Uploaded with [URL=http://imageshack.us]ImageShack.us[/URL]

What irks me most about this Dracula, though, is how completely over the top Lucy's sexuality was. With the sex-kittenish portrayal of Lucy, Coppola strayed weh-heh-HEY too far from the source material. The bit that *enrages* me, though, is the brief flash of Lucy and Mina kissing - c'mon, guy. Come. On. (It's not the fact that two chicks snogged which ticks me off, it's that the characters had no such relationship and Coppola clearly stuck that bit it in there, pardon the expression, for prurient, rather than artistic, reasons.)

MEANWHILE, the one American in the original tale, Quincey P. Morris, got his due in this version, so props for *that*, at least (even if the ending strayed from the path a bit, as well). :-)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
http://www.minalobo.com

I don't think the Matrix sucked. Nor do I think Dracula sucked. But I do think Keanu did, in both. I was an actor, had many paying gigs over the course of several years, was in the union, etc. I was bush-league and pretty much low-talent. Now I'm an engineer. I think I could elucidate Keanu's terrible work from either vantage point. I haven't seen all of his movies by a long shot, but I've seen many of his popular ones. His work in Dracula is among his most disruptively bad, so I chose to log my first post here. His work in Much Ado is equally jarring to me, but it looks like few people are interested in talking about it. The typical Keanu critic generally thinks he was bad in most of his movies but "he was okay in 'The Matrix'", and that's about where I stand...except that I think his innocuous performance in that movie was more about successful casting than acting skill. And there is one massive failure in his performance that can't be easily ignored.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in explaining why his work in Dracula (or the Matrix or Speed or Much Ado) was good, I'll see if I can be convinced, but I'll also probably tell you why I think you're wrong. I haven't seen Private Idaho or Parenthood in a long time, but I seem to remember him being okay in those. I've read that he's good in The Gift - I would suspect well cast, well coached, and well-edited. Just because I think he's a bad actor doesn't mean that he can't occasionally stumble into a decent performance, if the stars align.

Lastly, as to my criticisms, for now I'll say that I don't think all his characters are exactly alike, or that his expressions are all the same, or that he's a horrible person. I do think his acting generally has a pervasive lumbering (as in wood, get it, he chuckled, buckling on his lollerskates) quality to it. But I also think he is generally energetic (he tries) and earnest (he really wants to try). He's also good-looking, which means people like to look at him, and has a decent voice, both of which make him a useful addition to a movie if he's properly deployed. Lord only knows what Coppola was thinking - maybe he thought Harker had to be vapid not to run screaming from the castle after dinner, and no one plays vapid better than Keanu. My theory on Much Ado is that Branagh was trying to prove that British actors are better than Americans and Keanu was central to his thesis. Mean, but effective. Dracula probably gave him the idea - because you can't watch the scenes between Gary Oldman and Keanu without thinking it.

I was extremely bored with Dracula and wanted my two hours back. I thought Keanu's acting did suck in there (so did Keanu, incidentally), but that the movie continued sucking even when he wasn't on screen, so I'm not going to defend that movie or any acting in it. (Though there is some excuse for Keanu's performance there - it was the last of a long streak of acting jobs he had for that year and the year before, having most recently just come off Point Break and the second Bill & Ted with barely any break between the two, and then launching straight into Dracula when all he wanted was to go back home and have a nice long rest. So by that time he pretty much just wanted to get it over and done with.)

The Matrix though. I think the issue here is how exactly we define 'acting skill'. My current take on Keanu is that he's not a bad actor (except in Dracula and a few others, but one can say the same for most actors). I do however occasionally find merit in arguments that he's a non-actor, and the reason why I can't put that down to lack of talent is because it's something that Keanu intentionally does. He's spoken about aiming for a minimalistic style, and directors and critics have mentioned the same when talking about his acting.

A 'bad' actor does what shouldn't be done (e.g. if a character is supposed to look sad but instead the actor is obviously struggling not to laugh). A 'good' actor adds more than needs to be done (e.g. if a character is supposed to look sad, the actor deepens that sadness and brings extra nuances and meaning to it and convinces you that perhaps there's more to that sadness than meets the eye). And with Keanu, if a character is supposed to look sad, Keanu's going to look sad. No more, no less. (with exceptions, of course; some of his performances were a lot more nuanced than others. I particularly liked his acting in Hardball, but it also got him a Razzie nomination, so go figure.)

And I actually like that particular acting style of his - a sort of mechanical perfectionism (for better or worse), because it makes it easier for an audience to identify with that character and see themselves in his place. With a conventionally 'good' actor, watching them is more of a spectator activity - oh, look at what this interesting person is doing. With a typical 'bad' actor, the inappropriateness is jarring and disruptive.

But with Keanu, there isn't all that extra stuff to get in the way and remind me that me and the character in question are two very different people, because their reactions are reactions I might very conceivably have ('sad', 'angry', 'happy', 'most excellent'), and their personality something I can easily slip into for a while without making very major changes to my own. Then I end up joining in creating that character by bringing my own experiences in to bear on it, and there is rarely anything in Keanu's performance that contradicts them. And that's part of the joy of it, for me at least - watching him act is a creative process.

Keanu provides the template. We fill it in. And that's something I've never been able to do to that same extent with any other actor, be they bad or good in the typical audience's eyes.

I've also found out that it's not just in my head - I've read at least two other critics who pretty much said the same thing, as have various other fans.

Another remarkable thing is that multiple people can end up with very similar expanded interpretations of his characters, sometimes based only on just a few seconds of video. It's like Keanu provides a guide for each character, with how deep or complex said character ends up seeming being dependent on how much a viewer puts into it, somehow simultaneously making it their own and yet arriving eventually at a kind of shared consensus.

I have to disagree with the general notion of Keanu as Zen master of non-acting, though. In Matrix, as in Much Ado, or Speed (skip Dracula, which you've stipulated) I see him working, not being. He is fairly muscular in his delivery, and purposeful in his movements. There are actors who appear to be still, to be a blankness upon which we can project our notions of character, to effortlessly blend. Keanu's blankness appears to me more as a lack of insight, a skating upon the surface - a dullness, not a blankness. And his characters, as he plays them, seem to project things rather than allowing them to be seen. Neo is no exception. Even when he is trying to be blank - e.g. the cop-killing scene - he projects an image of a kid trying to 'play' cool. Watch how he's moving when he pulls the pistols from his waist: stiff, swaggering. Fine - but not minimalist. In that scene I can accept that Neo might be having fun....although that could open another discussion. Anyway, there are plenty of half-assed actors out there doing un-smiling monotone. Project your fantasies at will.

I like your description of bad and good acting. But I'd disagree that bad actors do what shouldn't be done - and that's it. Bad actors also do more than should be done, and I think, contrary to your argument, that Keanu Reeves does more than should be done when he is acting badly. He works at demonstrating 'hard-boiled cop' in his first scene in Speed, chomping on his gum. His choices seem like the first ideas of a high school kid, lacking nuance.

And as he lacks depth, I also think that he lacks range: in other words, I don't think he can easily touch a broad spectrum of emotion, at least comfortably. I can't recall him being giddy in a movie, or being utterly destroyed. I think he lacks the imagination for it. If there's a performance out there that contradicts me let me know. At any rate, because I believe he demonstrates a lack of range and depth, I think your argument of non-acting is a cop-out: he CAN'T act, and so he's at his best when he just says the lines. But then....well I'll come to that later.

Here's the key failure in his performance as Neo: he never, ever provides any reason for Trinity to love him. That's on the writers/directors as well, but a better actor would have given us a nugget to make sense of the pivotal resurrection scene - it would probably only take a few moments. But because Keanu seems to lack insight as an actor, I don't think he thought it was necessary. Love is inexplicable, sure. But since Trinity's love of Neo is pivotal to the story, his connection to her needs to be established, and Keanu is at least partly responsible for the fact that it never is. Maybe he thought that his good looks and his hero status (in the story) were enough. I liked the movie, but upon subsequent viewings, that scene always plays false to me, and I don't think it's Carrie Ann Moss's fault.

Rather than finding him a simple everyman upon whom I can project my fantasies, I see an earnest dummy whom I usually have trouble believing, because he's trying too hard to be still, or sweet, or tough, or mean, or whatever. Some of that is because he sounds dumb; i.e. something in his inflections never gets too far from the beach. (Similarly, no matter how many times Stallone talks about Poe and art, I have a tough time seeing him as a scholar). But some of it is because I think he struggles to simply BE his characters.

This brings me back to the idea that he's at his best when he just says his lines (2 paragraphs up). For me, that means he's nothing but an attractive prop. So I would argue not that he's a non-actor, but that he's actually more like scenery. But that, also, is at his best. Usually I don't think he's content to just be there: he works at it. Which, contrary to your argument, disrupts the narrative rather than advancing it.

"Most of the kids coming in wanted to get any part at all. The ambitious ones tried for Romeo. Then in walked Keanu with a passion, a hunger and a zeal: he said, "I need to play Mercutio." He did the Queen Mab speech, and was extraordinary. Only twice or three times in my life have I cast someone there on the spot, but I did it with him. It struck me that he had an understanding of the piece, and of the soul of Mercutio. There was no question to me that he was a very special young man."
- Lewis Baumander (director)

"For his age he was a brilliant Mercutio. He was very exciting to watch. We sat there and wondered how someone that young could do such a super job. He had such a range of feeling from comedy to despair to a note of cynicism. At the time you really felt he was Mercutio. Possibly it was all the things Keanu was going through himself, I don't know."
- Rose Dubin (director of Leah Posluns Theatre School)

and similar.

You're actually the first person who's suggested that Keanu is best when he just says his lines; most critics actually think the opposite, i.e. that he's a passable actor until he opens his mouth. I do agree with the view that he's a better physical actor than verbal one, which is one of the reasons I'm looking forward to see what he does with Passengers - there's practically no dialogue in there for a large part of the movie.

---

Watch how he's moving when he pulls the pistols from his waist: stiff, swaggering. Fine - but not minimalist.

---

The minimalism is usually his goal, but not one he always achieves. I find it interesting that his better performances were usually those where he didn't bring that same perfectionism to the set, either because of financial or time constraints, or because he was just starting out with acting, or the director's style, or because the movie was an obligation and something he wasn't particularly invested in. For the Matrix sequels, he apparently did some takes a hundred times or more, because it had to be just right - but that ended up robbing his performances of some human quality.

"I can't recall him being giddy in a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgcYVNKGUg8 :D

---

Here's the key failure in his performance as Neo: he never, ever provides any reason for Trinity to love him.

---

I think this does have to be put down as 'love is inexplicable' - in the movie, we're shown right at the beginning that Trinity has basically been watching/stalking him for some time, under Morpheus' orders but also to the point of possible obsession ("You like watching him," Cypher says.) So she already had a crush on him before they even met, and he didn't do anything to derail her feelings. Either way, this would be a fault of the script rather than the actors - the script simply doesn't provide that room for a romantic storyline to develop.

Just to get some background, which of Keanu's films have you seen? I know that my view of his acting is kind of skewed from the majority because I've watched a lot of his 1980s work, in which his acting style was markedly different (sometimes completely opposite in strengths and weaknesses) to the stuff he produced from the late 1990s onward. Which I realise also makes my assessment of his acting contradictory at parts, because his acting style has often contradicted itself through the ages - compare Neo and Ted 'Theodore' Logan, for starters.

---

But some of it is because I think he struggles to simply BE his characters.

---

I actually got that impression with The Gift, which most people seem to think is his best performance but which I found a let down. But for lots of his other roles he thoroughly convinced me he was that character - like in Constantine.

---

Even when he is trying to be blank - e.g. the cop-killing scene - he projects an image of a kid trying to 'play' cool. Watch how he's moving when he pulls the pistols from his waist: stiff, swaggering. Fine - but not minimalist. In that scene I can accept that Neo might be having fun....although that could open another discussion

---

Why do you think that in that particular scene the actor is trying to be blank ?
I see it differently : that is Neo acting out his comics fanboy fantasies. An alter ego of the Wachowskis, basically. Neo *knows* he's in the Matrix, and puts on a 'cool'character. It's all in the moves, the attitude. But later, when the going gets really tough, all that cockiness goes away and in the subway fight with Agent Smith he's downright humbled and has to fight for his life. Completely different attitude there.
Neo goes through character development in each of the three movies of the trilogy (Reloaded and Revolutions follow the same pattern, basically, from this pov) but the real, big circle closes only at the end of Revolution. Neo the character truly finds his voice only at the end when he says 'because I choose to'. But most of the audience doesn't have the patience to follow all that.

Guess I've opened that other discussion, after all.
But what do I know? I just watch movies :|

---

Here's the key failure in his performance as Neo: he never, ever provides any reason for Trinity to love him. That's on the writers/directors as well, but a better actor would have given us a nugget to make sense of the pivotal resurrection scene - it would probably only take a few moments. But because Keanu seems to lack insight as an actor, I don't think he thought it was necessary.

---

The Matrix Revisited Filming the 'Sleeping Beauty Kiss' scene (no, they didn't actually name it that way, it's just my nickname for it. Easier to get the reference, too )
Reeves asks 'but how does she know?' (when to yell 'now' signalling to Morpheus that Neo is 'back online' and he can push that EMP button). Larry goes 'she knows'. Reeves insists 'but how does she know?' Larry: 'she *knows*'.
As an actor, how would you work with that, differently than what Reeves did?
Script is available online.
But no improv. The Wachowskis don't really like that. And remember, they're editing, too.

---

And as he lacks depth, I also think that he lacks range: in other words, I don't think he can easily touch a broad spectrum of emotion, at least comfortably. I can't recall him being giddy in a movie, or being utterly destroyed. I think he lacks the imagination for it. If there's a performance out there that contradicts me let me know.

---

The Last Time I Committed Suicide
Thumbsucker
A Scanner Darkly
Constantine
Street Kings
Henry's Crime
Generation Um

and I have high hopes for the upcoming John Wick, too.
and for his Eli Roth movie. watch out for that.

Yeah, I seem to prefer his post-Matrix acting. I think it improved.
Then again, perception is everything. I guess.

As Luca says, perception is everything in art. The enjoyment of all art requires the suspension of disbelief. There is no art which, when taken apart to the smallest degree, can't be criticized and even dismissed. At the root of it, criticism is about personal preference, which is always highly subjective. I am proud and happy to say that I love Keanu's work and that I have bought in, I am emotionally and creatively invested as a viewer. I am happy to let go of assumptions and to dive right in, to go for the ride.

I don't dismiss your criticisms - I simply disagree. One could say that Norman Maclean ("A River Runs Through It") didn't use enough words. I'm not sure that that is a criticism that holds water. Maclean held economy of words as a value. If one doesn't share that value, yes, you can see it as a "flaw."

To the extent that I've ever seen, Keanu's "problem" is anything but a lack of imagination. I see an imagination there so vast as to find the universe a little too confining, but maybe I'm just projecting.

I'd recommend that you watch more of Keanu's films but I think you're convinced that what I see as elegant and eloquent you wouldn't see that way. I think that's too bad, but "chacun a son gout."

---

greedily gobbles fish food

---

Trolls eat fish food now?

---

I see an imagination there so vast as to find the universe a little too confining, but maybe I'm just projecting.

---

Beautifully said.

What my lady Renard described above is what I see when I watch Keanu act. I now think he's better at "being" the character than almost any actor I know of (and the exception list is pretty short). It took me forever to notice, but now I can't unsee it. Neither can I fathom the criticism of anyone who says facial expression is his weak point. The depth and breadth of his expressions - face, gestures, body movements - continually surprise me and have moved me to tears more than once. I do think he got better as he went, but I don't think he was bad to begin with. Sometimes in his early work his accent or an odd inflection in his voice would throw me off, until I saw his eyes backing up everything he was saying and I got completely pulled in yet again.

I see things in him others don't see. Doesn't make me better as a person, just better able to enjoy the art.

Anyone who doesn't think he was good early on has apparently not seen River's Edge. If they have and STILL think he isn't good, I think we disagree quite dramatically.

---

I've read that he's good in The Gift - I would suspect well cast, well coached, and well-edited. Just because I think he's a bad actor doesn't mean that he can't occasionally stumble into a decent performance, if the stars align.

---

... wait. You haven't watched the movie, so actually didn't see said performance, but if it's a decent one, it's 'engineered'. By a director who was reluctant to cast Reeves and had him audition (unlike the rest of the cast). But who engineered his performance so he'd look good.
And on the other hand there's Coppola's Dracula, where everyone was running amok, Francis' main concerns being to stroke his beard, his ego and irritate the hell out of Oldman, letting the movie being actually filmed by Roman, with basically almost no directorial input towards the rest of the cast, and if at the time still inexperienced Reeves gave a bad performance, it's entirely his fault. No one else should have noticed. Dailies were watched only to determine if the sky was red enough.
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense. :|

---

He works at demonstrating 'hard-boiled cop' in his first scene in Speed, chomping on his gum.

---

On a related note, these John Wick stills of him looking so startlingly intense have really been getting me hyped for October. :)

Edit: Sorry, I'm out of order here. Also, what LucaM said.

I like Dracula a lot, for none of the usual reasons, but direction was pretty clearly not happening in any effective way. What's going on with Winona Rider? Anthony Hopkins, for heaven's sake? Richard E Grant? Cary Elwes? hell, Monica Bellucci? How do you mess that up? To single out Keanu's performance as bad (and while I don't like the accent, he's supposed to be a stiff young solictor, anxious and eager to please) seems most unsporting.