointless. Of course Hindi films involve songs and dancing and I enjoy those sequences when I think they are done well. And it is pleasing to the eyes to watch a good dancer on screen as opposed to a bad one. But I wouldn't call that an essential part of being a "good actor". Also I think Kay Kay Menon is very good looking.😃