PERFORMANCE PERSPECTIVES

“Plunkett and MaCleane”

PICKING A WINNER

According to box office figures, when “Plunkett and MaCleane” was screened in Australia it ranked number 6 in the first week, number 7 in the second week and in its third week it didn’t even rate amongst the top 20 films.

At the same time “The Matrix” was number 3 while in its seventh week. It had been in the number 1 spot for four weeks. Box office receipts of “The Matrix” in its tenth week were still greater than “Plunkett and MaCleane” achieved in week one.

If numbers are the yardstick then “The Matrix” was the more successful film. In addition “Plunkett and MaCleane” received only luke-warm critical success.

Why is this?

It’s certainly not because the acting is inadequate. And the design element of the film is exceptional. The direction is technically competent and visually stimulating.

So what is a successful film?

And…..how does an actor pick a potentially successful vehicle for their talents at script stage?

Robert Carlyle plays the lead role of Plunkett. One wonders what his expectations were when he embarked on “Plunkett and Macleane”?

Did the script read like a “Number 1” film? What criteria did he use to make the choice?
Should an actor for example,

• only pick films that support or enhance the image the actor is marketing (as Harrison Ford appears to do)
• Simply try and pick a good story that has something interesting to say on an issue which is worth exploring
• choose a “feel good” script which it’s hoped will entertain
• or just take the gig ‘cos at least its money in the pocket.

When Robert Carlyle first read the script were his expectations higher than the final outcome actually delivered?

In the final production there are a number of dysfunctions in the story telling which surely must have been apparent in the original manuscript. So maybe Robert did detect the deficiencies in the script. And if he did what did hope would overcome them? Here there are two main options

• an engaging and fruitful relationship between the actors,
• a clear and uniting sense of purpose from the director.

As it happens neither of these influences converge significantly enough to unite and strengthen the story. Ultimately the major uniting forces in this production are the design and lighting elements, which are quite spectacular. And so, the film, by the most obvious measurable yardsticks is not a success.

But what can an actor do?

Certainly this movie is not a disastrous choice for Robert Carlyle. His credentials as an actor remain intact. So maybe an adventure of hope, even if there is risk attached is worth the effort. Unfortunately in the medium of film, “performance” is only part of the final outcome. As such the actor remains constantly vulnerable. No doubt even Harrison Ford (until 1977 when “Star Wars” catapulted him to fame) once had to cross his fingers, accept what was offered and hope for the best.

Ultimately most actors can only be responsible for the moment by moment quality of their own performance.

Copyright © The Rehearsal Room 2001. All rights Reserved. www.rehearsalroom.com