What is Great Acting?

[vrinda]

This a topic I have discussed many times on Mike's old guestbook, and was a long time coming for me to bring up here. When the new show premiered, many people took the message boards and comments sections of online articles about it to make negative comments on Jack Lord's acting, calling him wooden, stiff, cold, distant, aloof, etc. - the latter three of which were more complimentary than the first two.

I recently read an article by a New York Times TV critic named Mike Hale, which was published in 2017 and about Daniel Dae Kim and Grace Park left, and how the new show should have had better casting of Asians from the beginning. There were 99 comments on that article, a few of which mentioned the original show negatively, as was expected: One guy said he had a distaste for the original because he found the idea of two white cops being asked to bring law and order to a group of islands predominated by Asians to be silly. One jerk said he didn't know that for the past seven years that CBS had been airing a "reboot of this braindead series," while another called the new show "a sequel to a mediocre series."

One poster said that Jack Lord was "nobody's idea of a great (or even good) actor, but generic and colorless he was not." That poster had referred to Alex O'Loughlin as generic and colorless in a previous sentence.

And how can an actor who is described as not being generic and colorless, still not be considered a good, if not great, actor? Isn't one of the purposes of acting to make your character stand out so they are not lacking in substance? That is certainly what Jack did in every role he played.

Jack was not of the same caliber Laurence Olivier, though Mr. Olivier must have thought something of him in order to allow him to take his place in a line reading during an actress' audition. But then again, how many actors are?

Just what standards do we use when he judge great, good, or bad acting?

Your thoughts, everyone.

[Bobbi]

I'm sure I'll have more to say to this later. But here's what I have:

In general, at least for me, can the actors/actresses make me believe them? Can I buy what they're selling? Am I watching somebody simply go through the motions or have they sucked me in to believe they are actually the characters they are? This last bit is what my dad truly enjoyed about watching TV shows and movies. He passed in 2008 but I remember one of his favorite actors was Sam Elliott because that man could make you believe whomever he was at the the time and still does. Elliott would melt into his characters and you saw the characters he was being, not merely playing.

As far as the negative comments from that 2017 article, I take them with the grain of salt they were typed with. I get people like what they like but to slam something else as your defense is petty and stupid and means you don't have a leg to stand on. I don't know what these people like except perhaps just a bunch of massive explosions and lot of kick ass fighting (there's a time and place for those too, I'm not slamming them per se just using it as an example). Many movies we're seeing being produced today are placing these things in place of story and characters but that's just my opinion.

As far as the original being "mediocre" or "braindead", well consider me mediocre and braindead because I've been pretty much watching the original Five-O NON-STOP since the Fall of 2017 when MeTV aired it in the mid-late afternoons (5 p.m. Alaska time) and I initially watched just to listen to the theme! Those dang teasers in Seasons 1-4 sucked me in and I've been hooked since. We watched Five-O during the original run when I was growing up because I remember the theme very well and I know my dad liked it a lot. There were three shows he would watch whenever they were on: Gunsmoke, Star Trek (the original) and Hawaii Five-O. I think the reason I got hooked on it now is because I'm not 5 years old anymore or even 10, I'm 50 and I've been out in the world; retired from the U.S. military. I know that's made a difference because I get some of the subtleties of the series rather than just the chases and shoot-em-ups.

There are places in some episodes were Jack Lord is overacting but I pretty much blow that off because it's not that much of a deterrent and it doesn't ruin the episode. One example is this week's 50th anniversary episode, Blind Tiger at the beginning when he's on the pavement. On the other hand, there are episodes that would have been absolute failures (and for some people they are and that's ok, that's their opinion and I'm an odd duck) if it weren't for the acting. As well, there are some that fail miserably because of the lack of acting. Five-O isn't the only show to have this happen to them either!

I can't speak about the reboot other than what I read in Mr. Mike's reviews, I don't watch it. It has failed to suck me in and I'm not willing to give it a chance because I really don't want to be bogged down by all their excessive soap opera clutter.

[Todd]

Bobbi, you're 50? Don't take this the wrong way, but I always thought you were older! I pictured you being in your late 60s, having watched the original as a young adult.

I'm slightly younger than you -- about to turn 48!

Regarding the acting, I agree with you regarding Jack Lord. He overacted at times, but for the most part he WAS McGarrett, and was quite believable in the role. The acting "problem" on the original Five-O came from some of the small role guest characters, as these positions were typically filled by locals with zero acting experience. This added authenticity to the Hawaiian setting, but you did have to overlook the bad acting at times. However, we're still seeing the same issues on the new show, 50 years later, as some of the guest characters are also poor actors.

[Bobbi]

Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong generation Todd

I agree with what you're saying about the local actors but again, I tend to not worry about them too much because there was the authenticity factor that outweighs the poor acting.

[vrinda]

Thank you all for replying. I meant to respond to this thread sooner, but I got bogged down with other stuff and the FB Hawaii Five-O groups. What I never could understand is what did people want from Jack Lord in general. It seems that no matter what he did, people found something to criticize. If he was serious, stern, stoic, and reserved, they called him wooden and stiff. If he shows emotions - either sadness, anger, passion, contempt, abrasiveness, etc. - they say he's chewing the scenery. Which way do they want it?

Then they complain that the story lines revolved around Jack. Jack didn't write the scripts, and he didn't tell the writers what to write. He played the lead investigator, so he would get to do more in the story line. However, he still didn't get the majority of screen time in every episode, unless the crime of the week involved McGarrett personally.

Another criticism people made of Jack was that he was too preachy. It looks like people can't separate the actor from the character. It wasn't Jack who was being preachy. He was playing Steve McGarrett, a fictional character, and the lines he said were written for him by other writers, so it was their words he was saying. Even then, he wasn't preaching. Between all of us, we have seen every episode at least once and as much as much 5 times or more. Was McGarrett preaching in all or some of them? No. I only remember him preaching in that Season 12 episode about the gun, but it needed to be done. Some might think his lecture to the father in The Computer Killer was preaching, but it was two sentences he said about how machines can compute information, but we expect more from people, and the father hired the killer, so he needed more than a lecture. It seems people forget that the people on the receiving end of those lectures were criminals - murders, con artists, kidnappers, etc. Do they expect him to kind to them?

[ringfire211]

A fellow over on the Magnum-Mania site seems to think that Karl Malden was a better actor than Jack Lord. Because I posed a question that it didn’t make sense that Jack was never Emmy nominated for Five-O while guys like Malden (for Streets of San Fran), Mike Connors (for Mannix), William Conrad (for Cannon) all were. And this is even in spite of the fact that Five-O was a bigger hit show in the ratings than either of those. I said it’s all got to do with politics. Jack didn’t play their game so they snubbed him. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Yeah I know Malden won an Oscar and starred in many prestigious films but he was just a solid serviceable character actor in the movies. Nothing more, nothing less. But if we’re just talking about his TV work on SOSF then you gotta be kidding me that he did a better job than Lord did on his show. It’s not even close. Same with Mike Connors and William Conrad. Solid performers in their respective shows but better than Lord? Worthy of repeat nominations while none for Lord? I don’t think so. I wonder if Conrad was getting nominated because of his weight lol. Maybe a portly PI was considered a novel idea at the time. Like Raymond Burr in a wheelchair in Ironside. That’s another egregious example right there! Burr was nominated 5 (!!!) times for that role, this despite him being a terribly dull and dour presence on the screen. So it’s gotta be for the disability angle.

[John Chergi]

Good question posed and responses. I think Jack Lord was a great actor. We are still talking about McGarrett and Classic HFO 🌊 50+ years later. McGarrett is an iconic character. He must have done something right. I see McG as kind of an Untouchable type law enforcement man. He was about honor and integrity. A man of iron. He wasn't going to bend justice in his favor or take bribes or other gifts to enrich himself. He was dedicated to HFO and could not be bought. HFO was a small group and it made sense they worked themselves to the bone. 6 sometimes 7 days a week. The Classic HFO fans realize the criminals would sometimes strike on Sunday. The Sunday Torch and Savage Sunday for example. HFO would have to be brought in from sailing or surfing or whatever they were doing to start investigating.

I think some of these awards can be political. Jack Lord didn't seem to be the type to play the game necessary to politic for awards. He was busy acting and later directing the episodes. Jack Lord had plenty on his plate especially after Leonard Freeman passed. I thought Jack could show the necessary emotion when it was required. EX: Once Upon A Time when he was in the darkened HFO room crying. Emotional after his sister's little boy's death from cancer. Also, he had an amazing scene when he talked about his father killed by fleeing criminals in Number One With A Bullet. Conversing with Allie Francis. I never knew how his father died before. McG flashed his anger and intensity more than crying. Danno had a strong friendship with McGarrett. You can see that in The Young Assassins and The Case Against McGarrett when each escaped from possible death. They could have made those final scenes overly emotional. I liked that it was more professional.

I believe Karl Malden was an excellent actor and a young Michael Douglas also went on to have an outstanding career as an actor himself. Stone was the police veteran Lieutenant and Keller the young intelligent Inspector with his college degree and good looks. The new generation. It worked Streets Of SF because Stone and Keller had a good chemistry and Keller would listen to Stone's veteran wisdom. Michael Douglas has talked about his love and respect he had for Karl Malden. A strong friendship.

I'm surprised Jack Lord and Hawaii Five-O 🌊 didn't win more awards. Excellent episodes and writers. The 1970's was a Golden Age for TV and Detective shows. There was Cannon, Columbo, Hawaii Five-O, Kojak, Streets Of San Francisco, The Rockford Files etc. I doubt we will ever see that quality and talent in display again. People have so many options now with cable and satellite TV channels and can watch episodes later on YouTube or Season DVD's. Back in the 1970's, there was ABC, CBS, NBC and a few other channels. People had to watch their favorite TV shows at their day and time. JC

[ringfire211]

Well said. McGarrett was a character with a strong moral compass. It was either black or white. No gray area. I’m so tired of TV “heroes” today who are “flawed” characters and who operate in gray areas because life isn’t black and white. Gimme a break! Our generation needs strong moral characters to look up to. Because they’re growing up with no clue about what’s right and what’s wrong. Everything today is relative. It all “depends”. Right is whatever you feel is right. That’s why our society is quickly decaying.

[Will]

And how can an actor who is described as not being generic and colorless, still not be considered a good, if not great, actor? Isn't one of the purposes of acting to make your character stand out so they are not lacking in substance? That is certainly what Jack did in every role he played.


Easy. Plenty of actors are neither bland nor colorless, but nonetheless, were pretty poor actors. Mr. T comes to mind, as does Madonna. But then, there are actors who are bland and colorless, but goo, like, say Jeffrey Hunter (in the right role). I'm not sure your second statement is always true. One of the (unstated) jobs of a supporting actor is not to steal focus from the lead. I'd argue William Schallert owed his lengthy career to being just that sort of actor.

Lord was a decent actor, but had a really limited range, a sort of less charismatic Gary Cooper. He was best playing intense guys with barely-contained rage percolating beneath the surface. Watching him making out with Nancy Kwan in Cocoon, on the other hand, is kind of cringey.

[Will]

The problem you almost always have with amateur actors is they tend to just read lines; they usually training or experience to be, as actors like to say, "fully present" in a scene. And of course some of them are just not very good. Acting isn't easy. Watch George Lazenby try to play James Bond. That's proof that acting isn't easy.

[ringfire211]

Lord was a decent actor, but had a really limited range, a sort of less charismatic Gary Cooper. He was best playing intense guys with barely-contained rage percolating beneath the surface.

I dunno but I’d rather watch Jack Lord than Gary Cooper. Coop was a fine actor but he was more of an American institution (like John Wayne) than a truly great thespian. I mean look at Anthony Mann’s western MAN OF THE WEST. Coop is just fine in it but he’s basically just playing his Gary Cooper type. But Jack Lord is the real scene stealer in the film! You could argue that playing a vicious baddie gives Lord the edge over the straight-faced Coop but it also shows that Lord had more experience stretching his range over the years - from playing heavies in dozens of TV shows in the 50s and 60s to playing stalwart good guys like Stoney Burke or McGarrett. And as McGarrett in particular we saw him run a gamut of emotions over the 12 year period - more so in the earlier years of the show than the later ones.

[vrinda]

And how can an actor who is described as not being generic and colorless, still not be considered a good, if not great, actor? Isn't one of the purposes of acting to make your character stand out so they are not lacking in substance? That is certainly what Jack did in every role he played.


Easy. Plenty of actors are neither bland nor colorless, but nonetheless, were pretty poor actors. Mr. T comes to mind, as does Madonna. But then, there are actors who are bland and colorless, but goo, like, say Jeffrey Hunter (in the right role). I'm not sure your second statement is always true. One of the (unstated) jobs of a supporting actor is not to steal focus from the lead. I'd argue William Schallert owed his lengthy career to being just that sort of actor.

Lord was a decent actor, but had a really limited range, a sort of less charismatic Gary Cooper. He was best playing intense guys with barely-contained rage percolating beneath the surface. Watching him making out with Nancy Kwan in Cocoon, on the other hand, is kind of cringey.

it's possible to make your character stand out while not taking attention away from the lead. It's all about knowing who your character is, their role in the story, their personality, and how to create those personality traits that will make that character come to life.

Jack was more charismatic than Gary Cooper and a larger range than most people gave him credit for. How was he able to play bad guys in so many TV shows in the '50s and '60s, if he didn't have a wide acting range. His scene making out with Nancy Kwan wasn't cringey. He was playing the straightlaced cop who wasn't deeply invested in the relationship but was just having fun with her.

[Todd]

A lot of the acting also connects to the casting.

If a part is written specifically for the actor -- such as James Garner in "The Rockford Files" -- it's much easier for the actor to be convincing. In some ways, the actor plays a version of himself.

Jack Lord had some elements in common with McGarrett. Both were no-nonsense, demanding guys, who were serious about their jobs. It's hard to picture McGarrett (at least the original Five-O version) having been played by anyone else but Jack Lord, which speaks well for Lord's portrayal of him.

Incidentally, the rest of the acting on Five-O wasn't great, especially by the non-actor guest stars they drew from the local population. This didn't bother me, as the locals in the series added to the authentic feel to the show, but it was a bit distracting at times. None of the supporting actors on the show were all that good acting-wise, but we got to love them anyway, because they were part of Hawaii Five-O.

Fortunately, police procedural shows don't require great acting to be enjoyable.