Actors. Sheesh.

I just finished reading this week's episode of Entertainment Weekly, and the opinion column talked about the Katherine Heigl Emmy thing. You know, how she said she dropped out of the Emmy race because she didn't feel she was given the material to warrant an award, and she didn't want to take away a nomination from someone else who deserved it.

The columnist defended the actress, pointed out the circumstances of her quote, praised her honesty, and kind of lambasted anyone who lambasted her.

And he had some good points. Made me feel like I should be 100% on the side of these pressured, struggling actresses no matter what. So I will agree that honesty is refreshing, bravery admirable, and a few grains of salt should be allowed for someone who is accosted leaving the gym or whatever.

But I still have some problems with it. First, she had to have known she'd be asked about her decision, and had time to think about what to say and how to say it. She could be honest without being insulting. Rhimes can say all she wants that she wasn't insulted; that's okay, I'll be insulted for her.

Heigl could have said her storyline didn't lend itself to an Emmy-worthy performance. That's not insulting. That's not saying the writing wasn't good enough. And maybe it wasn't. I don't watch the show, so I can't comment on whether or not the material was Emmy-quality. Even if it wasn't, it's not a good practice to publicly criticize your boss. If I'd gone on the news and said my former employer was a nutcase, I'd be fired.

Um. For example. She wasn't. A nutcase.

Worse, though, is the implication that even though the material was sub-par, she'd have been nominated anyway, even though she didn't deserve it, and someone who did a better job and had better material to work with wouldn't have gotten a nomination, because hey, she's Katherine Heigl. Of COURSE she'd be nominated, even if she sucked.

But that's enough about that.

Some other actor thoughts...

It's interesting how there are different "kinds" of good acting.

There's the Scarlett Johansson kind. Critics RAVE over her. I find that when I watch her, I'm seeing a mask. She puts on her performance, like a costume or even a facade. It has nothing to do with what's inside her, and doesn't touch her. Jared Padalecki used to have some of that, though to a lesser extreme. He's improved over the years, with maturity, so that his character seeps into him more, or draws more on his depths.

More common are the actors who do a great job but who are essentially playing themselves. They may be able to change their worldview, and are playing themselves in terms of how they'd be if they were the character they are playing and had gone through the things the character went through. But their mannerisms are impossible to bury, and their personalities impose themselves on their characters. Mel Gibson is a classic example--a tremendous actor with great range, but you never lose Mel Gibson. A more immediate one, for me, is Alyson Hannigan. She is pure Alyson Hannigan, whether she's a teenage witch in California or an engaged contemporary artist in New York City. I like her (better than I thought I would) and she doesn't make me think about the actress instead of the character (unlike Scarlett), but like Mel, she never disappears into the character.

The very best actors are those who do disappear into their performances. From all accounts, Heath Ledger's Joker epitomizes this. Those who saw him in A Knight's Tale and Brokeback Mountain will agree. Brendan Gleeson is another such actor, and so-called character actors are always this kind. You may know you've seen them somewhere, but not recall where, or who they played, unless you see a whole bunch of their stuff in a row. Jensen Ackles is too beautiful to totally disappear, but his performances as Dean on Supernatural are drawn from deep inside. Seth Green is kind of a hybrid of this and the last one. He has some definite quirks that follow from role to role--his manner of speaking, his way of moving--but he draws subtle emotion from deep inside. His torment in his last few episodes of Buffy was all in his eyes.

Okay, maybe I'm just a sucker for the eyes.

The third kind of actor probably draws the viewer deeper into their performance, shares it better, evokes more. That doesn't mean the others don't have merit, and can't be enjoyed as much, because they can. I find myself watching the acting sometimes as much as the show, and classifying performances.

Maybe I just watch too much TV.