Historical Portaiture

I’m thinking about Christian Bale, an untrained actor you might have heard of… apparently he spent two months with the real guy he was meant to be portraying in the film The Fighter, and he is commended by the acting fraternity for ‘dedication’ and ‘commitment’ and other platitudes.

But I was thinking about this, is that attention to detail required? It would seem so, but this is a film and not real life and the character in the script is not a real person – it is a fictional entity, a character based on a person.

So what do we want? Do we need the actor to live with and study the real person? Is that acting or simply impersonation? I’ve no doubt he does a good job in the film, although it is a frenetic, caricature in my eyes that threatens to overshadow Mark Wahlberg’s performance.

But then what if the real person is dead? Should we watch videos and read biographies? My answer is only if facsimile is important to the film.

Bale specialises in extreme characters, and like Daniel Day Lewis, plays them, inhabits them with a frightening level of commitment. But unlike Day Lewis, Bale is entirely untrained, not a Method Man as portrayed in the media, but a guy who has sought out his own method, from being in front of the camera, and that’s his way, to suggest that commitment and dedication make him a Method actor is to suggest that the kid that tries hard at soccer is a professional.

It is my belief that Bale’s decision to ‘create’ character from real life examples comes from insecurity, because he has no method, no technique to use.

And perhaps his performances are laudable, but they’re also larger than life, extreme beings, which he is allowed to fill extremely.

Sometimes I admire the performance, sometimes it seems more than is necessary but if his method of work works for him, I can respect that. But then who is going to argue with him.

To suggest that there is perhaps another way seems unappreciative, perhaps it even undermines his dedication and commitment, but my suggestion is to start and end with the script. The fictional character on the page and the scene that you the actor must play.

To my mind, to begin with the real person is ultimately inauthentic, it does not serve the script, it serves the actor and their ego. The real person and the script are not the same thing and to insist upon it and call it ‘artistic’ or ‘method’ or ‘commitment’ is to force your view onto the script. This is the closest Bale gets to Method acting, the placement of the actor and their performance ahead of the script.

In The Fighter, it is not Bale but Wahlberg who moves me. Why? Because Marky Mark hasn’t gotten in the way of the story. He’s there and I’m allowed to enjoy it without his help, he’s no need to convince me of his authenticity, I believe him because I paid my seven quid to do just that.

Bale will remain a great actor, and one cannot argue that he is accomplished and there are perhaps many great performances still left in his tank, but whether the ends justify the means, I’m still not entirely sure. Oscar will almost certainly hand Bale a statuette this year, because it likes to believe that hard working actors deserve it, and he sure did his homework.