Despite receiving an Oscar for this performance,
Pacino has been criticized for oversimplifying his role in this film, as well
as “overacting”. Evaluate his
performance based on what you have seen this semester, as well as how you feel
Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade should act.
This should include how dialogue is delivered, as well as the physical
mannerisms and quirks that Pacino adopts for the role.
How can you oversimplify and over exaggerate at the same time? There were a few times in the film where Pacino might have exaggerated while or feeling around. It was very figgity (if that makes sense). Personally I have never met somone who is blind and there I can criticize with certainty but I don't think they would move there arms in that manner. Overall his performance was amazing, one quote stood out to me the most, while in the restaurant trying to convince women to tango with him, Lt. Col. said "Some people live a lifetime in a minute".
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that his mannerisms were "fidgety." I think that Pacino's playing blind must have been difficult though because he obviously isn't actually blind and doesn't know how to fake it perfectly.
DeleteI think having to play the role of blind man must have been extremely difficult. The aggression displayed in the character is a result of his loneliness and resentment. I think his personality is a crucial feature to the character he plays in the film.
DeleteIn my opinion he did not overact because he has a very difficult life with him being blind and he has gotten into positions where he could make the right choice but ended up making the wrong decision because he is too hard. He has also seen things in war that most people have never seen before which makes him over react sometimes about things.
DeleteI agree and I believe that Pacino's role must have been extremely hard to play. I believe his fidgety mannerism is really what made his character so great because it shows how he didn't completely lose touch with himself after he became blind.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI never see him overacting in the movie.He perfectly portrayed a man who lost everything an resents himself for losing his visions.He acts erratically to the most simple questions because he is in the dark.Not one moment did I feel like Al Pacino could see anything at all.And Al Pacino's speech at the end of the movie sounds perfectly like someone who realized their mistake.Al Pacino's tone sounds tragic when needed and comedic when ask.
ReplyDeleteI never see him overacting in the movie.He perfectly portrayed a man who lost everything an resents himself for losing his visions.He acts erratically to the most simple questions because he is in the dark.Not one moment did I feel like Al Pacino could see anything at all.And Al Pacino's speech at the end of the movie sounds perfectly like someone who realized their mistake.Al Pacino's tone sounds tragic when needed and comedic when ask.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I didn't get the sense that Al Pacino was overacting or acting too little. The people who get the sense that he was overacting probably are referring to the way he talks, as he enunciates very sharply and "dramatically". The people who assume he's underacting are probably referring to his facial expressions. What I had to keep in mind while watching this is that Pacino is playing a blind man. Because a generous amount of emotion is in the eyes, it would make sense that he would shout to overcompensate for that.
ReplyDeleteI've never actually met a blind person in my life, so I'm not completely sure but through reference to other films and TV shows, it does seem to me that Al Pacino is overacting his blind part. I also do believe, like you said, that he over acted in the way he enunciates, but I don't believe this ruins the film in any way.
DeleteI don't think that the way Al Pacino acted should be considered overacting, as it makes sense that Frank would be that way after being blind and alone for so many years. I agree that his tone of voice was very dramatic, but this was not enough to take away from the film. Instead, I think it added more personality to Frank's character.
DeleteAl Pacino in my opinion did not overreact his part. Although he spoke very loud and abrupt, it was during situations where it was relevant. Frank was also a very aggravated, so it is essential to portray a character in this tone. Al Pacino did a great job playing a blind man and we really saw that through his face as he was usually unfocused and had glassy eyes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Al Pacino played this role very well. In the last scene when he stands up for Charlie in court, he says how he's done the wrong thing all of his life because it was too hard to make the right choices. The decisions he's made throughout his whole life reflect the way he acts.
DeleteI agree, he did a really good job of not making eye contact with any of the characters and moving his hand in the wrong direction when someone was handing him something. It made his character ( his blindness) more believable.
DeleteI agree with you that Pacino did not overreact his part. I believe he did a well job and that there was no other way to portray a blind person since he has his sight, and is not blind in real life.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that Al Pacino was overacting in the film, however, it didn’t ruin the film. I think Lieutenant Slade was constantly loud and punchy. His catchphrase “Hoo-Ah!” is almost ridiculous but still humorous. Al Pacino played a man who feels he has lost everything wonderfully, however, he definitely overacted in his pronunciation and and even mannerisms in acting blind.
ReplyDeleteI can see how you think that he was overacting in his pronunciation, but I think it works for Slade's character. It really showed how he interacts with others and how he makes a name for himself.
DeleteI strongly agree with this because we have to remember the fact that his blind, makes him react and talk loud and at times he might say things in a way but thats just him having a sense of humor. This definitely doesn't make the film bad.
DeleteThough Pacino did overact, I agree with you that the film was not ruined. His acting style made him a very likable character. When he talks loud, it does make the film more humorous which adds to the positivity of the film.
DeleteI think that Al Pacino's overacting in the film is what brings the character of Lieutenant Colonel Slade to life. Had he not acted in this fashion, the character wouldn't be as interesting and the relationship between him and Charlie would not be so significant. They are exact opposites and had Pacino acted "smaller" than he did, it wouldn't be as important for the two of them to finally connect at the end of the film. His iconic jeering with "ha"s and "hooah"s give example as to how he adopted the role and embraced being Slade.
ReplyDeleteI agree - the behavior and mannerisms Pacino instills within his character emphasizes the differences between the Lieutenant and Charlie.
DeleteI believe that Al Pacino was not overacting or oversimplifying his role. His loud and theatrical tone and delivery of dialogue are all a significant aspect of the Lieutenant’s personality - bad-tempered and chaotic. The diminished, somewhat distant expression that is consistently on his face throughout the film reflects how he truly feels about his life - he is ashamed that he is forced to give up his independence and his control over his own life. Every part of Pacino’s behavior has a purpose to fulfilling the persona of his character.
ReplyDeleteI agree. All of Pacino's actions were justified, and they only strengthened his role. Because of Pacino's actions, I was able to believe that he was a disgraced soldier, and his shame was very prominent. Pacino made this movie so much more interesting.
DeleteI didn’t see much evidence of overacting or oversimplifying in this film. In my opinion, Pacino executed his role perfectly. Whether he overacted or not, his actions made me believe he was actually a retired, blind military veteran. There were, however, times when I thought Pacino was being a bit dramatic. Him yelling “Hoo-Ah!” was practically his catchphrase. But these things just made the movie more interesting to watch.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. I think most of the points that some may argue as "overacting" really just build character for Slade, and are actually vital to the unfolding of the story. His drama, yelling, and catchphrases just increase interest in the character.
DeleteI like what you pointed out about the catchphrase. People could interpret that as over acting but really it fills out the character of a army corporal. His HOO AHHH really added to the enjoyment of the character too allowing for the funny moments to be more funny
DeleteI agree that this catchphrase made his character more interesting. The "overacting" just made him more endearing as a character. His over-dramatizations were just ways to overcompensate for his blindness.
DeleteHooAHH is actually an catchphrase from the US Army. It is actually HUA (Heard, Understood,Acknowledged). It was uttered by shoulders to demonstrate that they knew what they were supposed to do.
DeleteAt the beginning of the film I paid close attention to his acting. I saw how his movements around his home were very abrupt and robot-like. I felt he was over exaggerating a lot whenever he moved around. I saw this especially when he was trying to pack up his suitcase. As the movie continued on I stopped noticing the acting. His motions became more natural to me. As I learned more about his character the over exaggeration of a blind person seemed to make sense in this case. I feel that for Slade's character to come across the way it did, Pacino needed to act in this way. Pacino's acting definitely showed a blind, crazy man who does what he wants and doesn't take no for an answer. His mannerisms were the only things that seemed a little too much but the dialogue fit his character very well. How Pacino interpreted the things that Slade said was very entertaining.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. When I first watched Pacino's movements I thought he was being too stiff, but as the movie went on it definitely became more natural. I think this is because I've never seen something like this but it is also a hard position to act when you are not actually blind so Pacino had to get used to this role.
DeleteI think the fact that your view of Frank throughout the movie may have been purposeful. In the beginning all that we know and see about him is a character that is blind and does not have much depth. Then as Charlie gets to know him better he doesn't see him as the "blind man" anymore and finds out that he is much more than that and much more complex.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Pacino did not overact in his role as Lieutenant Frank Slade. While it is evident that many of Slade's emotions and actions were exaggerated, I believe this fit his character well, as he was an obviously frustrated man who spent much of his time sitting alone. Also, I believe Pacino's attention to detail in the way he would never look at someone directly and always had a glazed look in his eyes made it feel as though he was really blind and not acting.
ReplyDeleteI think that Pacino was meant to overact at some points in the film. Considering that he is blind would make people think that he is weaker, however this is not the idea that was being conveyed throughout the film. I think it was the whole opposite, that Pacino was meant to show his strength despite his weakness. For example, at Charlies 'court meeting' at his school everyone probably thought how is a blind man going to benefit Charlies defense? However, Pacino shocked the crowd and everyone was going crazy for him standing up.
ReplyDeleteRecently, I saw the movies Scarface and Dog Day Afternoon. Pacino's acting styles in both are completely different. Because of this I think that he and the director made a conscious effort to act that way.
DeleteI think Al Pacino did an excellent job portraying Frank Slade. He never made eye contact with other characters, which was good acting in and of itself for the blind aspect of the character. However, more noticeably, Pacino was able to show the sense of humor that fit Slade, without too much exaggeration. He didn't overact, in my opinion, but accurately displayed the thoughts and actions of his role, including frustrations, suicidal thoughts, humor, quick moods of happiness, and anger.
ReplyDeleteAl Pacino's role in this movie was deserving of winning the award of best actor. Personally, I believe that his mannerisms were completely required to adequately play Frank Slade. There are times where he would over exaggerate his face to display certain emotions but most of the time that is perfect for the character. The anger that he showed when he held Charlie at gunpoint was necessary and he displayed it very well and it was exaggerated enough to get a sense of confusion and anger within Frank.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with that Pacino was deserving of winning the award of best actor. The scene where he held Charlie at gunpoint was a great example of how Pacino perfectly portrayed Frank Slate's mental breakdown.
DeleteI as well agree that Al Pacino was worthy of winning the award for best actor. The way he was able to express his inconsistent emotions throughout the film in such a realistic and visual way was amazing. His acting alone made the movie so much better than what it could've been without him.
DeleteI don’t believe Al Pacino oversimplified his role, but rather did what was necessary to properly portray Frank. At times it felt like Frank was overly aware of his blindness, such as when he was reaching for objects. This makes sense because Frank believes his lack of sight is what defines him. It is the root cause of his unhappiness, therefore, as he struggles to get used to the idea that he will never see again he acts as if as only just become blind. Pacino’s “overacting” is apart of Frank’s character. It is what makes him so brash and unlikeable to anyone who meets him. Something I found impressive was Pacino’s ability to be looking at something yet, make the audience believe that he was truly not able to see anything.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe Al Pacino didn’t oversimplify nor overacted throughout the film. He portrayed a broken, troubled and lonely war veteran. The delivery of the dialogue and physical mannerisms perfectly matched these characteristics of Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slate. Pacino’s usage of quirks also helped show the mental breakdown of Lieutenant Slate and his build back to sanity.
ReplyDeleteAt some points Pacino does overreact but sometimes is just his voice that makes it seem that his overreacting. The way he expresses himself and acts doesn’t make the film bad it actually grabs the audience attention which is good. We also have to remember that his blind.
ReplyDeleteIn this film I feel that Al Pacino played his character very well, not oversimplifying it, but not overreacting either. From his bodily movements to his emotional portray, he plays his character in the film extremely well. He truly expressed himself as if he were a blind army vet with nothing to live for in life and did so in a manner that was very realistic while not being too over the top or too simple.
ReplyDeletePacinos acting may have seemed a bit too much, I think it adds to the character by making him stand out and having an endearing idea of Frank. It shows how from anyone who hasn't met him would think he’s just an asshole, which is entirely true, but from a film perspective it’s presented as just a front for why Frank is acting that way. If he had done his acting differently, I could see him doing a more elderly voice, all slow and quiet but he would still have the same personality and charm to his character.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don’t think Pacino over exaggerated the role of Frank Slade. He gave the audience a better understanding of how hard his life really is. He’s an old, blind ex-marine who has experienced trauma, and has even been so lonely to the point of wanting to commit suicide. Pacino’s overacting intensifies the shock and pain he has faced in the world. In the scene when Slade is about to shoot himself and Charlie attempts to take the gun from his hand, he gets so angry and even gets physical with Charlie. This shows how angry he is with the decisions he’s made throughout his life which is an accurate interpretation of Slade’s life. In my opinion, Pacino played the role of Frank Slade perfectly.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I don't think there is any way to over exaggerate someone who truly can't see anything. Pacino really made us feel Slade's pain within himself and his life through his loudness and physical actions.
DeleteIn my opinion, oversimplifying the role of Lieutenant Colonel would be opposite of the character he played. In the movie, Lieutenant Colonel was a distressed and lonely man and the role he played was not over exaggerated. His actions are the effects of the obstacles he's faced throughout his life. At the end of the film, Lieutenant Colonel talks about how he chose the wrong path because it was too hard for him to choose the right one. He realizes Charlie chose the right path and is envious that he couldn't do that himself earlier in life.
ReplyDeleteI agree. In fact, I think his acting choices were quite subtle. If you pay attention, whenever Slade barks at Charlie, the very next thing he says is always softly spoken. It is also followed by "son." It's almost as if he constantly regrets being as harsh as he is.
DeleteI can see why people think that Pacino overacted, but I think he did just the right amount of acting for the character that he played. Being that Frank was bad tempered, blind, vet, I think it was necessary for Pacino to act the way he did to create Frank’s character. I also liked the personal touches like Frank’s constant “hooah’s”. Although excessive, they added to Frank’s character.
ReplyDeleteI think that Pacino's performance wasn't him oversimplifying or overreacting. As an ex-military Lieutenant Colonel it was basically his entire career that he had to yell and shout at people, and holding on to hundreds of lives that with one mistake can cause a disaster, it does explain the way he acts around other people. As well as, I think you'd have to be actually blind to act out such a character better than how Pacino did. I feel it's quite ironic to criticize Pacino oversimplifying when there's a scene in the plot when Frank is driving a Ferrari.
ReplyDeleteLike most in this comment section, I agree that Al Pacino's performance was over the top but good. Due to Franks aggressive nature, they overacting makes Frank a more endearing character in a way
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. Pacino overacted, but because the character required it.
DeleteI don't think Pacino's performance was overreacted or oversimplified because he was a blind Ex-military Lieutenant Colonel so it's expected for him to be loud and shout when he talks. It's not like he should have been shy and timid so I feel he did a good job, and for his mannerisms some scenes may have seemed overreacted, but I think it was understandable, because he isn't blind in real life so for him to portray a blind person may have been difficult.
ReplyDelete- Jordan Campbell
I agree, it was hard already enough to act like he was blind when he wasn’t. But he throughout the movie played his part well.
DeleteI think that Al Pacino's role was not overplayed by him because the character that he was playing was supposed to be an intense man who had a lot of issues because of the time he served in the military and because of the fact that it caused him to lose his sight.
ReplyDeleteI agree that he did not overact the role because his character was supposed to be going through a lot of because of losing his sight in the military.
DeleteI don’t think Pacino overplayed or oversimplified because the character of Frank slade was meant to be played like it was. Slade was dealing with many issues, was an ex military who became blind. So the anger and the intensity he used, I felt was appropriate. Some scenes I think overdid it but that’s because he isn’t blind in real life and it’s hard to nail a blind person right on.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Pacino overacted or oversimplified his role as Frank Slade because he was acting as a blind man which is hard to do since he isn't blind. All the anger and lonlieness built up and made him seem worse than he actually was.
ReplyDeleteIn some parts of the film Pacino did overact. He oversimplified certain scenes in the film. The reason he did this was to try and pull it off that he was blind. It is a tough roll to play because he is not blind.-Tommy Passarelli
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't think that Pacino overacted at all in the movie. However, I can see why people would think that. I think everything he did was nessicary to portray the character correctly.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the way Pacino oversimplified his role and the way he overreacted were the two things that really made the character come to life. If Pacino were to have taken on this role in a more calmly manner, then Slade would have never developed the relationship he had with Charlie and the story wouldn't have anywhere to go. Pacino's jittery unpredictable portrayal of the Col. was really brought out the contrast in his relationship with Charlie. The contrast between their personalities is what makes their connection feel so powerful.
ReplyDeleteI did not think his character was bad in any way, the way he overacted in some scenes were just to better his character. It made the view laugh while also showing how messed up he was and how he messed up his own life.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei don't think Al Pacino overacted, instead it made the movie more exciting. If it wasn't for his acting, the viewers wouldn't think their relationship is that strong and it also had a huge impact.
ReplyDeleteI think Pacino didn't over exaggerate the role he was given because he is suppose to play a broken soldier who is also a blind drunk so I think he really shows and reflects how he is broken and shows how much he has shifting in him
ReplyDeleteDue to the fact that he was unable to use his eyes to express his emotions, I don't believe that he overacted. One of the key points of the Lieutenant's character is that he is a little bit crazy. He is stuck in a world where he no longer belongs, and he feels lost. Pacino shows this by his extreme acting.
ReplyDeleteI think Al over acted in a few scenarios, but I don't think that was Al's choice outside of the plot and was going out of his way to make the War veteran loud and mean. It was story based, After we learn about Slade's past we realize that he left the military blind because a grenade went off while he was juggling a handful of them. This is really embarrassing and confidence killing, so to make up for that he has become very jaded and mean to make himself look tough and "Cool" but in reality he is just sad and scared, since hes literally in the dark.
ReplyDeletePacino’s performance in this film was spot on for me, as his mannerisms and quirks that Pacino employs do a great deal with emphasizing the pain and regret and how hard it is for the colonel to cope with his condition of living. The fact that he can barely take anything seriously and makes fun of almost everything with an obvious bravado shows that he is just trying his hardest to cope with his situation and the only way he knows how is to satirize everything adverse to the way he wants things. The scene that best supports this is the dinner scene with the colonel's family, and in this scene it is clearly shown how his “hooahs” and his loud demeanor are just methods of deflecting criticism and digs at his integrity. To me, this isn't overacting, but instead a great use of overacting. Lucas R.
ReplyDelete