How much of great acting is great directing?

[Berkut]

I mentioned in the movie thread that I watched Mamma Mia recently. Decent film, for what it is. I guess it is rightly panned for a lot of elements.

Anyway, the scene where Meryl Streep sings "The Winner Takes it All" was, IMO, awesome. Streep is an incredible actress IMO, and she really pulls off the scene (and the singing) extremely well.

Reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRZQCdYqNoY&feature=related

So, here is my question - how much of her acting in a scene like this is directed? Her choice of gestures, inflection while singing, I think it is all masterfully done, and certainly the highlight of the film.

But for a scene like this, would she sit down with a choreographer and plan out each of those gestures, its timing, the inflection of her voice (I really like what she did with a song that was pretty outstanding when ABBA sang it 25 years agoor whenever) etc., etc., or is her greatness as an actor the fact that she can just stick herself into the persona and it comes through on its own?

I honestly have no idea, knowing nothing about acting. But it seems hard for me to beleive that it could be so believable if it was overly directed - but then, perhaps that is what makes great acting great.

[Sheilbh]

Directing's very new.  It only really emerged with cinema.  I'm not sure.  I'm inclined to say acting weighs heavier, because I can't really think of many circumstances where a generally bad actor turns in a great performance for a generally good director.  I can think of many more badly directed films whose sole redeeming feature is a terrific turn by a generally good actor.

[Berkut]

The reason it seems hard to imagine planning out those gestures is that it would seem like it is really hard to imagine them working without actually doing them.

During the line "The gods roll the dice, their thoughts as cold as ice" she kind of puts her hand up to her face, edge on, and makes sort of a cutting motion. Like, how would you come up with that sitting down around a table, and have any idea it would actually work?

I read somewhere that they did that scene in one take, which would make it even more impressive a performance on Streep's part.

[DisturbedPervert]

Maybe the 10 years of performing the musical helped with ideas.

[Berkut]

Maybe the 10 years of performing the musical helped with ideas.

True enough. Although I kind of doubt Meryl Streep needs pointers on acting ideas from broadway.

I mean, her performance isn't exceptional for any really particularly obviously clever idea - hell, she is singing a song about how much getting jilted sucks - this isn't new ground, and it wasn't the first time the play was performed.

[Syt]

I think a director can have a bit of influence on the actors. Mostly, he can give instant feedback and give suggestions from a viewer's point of view ( ) that an actor may not always have a feel for, plus give background (why is the character doing this or that, what is the character like, what is the scene supposed to look in the finished/edited version), i.e  *direct* the actor.

Look at what Kubrick did with George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove. Scott wanted to give his character a somewhat normal/serious composure. Kubrick asked him to do every scene once over the top - which Scott had refused - "for reference" ... and used them in the movie.

I think another issue is getting the various actors to work in team together and be on the same page. For example you may be making a drama movie and you have an overall tone in mind for the finished product, but some actors see things differently when they look at the script, thinking that the theme is not as sad as you'd like it to be, or as othr actors think it is, causing dissonances.

[The Brain]

Around 20%.

[crazy canuck]

Having never been a movie star I can't really say but there is probably a reason why actors prefer working with certain directors - they must make some difference even if it is the ability to simply let the actors do what they do best.