Acting singers vs. Singing actors
I read an interview with Scarlett Johansson in Spin magazine recently in which the ingenue talked about her new album: She sings a bunch of covers of Tom Waits songs. (Fellow Waits fans, allow yourself a minute to wrap your brain around the concept.) Like oh so many singing actors before her (I'm looking at you, Kevin Bacon ... and Russell Crowe ... and Bruce Willis ... and Eddie Murphy ... and, oh forget it), Johansson defended her, ahem, artistic crossover by pointing out that musicians — like Waits, himself — are allowed to cross the line in the other direction without catching much flak. She has a point. Or does she? Is it easier for an actor to make good music, or for a musician to act? Why is Tom Waits in a movie cool while Scarlett Johansson singing is ridiculous? (To be fair, I haven't heard the album yet. Maybe it's awesome.)
There doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rules. Some musicians, like Waits, John Lennon, Elvis, David Bowie and Prince can get by in movies simply because they're cool. They just have to be themselves and people will forgive their thespian shortcomings. Others, like Paul Simon, John Mellencamp, Britney Spears, Madonna and Sting, try and fail. Still others, like Cher, Harry Connick, Jr., Frank Sinatra, Will Smith, Mark Wahlberg and Queen Latifah, can/could actually act.
The transition in the other direction is less frequent, and the folks who try it are often ridiculed. (See list above.) Why is this? My theory: People are snobbier about music. Think about it: When a musician goes from making albums on a four-track in his basement to signing with a major label, it's inevitable that most of his fans will call him a "sellout." But who ever calls an actor a sellout? Directors, maybe. And Nicolas Cage. But look at Johnny Depp: He's been in some of the biggest films of all time, and yet maintains his integrity among critics and fans. (He's also a musician in a crappy band that no one takes seriously.)
Is this snobbery justified? Is making music harder than acting? I dunno. I will say this: Good musicians generally have to be creative AND talented (at least in the singer/songwriter mode of modern music). Whereas an actor can get by on just being talented (and/or pretty). The director handles the creative stuff.
I don't have a conclusion here. Just some rambling thoughts. That's what blogs are for, right?
Comments
I can't sing, dance or act so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I like singers and comedians that go into acting. If you have the huevos to stand on stage in front of thousands, taking direction and working in front of a camera should be a breeze.
Mellencamp would be the exception from the examples above, though. The reason he can't act is surely linked to how bad his music sucks.
Posted by: Robb Willis | May 20, 2008 09:10 AM
This begs the question, do you like actors who turn to music or comedy? You're probably right about Mellencamp.
Posted by: Film Skinny | May 20, 2008 02:09 PM
Don't keep your hopes up...I recently heard one of the songs from Scarlett Johansson's album. It was horrid. I can tolerate a lot, but I only lasted about 30 seconds with that song. Actors should act and musicians should sing; stick to one world. Just look at J-lo or Li-lo if you want good examples of my reasoning ;-).
Posted by: Sandi ~ Mommazilla | May 20, 2008 09:28 PM
Yeah, since my original post, I've listened to a couple of tracks. Sonically, I sort of enjoyed them, but Johansson's dead-cat-flat voice just ruined it. Probably doesn't help that I'm kind of a Waits purist.
Which of J-lo's careers should she ditch? I'm pretty sure she's making more money in the music biz these days.
Posted by: Film Skinny | May 21, 2008 11:16 AM
Actors should never go into singing or comedy. It's a one-way and they're going the wrong way. The only actor that ever pulled it off was Bruce Dern who became Neil Young.
Posted by: Robb Willis | May 23, 2008 12:27 PM