MovieChat Forums > The Fighter (2010) Discussion > Bale is a distractingly bad actor

Bale is a distractingly bad actor

posted 14 years ago by vulpix
274 replies | jump to latest

This has always bothered me: It takes an actor without any sense of subtlety whatsoever for people to sit back and say, "What a great actor." Throughout The Fighter, it felt as though Bale was winking to the camera, saying, "Look at me, everybody! I'm acting! Now where's my Oscar?" I was constantly taken out of the film because of Bale's distractingly self-conscious performance.

Good actors work with such subtlety that their performances go unnoticed, and, unfortunately, are often not recognized. Bale's performance in The Fighter is just the opposite: Loud, self-conscious, and totally distracting.

EDIT: This thread won't die, largely because the majority of people replying are misunderstanding my argument. For that reason, I'll reiterate the clarification I made earlier:

It's possible to play a loud character and do it right. For example, the character of Taketoki Washizu in Akira Kurosawa's Throne of Blood is one that requires a broad performance. Toshirô Mifune delivers just that in a way that keeps me engaged in the film from beginning to end.

By contrast to Mifune's performance, Christian Bale broadcasts the fact that he's acting in a way that takes me out of the movie. My problem isn't with the loud character--my problem is the way Bale performs the character in a manner that makes him seem like he is acting, thereby taking me out of the film, rather than seamlessly embodying the character as a good actor should.

[–] DanLives1980 13 years ago

Didn't get the story then? Or see the real life brothers in the credits? The film's title may suggest that it's all about Wahlberg's character. It's about what pushed him as far as he got; the legacy his brother carried, his family history and his *beep* up life.

That doesn't make him the lead character because his brother's antics - destroying not just his own chances of getting on with his life but not realising how much he cost his younger brother his own chances - were what led him to try so hard. Bale's character is the engine that drives the vehicle and he did a better job than anyone else could.

Worst choice of actor in the film was the guy who played Shea Neary. He was a Scouser not Irish!

[–] vulpix 13 years ago

Actually, I felt genuinely invested in the Micky Ward character, and I felt Wahlberg held his own with his performance. I have no problem with the Dicky character, either, at least in terms of writing; and, sure, I agree that he is the "engine that drives the vehicle." However, when watching the film, I was never able to escape the feeling that Bale acts as though as he is acting, and that I found incredibly distracting.

This problem just becomes all the more apparent when Bale is contrasted with the real-life Dicky in the end credits. Personally, I was surprised they decided to include that, as it just emphasizes how vastly different the two are.

[–] DanLives1980 13 years ago

Nah I think he did as good a job as anyone was going to give. You could make me think twice if you could suggest who might have done it better. I found it a very surprising film, didn't know what to expect and was pleasantly surprised, especially with Bale's performance. I watched it after the hype had disappeared, as I always do.

I'm in Liverpool and on the edge of my neighbourhood is one of the longest dirty, rundown stretches of urban white trash hell in the country, called Bootle. There are more smackheads in Bootle than possibly any other town in England, so much that there is no forseeable way of getting rid of the problem. There are a thousand Micky Ward's living there. He didn't overact, in fact if he'd gone as far as these people do, half the film would have been censored

[–] vulpix 13 years ago

I never said Bale "overacted," and unfortunately, that's how most people here are misinterpreting my argument. I can only blame my own inability to convey a point.

I'll put it this way: If the end credits scene had been show an the very beginning of the movie and I had never seen either person before, I would say to myself, "Oh, there's a crackhead and some other guy trying to imitate the crackhead." There wouldn't be any question in my mind about who was who. The matter is more about verisimilitude than it is about extremity.

[–] DanLives1980 13 years ago

But imitating a crackhead is his job lol i don't think his method acting is going to go as far as becoming one. I don't see how you see him as trying to act instead of just being the character. He was perfectly in character. This is gonna go around in circles tho so lets leave that there.

Who do you think should have played him?

[–] vulpix 13 years ago

I'm a little late on this, but better late than never, right?

You could make me think twice if you could suggest who might have done it better.

I think it would have been interesting if Russell had used a neorealist approach and used non-professional actors. Sure, The Fighter wouldn't have made nearly as much money, but I think it would have been a better film for it.

I suppose using unknown professional actors would have had a similar effect.

[–] DanLives1980 13 years ago

Good reply but try to name some semi-pro actors who would have pulled it off.

Personally I think the charm of the entire film was reducing well known actors to poor unhealthy looking people from that era. The eighties was nowhere near glamorous. It had something that reminded me of Liverpool in the 80's but then also Australia in the cheap and tacky television shows. Even most of the women were well known in something but so well disguised that most wouldn't have thought twice.

However I did just see The Warrior after it with Tom Hardy and appreciated the lesser well known cast (even Tom Hardy wasn't up and coming in America yet) but with Nick Nolte to weigh it down? But that just reminded me that Bale did the same.

The attention to characters in both films is shared but Bale paid amazing attention to detail to his character by losing the weight and adapting the heroin addict behaviour. Hardy meanwhile put weight on and adapted the mentally traumatized soldier psyche.

Come on, you surely appreciate that someone makes the effort to portray characters that most movie heavyweights consider below them? That's the art of being an actor and that's what Bale loves about it. And I have to add that this was the first time in my life I ever laughed at Bale - not because he was bad - but because his character was a form of low-brow humour and relief to the film when he wasn't portraying the kind of filth we all live with.

[–] vulpix 13 years ago

The problem with naming specific actors is that it's difficult to judge an actor's performance until you actually see it. Who would have imagined Heath Ledger, for example, would have done so well as the the Joker in The Dark Knight?

But there are established actors who have pulled off strong, naturalistic performances in other boxing movies. The first that comes to mind is Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront. Even Charlie Chaplin's boxing performance in City Lights has a comedic, naturalistic charm that never takes me out of the film.

As for Bale, I do appreciate the effort he put into his performance, but it just didn't work for me.

[–] DanLives1980 13 years ago

For Christopher Nolan I'd have picked Tim Roth as the Joker; he'd have had the Killing Joke Jack Napier look and he was always good playing villains.

[–] torydude 13 years ago

You can reword it any way you like... Your point remains (dead).

[–] RicemanDan 13 years ago

I'm about 1hr in and agree strongly with Vulpix/OP. I'm mystified by the domination of opposing pro-Bale people. I first saw Bale in American Psycho and loved it/him, but I'm not with this film whatsoever.

Maybe it's the fact I'm currently nearing the end of one of the best acted/written shows I've ever seen in Mad Men and to come up to that standard of playing characters - impossible - i.e. how can Bale convince me of a character within an hour vs 4 seasons of the magnificent John Hamm/Don Draper.

All I know is that I hated this Dickie character from the off and immediately smelt the arrogance of Bale, which is ruining the film. Pitt would have been a much better choice.

[–] RicemanDan 13 years ago

Forgot my example to validate Vulpix/OP's excellent point:

Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy vs Bale in The Fighter.

Hoffman is outstanding as a specific mode/type of person, which requires transformation acting, yet he comes across significantly subtle/natural in his performance to make an incredible film (with a sublime ending). The Fighter? 1hr20mins, and I've paid attention to about 30% of this ineffectual film.

[–] Doc_Roliday 13 years ago

You had a great post until you said Pitt would've been better. This totally ruined your post. Pitt is one of the worst actors to ever hit it big in Hollywood. Bale to Pitt is like Marlon Brando to John Leguizamo.

[–] JasonHodder 13 years ago

First off, Pitt is a really solid actor. He's not the greatest to ever live, but he's damn fine. To call him "one of the worst actors to ever hit it big in Hollywood" is a joke. There are actors much worse than he.

Secondly, Leguizamo is a terrific actor and comedian. If these are 2 actors you don't like, I'd hate to see a list of actors you do like.

[–] Doc_Roliday 13 years ago

Pitt is not a really solid actor. Far from that. Tom Cruise is a solid actor. There isn't one single movie where Pitt doesn't get outshined by another actor.

He has no subtleties in any of his performances, I've never seen him embody a character, he always looks like he's acting and failing at that.

Now fück off you son of a bitch

[–] eriklf 13 years ago

LOL ... That's why he won the academy award ? LOl, you're funny.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ambeck22 13 years ago

I, personally, can't stand Christian Bale and I thought his performance was wonderful. I hated him in American Psycho, he excelled in The Machinist, and I will never watch him as Batman again, but he rocked in this movie. I almost didn't watch The Fighter because of drugs and Christian Bale, but I'm glad I did. He reminded me, unfortunately, of a person I know who used to do drugs and how he acted before he became clean. Just my thoughts, nothing against your post at all.

-Dad, who's that?
-Oh, that? One of my patients. He's...sick.
-Will he live?
-It's looking grim.

[–] ralph_jenkins28 13 years ago

I have actually ran into a few crackheads, and CB did a great job of portraying one of them. The thing he does with his eyes, his mannerisms, spot on. People who are on crack (or meth) also tend to constantly lose track of time.

You also gotta remember, boxers take a lot of hits to the head during their careers, which also affects their brain.

I have seen Bale in a lot of movies, and I think he is a very versatile actor. He fits his roles like a glove, even Batman.

Even in Harsh Times, which wasn't a great movie, but his acting still was great. He played an Army veteran with PTSD.

[–] vulpix 13 years ago

Yeah, I've received a lot of comments that basically say, "I know a lot of crackheads, and Bale acts like a crackhead." I actually don't disagree with this, but the problem is that's missing the point. Sure, Bale acts like a crackhead, but he acts like an actor playing a crackhead.

Of course, if you think otherwise, that's perfectly fine. Perception is subjective.

[–] ralph_jenkins28 13 years ago

"he acts like an actor playing a crackhead."

uhhh, that's the JOB of actors... They ACT.

[–] Degree7 13 years ago

uhhh, that's the JOB of actors... They ACT.

Yeah, but there's a difference between merely imitating and embodying a character.

A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it. - Roger Ebert

[–] ralph_jenkins28 13 years ago

Ahh I see now... You're going on what EBERT said about this movie. I personally don't care for Ebert. He's given some horrible movies glowing reviews, and then given really good movies scathing reviews.

Did you know he gave Anaconda and The Happening good reviews? Both of those were terrible movies.

[–] Degree7 13 years ago

Yeah, Ebert is kind of a pr*ck sometimes with his decisions. I still remember him and Siskel giving Van Damme's "Sudden Death" two thumbs up. If anyone has seen that movie, it would leave them scratching their heads over that review.

But when Ebert is right on about something, he really hits the mark better than anyone. And for this I feel I have to agree with him.

A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it. - Roger Ebert

[–] IronBallsM 13 years ago

But wooden acting has served him well over the years.

[–] metal-dude 12 years ago

I'm just watching it now. What you just said now is ridiculous. The reason why it looks like he is "acting" is because Dickie (the character)is acting up for the camera's he has an ego he can't let the past go so he has to be as attention grabbing as possible.It might be distracting for you but in the end you are calling out an actor for acting which is redundant

[–] sosa1412 13 years ago

I think if the character wasn't meant to be portrayed the way he was, then yes you would be correct, but he was supposed to be like someone said "a loud, obnoxious, crack head.." I think if he didn't act the way he did, and was kind of a shadow of a character, then it would have defeated the whole premise of the story. The man was actually the way Bale was depicting him, I don't think he was over-acting for the sake of recognition. It is based on a true story, real people, not fictional individuals manifested on paper by the writers.

[–] i_am_groot 13 years ago

@sosa1412.. I am glad you posted this. Many people who hate Bale, and hate the way he acts, blah blah blah.. dont understand acting. Bale is a method actor. And he is a very intense human being, in which he brings into his job: Acting. To know that when he was around Lowell, Mass, doing his shopping (while filming), and what not, people would come up to him and want "Dickie Eklund's" autograph.... not Christian Bale's autograph, Dickie Eklund, that shows true dedication to a role. And he was not doing this role to be arrogant, or forthcoming. Have you read the interviews with how much Mark Wahlberg loved working with him, about how Bale does his damndest to make those around him better, or see how he teared up and only talked about his family when he received the Oscar?? Bale may choose some crappy roles, but all actors do this. Even great ones like Daniel Day-Lewis. It happens. In The Fighter, Bale deserved the Oscar. Hands down. And I was even pulling for Jeremy Renner in The Town, but once I saw The Fighter, I knew that I had seen near perfection. Also, as much as the grumbly voice can be annoying, I enjoy the Nolan Batman franchise :)
P.S. my friend got to work with Bale on Terminator Salvation and said he was very intense, very professional, and an awesome inspiration for those wanting to pursue a career in acting. Potty mouth rant included :)

[–] detroit-velvet-smooth 13 years ago

I don't think Christian Bale's performance was particularly loud considering he was playing a Crack Head Mick Hooligan. If you watch the credits you'll see a little inset of the two real brothers talking a bit and really, the guy Christian Bale played... well he seemed pretty much as over the top as Bale played him. In the 45 seconds he was on screen he jibed in his weirdo tongue and tried to wrestle a cop who walked up to him.

I think in this case he's spot on and the ones who tend to find it a distracting performance are probably kind of unaware of how extroverted and annoying cracky people are.

Druggies are kind of like bad method actors. They are ridiculous. Believe me, I've had one in my family.

[–] bruno-costa 13 years ago

Bale with sense of subtlety:
- 3:10 to Yuma
- Both Batman Movies
- New World
- Reign of Fire
I really think that this character shouldn't have much ground to Bale play the role with subtlety... And this is no guessing, the character is based in a living person, you just have to see the real man to understand that...