Well, for starters, you can’t really go wrong with the ones listed above. Also this question generally refers to actors that people have heard of or are stars. Some of the best acting in movies today are done by unknown character actors or bit players. Beg to differ? While many critics often argue about the believability of stars in certain roles (Harrison Ford as a Russian submarine captain?), how many arguments have you heard about whether or not the actor playing the garbage man is believable. Sure, the role may not be large enough or memorable enough, but if that actor was not believable in their performance you would notice. So for the sake of argument, let’s stick with actors or movie stars who are well known or famous.

If you were to use the Academy Awards as a measuring stick, the winner would be Jack Nicholson who has 3 Oscars for acting. But, the Academy Awards are as much about politics and popularity as they are about quality so that should not be the lone factor in determining our answer. In fact, I think we shall only use the Academy Awards only as a starting point for discussions about who the best actor is. Our main criteria will be memorable roles and believability. So let’s start with the usual suspects

Jack Nicholson

Argument For:

Jack is so well known as an icon and bad boy that people sometimes forget what an amazing actor he is. A winner of three Academy Awards (Best Actor for One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and As Good As It Gets and a Best Supporting Actor for Terms of Endearment), Jack has had more iconic movies and memorable performances than other actors have had roles on their entire resume. Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, Chinatown, The Shining, A Few Good Men… the list goes on.

Argument Against:

A tendency to overact and chew the scenery when allowed, Jack has oftentimes been blamed for just playing himself instead of creating a character. Also, his larger than life persona can sometimes overpower the story and hijack the movie.

Be Sure To Check Out:

The Crossing Guard, The Pledge, About Schmidt.

Al Pacino

Argument For:

If anyone can match Nicholson in terms of iconic movies and roles, it’s Pacino. His resume reads like a critics Top movies list. The Godfather, Serpico, The Godfather Part II, Dog Day Afternoon, Scarface, Glengarry Glen Ross, Donnie Brasco, The Insider… . It’s hard to imagine another actor doing all these roles. And he does Shakespeare too! Is there another actor as good at delivering monologues?

Argument Against:

Hooya! His post-Scent of a Woman roles often come in two varieties: loud and louder.

Be Sure To Check Out:

Looking for Richard, The Merchant of Venice

Dustin Hoffman

Argument For:

A brilliant actor capable of tackling a diverse range of challenging roles and making you believe him. The Graduate, Midnight Cowboy, All the President’s Men, Lenny, Marathon Man, Kramer vs. Kramer, Tootsie, Rain Man.

Argument Against:

Has a reputation for being difficult to work with. Hasn’t really seemed interested in pushing himself since Rain Man.

Be Sure To Check Out:

Straw Dogs, Papillon.

Robert De Niro

Argument For:

An intense actor known for his extreme Method preparation for his roles. Gained over 60 pounds to play Jake La Motta in Raging Bull where he won an Oscar for Best Actor. Also won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for The Godfather Part II. His best roles include Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter, Raging Bull, The King of Comedy, Once Upon a Time in America, Heat. He can almost make a Martin Scorcese movie tolerable.

Argument Against:

Limited range. Doesn’t do comedy well. De Niro’s great at playing intense characters prone to violence and psychopathic behaviors. Anything else and he often resorts to mugging for the camera (best seen in the Analyze This and Meet the Parents movies). Now he’s only a paycheck actor. Don’t believe me? How else can you explain Hide and Seek and The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle?

Be Sure To Check Out:

The Untouchables and Cop Land.

Tom Hanks

Argument For:

Good in both comedy and drama, Hanks has shown an increasing range over the years. Impressive in finding the human element in his characters and showing the audience what that character is thinking. He also has the ability to anchor an otherwise silly movie and make you believe in the story. Best roles include Splash, Big, Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, Apollo 13, Toy Story and Saving Private Ryan.

Argument Against:

Range. Tom Hanks has nailed the Everyman role and regular Joe type parts but has yet to prove that he can go darker or tougher.

Be Sure To Check Out:

Cast Away

Kevin Spacey

Argument For:

He’s won two Oscars for acting starting with a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for The Usual Suspects and followed up with a Best Actor win for American Beauty. Spacey’s at his best when he’s slinging bile and venting his anger. His memorable performances include Glengarry Glen Ross, Swimming With Sharks, L.A. Confidential and Seven.

Argument Against:

Pay It Forward, K-Pax and Beyond the Sea

Be Sure To Check Out:

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, The Negotiator

Robert Duvall

Argument For:

A naturalistic and versatile actor, Robert Duvall excels at creating memorable and quietly powerful characters. Capable of playing in almost any genre, Duvall often disappears into his role and makes you remember the character while forgetting who he is. Performances to check out include: To Kill a Mockingbird, The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, Network, Apocalypse Now, Lonesome Dove and Tender Mercies.

Argument Against:

Hasn’t had the challenging roles that many of his contemporaries have had. Doesn’t have as powerful a presence as some of his contemporaries.

Be Sure To Check Out:

The Apostle, Assassination Tango, Open Range

Denzel Washington

Argument For:

Strong presence. Good teeth. He’s won an Academy Award for both Best Actor (Training Day) and Best Supporting Actor (Glory).

Argument Against:

This racist actor has very little range. He takes himself too seriously and is only good at playing strong, proud black characters. Can’t play anything else and has a tendency to overact. With rare exception will he allow himself to look bad or weak on screen. Cries racism if his performances fail to win awards and garner critical support.

Be Sure To Check Out:

Man on Fire

Sean Penn

Argument For:

Powerful and intense performer that is well respected by his peers. Often called the best actor of his generation. Isn’t afraid to look bad. Standout performances include: Fast Times at Ridgemont High, At Close Range, Carlito’s Way, Dead Men Walking, Mystic River and 21 Grams.

Argument Against:

Takes himself too seriously. Can’t play comedy (see We’re No Angels). Often lets his politics inform his roles. Has trouble playing non contemporary roles.

Be Sure To Check Out:

Bad Boys, The Thin Red Line

And the winner is…

Gene Hackman

Argument For:

An impressive resume with brilliant terms in both comedies and dramas. Won an Oscar for Best Actor for The French Connection and an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for Unforgiven. While Gene Hackman has been in his share of bad movies, he is never bad nor unbelievable. Even in tepid crap, his acting is simple and naturalistic and he often steals the movie from bigger stars without ever having to overact or chew the scenery. The Moose can’t think of a single bad Gene Hackman performance. Memorable performances include: Bonnie and Clyde, I Never Sang for My Father, The French Connection, The Conversation, Superman, Reds, Under Fire, Twice in a Lifetime, Hoosiers, Mississippi Burning, Unforgiven, Narrow Margin, Crimson Tide, Get Shorty, The Royal Tenenbaums

Argument Against:

None.

Be Sure To Check Out:

Scarecrow, Young Frankenstein, The Birdcage, Heist

As you may already know, there is a difference between a movie star and an actor. A good actor is not necessarily a movie star. For example, character actor J. T. Walsh.

And there are plenty of movie stars who can’t act. Case in point:

And once in a blue moon, you will come across that rarest breed, a movie star that can act.

Now if you’re looking to do a small, intimate character study, a larger than life movie star in the lead role might be distracting from a creative or artistic point of view. For those roles, you’re better off casting a good character actor. And for big action extravaganzas you’re probably best off casting a movie star known for action. So what do you do with the movies in between? How do you best use movie stars to your advantage from a creative stand point?

I think Alfred Hitchcock had the right train of thought with regard to this aspect. Hitchcock knew how to use a movie star’s persona to expedite the storytelling process. What exactly do I mean? I’ll explain. Hitchcock made suspense thrillers and in these types of movies pacing is critical. If you were to cast an unknown character actor as the hero, the audience would need a reason to care about this character. You would have to spend time developing the character into one that the audience can sympathize with and root for. But this takes time. And in a movie where time and pacing is of the essence, too many scenes devoted to character development can slow down your thriller and bore your audience. But audiences already have a predisposition to like certain movie stars. By casting a movie star like Cary Grant or Jimmy Stewart as the hero, Hitchcock could draw audiences into the story using the star power of his actor and therefore dispense with needless character development scenes. The actor’s persona provided a shorthand that Hitchcock used to his storytelling advantage.

A more contemporary example of this would be the casting of Harrison Ford as The Fugitive. Since audiences already know and like Harrison Ford, there was no need to develop the character of Richard Kimble. The director Andrew Davis could instead focus on the Kimble’s search for the one armed man who killed his wife and create a tense, suspense thriller. While the examples I’ve given for this have both been

The other way Hitchcock used movie stars to his advantage was by using the movie star’s persona to subvert an audience’s expectations and take the story in directions they might not expect. Take for instance the story of a man who might be plotting to kill his wife for the money. Ordinarily a movie like this might be too pedestrian to keep an audience’s attention even as a made-for-television movie. But cast Cary Grant as the potentially murderous husband and you’ll have audiences glued to their seats wondering whether or not he’s going to kill his wife. Suspicion was even nominated for Best Picture and earned a Best Actress Oscar for its female star Joan Fontaine.

Or take the story of a peeping tom who spends most of his time spying on his neighbor from his window. Not exactly a movie most people would see on a Saturday night. But cast Jimmy Stewart as the peeping tom and you have the classic Rear Window. By casting against type, Hitchcock was able to get audiences to watch a much darker movie than they might normally watch.

While the examples I have given have all been thrillers, this creative use of casting could apply to any genre. The casting of Drew Barrymore as the first victim in Scream is one example as is the casting of a fat Sylvester Stallone in Cop Land. As a filmmaker, you need to understand what each movie star brings to the table with their persona and the public’s perception of them. Follow Hitchcock’s example and use your movie star’s image to your best creative advantage.

You see, the blue suited penguins believe that movie stars are essential to a film’s success. That’s why they’re willing to show the money and pay the big bucks for stars. The blue suited penguins believe that these stars can generate an enormous amount of free publicity and help to open a motion picture regardless of its quality.

The problem with this line of thinking is that movie stars do not guarantee a movie doing well on its opening weekend. They can be a factor if cast in the right role in the right story, but they can just as easily make flops as any other actors. Case in point, take Charlie Wilson’s War. Here’s a movie starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, arguably two of the biggest stars in the past fifteen years.

Yet the movie opened to a less than stellar $9.6 million dollars and came in 4th place behind National Treasure 2 – Book of Secrets, I Am Legend and Alvin and the Chipmunks. That’s right. The surefire pairing of two of Hollywood’s biggest stars loses to a movie starring Jason Lee and a trio of animated chipmunks.

Want another example? Take Lions For Lambs. Here’s a movie starring Tom Cruise, Robert Redford and Meryl Streep. There’s no denying the star power involved on this film. First you have Tom Cruise who is one of the highest grossing actors ever. Then you add ’70s matinee idol Robert Redford and The Devil Wears Prada star Meryl Streep, who also happens to be one of the most celebrated actresses of her generation, and you should have a pure box office bonanza, right?

Perhaps not. Even with all the star power involved on this movie, Lions For Lambs could only open at number 4 at the weekend box office losing out to Bee Movie, American Gangster and Fred Claus. All the movie stars in the world couldn’t help that movie.

People will not go see a movie just for the stars anymore. I’m not sure they ever did. It was always dependent on both the story and the type of movie. Put Sylvester Stallone in Rocky and you have a hit. Put him in Rhinestone and you’ll have a flop on your hands. Cast Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones and you’ll be raking in the money. Cast him as a Russian submarine captain in K-19: The Widowmaker and you’ll have both an embarrassment and an expensive box office failure.

But what about the blue suited penguins’s notion that casting stars gets you tons of free publicity that you wouldn’t have otherwise gotten? Just keep in mind that nothing is free. You had to pay for the damn movie star, didn’t you? Sure you might get a lot of chances to promote your film with magazine covers and appearances on Leno or Letterman or Craig Ferguson, but you could have bought just as much exposure if not more with the money you used to pay for your movie star. Think about it. Did all the free publicity that came with casting Angelina Jolie in A Mighty Heart equal the amount of advertising or press you could have bought with her $10 million salary? I think the answer you’ll find is no.

Does that mean that movie stars are useless? After all, what good are movie stars if they can’t guarantee a movie’s opening and the free publicity you get is less than what their salaries would have bought? The answer is no. Movie stars have their place and use. From a financial standpoint, movie stars help to drive the DVD sales and rental markets. A person is more likely to rent or buy the DVD of a movie starring Jet Li even if they never saw the film in its original theatrical release than they are to rent or buy a straight to video film starring someone they’ve never heard of. That’s why faded and fat former action stars like Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme still have healthy careers making straight to video movies. People are more likely to see one of these clunkers starring someone they know over a movie they’ve never heard of starring someone unknown.

To be fair, Stein mentions that there are plenty of box office draws (he names Will Smith, Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Ben Stiller, Adam Sandler, Johnny Depp) and even more famous celebrities (Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lopez, Lindsay Lohan), but as Joel Stein puts it “no one besides Clooney is so gracefully both.” Really? You mean this guy?

I don’t think so. People are quick these days to write about the demise of movie stars and anoint their
favorite actor as the last movie star. The problem with this is that as long as there are movies, there will always be movie stars.

What people miss is the mystery and glamour of Hollywood’s Golden era. What they forget is that many of the stars in that era were manufactured by the Studios. Sure, many of them were talented or effortlessly charming as if they were a different breed from you and me, but the vast majority of them were created by the studio system that controlled every aspect of their public personas. How they talked, how they walked, who they could be seen in public with…, that’s hard to do these days with all the instant media and the tabloids and the paparazzi and sites like TMZ.

Still, that doesn’t mean that movie stars are an endangered species. And as for George Clooney, I still find it hard that anyone would even consider him a movie star. If he’s a star than he’s a manufactured star; a product of magazine editors like Matthew McConaughey. Except for the Ocean’s Trilogy and the special effects spectacle The Perfect Storm, none of his movies make any money. Tyler Perry’s movies make more money than Clooney’s. And even though he’s won an Oscar, it’s because he’s more well liked by the industry than talented. He certainly hasn’t turned in an iconic performance. Not like Cary Grant being chased by a plain in North By Northwest or Humphrey Bogart as Rick in Casablanca. As for his overrated charm, Clooney works a little too hard to be charming and cool. He gets press because the industry and magazine editors like him. You want someone who’s cool, charming and at ease with his celebrity without much effort, cast Hugh Jackman.

The reason I think this is that most people think that character is a collection of traits. They think, “Napoleon Dynamite, wow, what a great character,” because they see the glasses and nerdy behavior as character.

Guess what? Those are character traits. They’re not character. Actors, when they’re researching a role, often invent elaborate histories to help them develop the character. But that’s not character development, that’s back story. Many writers follow the advice of writing books and writing classes when creating a character by asking questions like, “what does the character look like?” or “what is this character’s greatest fear?” or “what are the flaws of this character?”. But those questions have nothing to do with character.

So what is character then? The dictionary defines character as “the combination of qualities and features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another.” So what does that mean? Well, for starters, it rules out looks, at least for writers. Character is not the way one looks or the way one dresses. Why? Because you could give another person Napoleon Dynamite’s hair, glasses and clothes and still distinguish that person from Napoleon Dynamite.

So what makes up character then? It’s not what one likes. Giving your character an obsession over teddy bears or a fear of snakes is not character because many people like teddy bears and are afraid of snakes. So what is character?

Character is what a person says or does in any given situation. That’s it. That’s what distinguishes on person from another. The words they say, actions they take and their reactions to events. That’s all character is.

“But what about the character’s appearance?,” you might ask, or “what about their lifelong dream to become a world figure skating champion?” Forget it. Neither of them is character. The character will look like the actor and whatever cosmetic flourishes the director chooses to bestow on the actor. And how the character pursues their lifelong dream to become a world figure skating champion will define that character. The dream itself is just a dream.

As for actors, they do not need to “become” the character as so many Method actors strive to do. There is no need to walk around the set in character. The actor’s job is to say the lines and communicate the story to the audience. The audience cannot know what an actor is thinking or feeling at any one point. It’s all an illusion. Besides, the emotion of what the actor is feeling is irrelevant in movies. It’s the emotions of the audience that is important. The illusion of character is created by the simple and uninflected direction of actors cut together in shots in the context of a story.

How does that help you as a writer or filmmaker to develop character? It’s simple. It all comes back to story. Your characters will form in the minds of the reader or the audience when they see the people in your story act and react to the events that unfold. The characters that take actions towards achieving their goals will be conceived as strong while the characters that merely react to events will be seen as passive and weak.

Have you ever gotten caught up in a good book and enthralled by one of the characters in it? Then when you see the movie, you ask, “how could they get the character of _____ so wrong?”. The answer is simple. The audience wants to be involved in the story. Thus the more specific you are on character traits, appearances and quirks, the less successful the character is in a movie. Because the more detailed and specific you are on film, the less the viewer can fill in the blanks and create a character in their minds.

Take for instance, the character of Anton Chigurh from No Country For Old Men. Aside from the European page boy hair cut, there are not a lot of details given about this character.

For the most part, the character is kind of a blank. But his actions and his words, especially the conversation between him and gas station attendant, allow you to form your own ideas about the character in your head. The result is a character that has captured the imagination of the audience. You want proof? Take a look at all the Best Supporting Actor awards that Javier Bardem has swept this year. Bardem was intelligent enough and brave enough to play the role simply, and thus allow the audience to create the character in their minds. Focus on telling a good story and trust in your audience to help you create the characters.