Burning Questions: Can a One-Note Performance Be Great?
Tuesday, August 14, 2012 at 7:00PM 
Michael C here. On my list of cinematic obsessions the Alec Baldwin scene from Glengarry Glenn Ross ranks near the top, alongside stuff like the zither music from The Third Man and the ending of Barton Fink. Part of that obsession is my ironclad belief that Baldwin should have won the Supporting Oscar hands down, no contest.
Those who disagree could justifiably point to the complexity of Gene Hackman's and Jaye Davidson's nominated performances that year in Unforgiven and The Crying Game, or, for that matter, the greater range shown by Alec's Glengarry co-star Al Pacino. Baldwin's performance shows no such range. We don't see his softer side, he doesn't reveal any hidden dimensions, we don't even learn his name. He just struts in and delivers a seven minute tour de force of invective.
It's an unforgettable scene but is that enough? Can a one-note performance truly be considered great?
This discussion cropped up earlier this year when Michael Fassbender's supporting turn emerged as the clear stand out from Prometheus. All the praise came with the caveat that as an android, his role lacks the range to attract any real awards attention. To this I would ask, does not the limited nature of the role make his work more impressive? Isn't it a remarkable achievement to hold the audience's fascination while staying inside the confines of playing a machine?
Are intrinsically limited characters limitless with the right actors?
Acting, as we've so often heard, is about making choices, so in the right role is it not sometimes the stronger choice to refuse to show additional sides of a character? Look at Robert Duvall's Colonel Kilgore in Apocalypse Now. Would it make the character stronger if he dropped that guy's invincible confidence to show a few moments of vulnerability? Of course not. That would have been disastrous.
Or better yet, look at Full Metal Jacket's R Lee Ermey. There's a guy who finds precisely one note and hammers on it down to his last second of screen time. At the time, audience's could be forgiven for wondering if Ermey could act at all, or if he could merely dole out colorfully obscene abuse on command. We now know from his work in films like Dead Man Walking that he is a perfectly capable actor, and time has shown that his choices in Jacket to be the correct ones. I will never forget the impact when it became clear during his final confrontation with Vincent D'Onofrio that the bastard was still - still - not going to soften one iota even when faced with a psychotic soldier pointing a loaded gun at him. And isn't leaving a lasting impact on the viewer what great acting is all about?
What's your take on this? Are certain performances barred from top tier status by their narrow scope, or can the right actor be brilliant in even the most limited of roles, a la Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man?. Let us know in the comments.
You can follow Michael C. on Twitter at @SeriousFilm. Or read his blog Serious Film.
Reader Comments (30)
I would add Corey Stolz in Midnight in Paris to the list. A limited, one-note role that plays up the iconic idea we have of Ernest Hemingway and still one of the best performances of last year.
Ah, yes, Stolz. Great call. I woulda mentioned him if I had thought of him. I almost mentioned Ned Beatty in Network but on further consideration I realized he brought a lot of interesting shadings to his brief performance. Ditto Hurt in History of Violence.
Cate Blanchett in The Shipping News.
Does Jean Hagen in Singin' in the Rain count? I mean, I guess "dumb" and "bitchy" are technically two different notes, but there's not a whole lot of nuance there. Fantastic performance, though. Totally robbed at the Oscars that year.
I'd also add Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men as well. He's pretty much an emotionless unstoppable force there. No cracks in the facade.
The two best examples I can think of that haven't been mentioned yet are Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs and Frances McDormand in Fargo. I think you could argue that there's at least a little bit of depth in each of these performances, but there's certainly not much of an overt range in either role, so I'd say they qualify. Both are candidates for all-time most memorable screen performances, yet they're actually pretty one-note (that doesn't detract from their brilliance at all, though).
Edwin - You could make the argument that Hopkins is one note but I would disagree. He has a lot of subtle variations and nuances on the icy psycho genius. He can be playful winking at Clarice or intense when hearing her childhood trauma, and so on. There's a lot going on there.
I'd say one-noters fall into two categories: Roles that are severely limited by nature like robots or Rain Man. Or supporting roles like Baldwin whose whole purpose is to come in for a few minutes and just kill it doing one specific thing.
Another good example of a great one-noter: Michael Lerner in Barton Fink. Hey bellows and carries on at the same pitch the whole time but he spins it into comic gold. It doesn't get tiresome.
I agree that Hopkins's performance is nuanced, but I'm taking "one-note" in a very broad sense to just mean that the role doesn't have a full character arc. We can sense that there is more going on beneath the surface in his performance, but Hannibal Lecter himself doesn't get to express a wide range of emotions by any stretch of the imagination, nor does he undergo a journey or change that would make him a truly dynamic character. But if we are saying "one-note" in a stricter sense, then yes, I agree that there's nuance there. However, I'd argue the same could be said of Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man.
Javier Bardem won the Oscar for a role that really required nothing beyond looking stoic and wielding a cattle gun. That's one of those wins I really don't get.
Saying Frances McDormand's character doesn't have an arc in "Fargo" is laughable. Might I suggest you watch the movie again and pay particular attention to her meal with her old classmate and her subsequent actions with William H. Macy's character.
Personally, I think that it doesn't matter what range the actor demonstrates as long as s(he) "gets" the role "right," that services both the character and the movie best. Trying to add nuance or vulnerability to Alec Baldwin's character in GGR, for instance, would have just been unnecessary and uninteresting. I don't think there could have been a better way. The same goes for all the "one-note" characters Michael C mentioned. I mean, crap, we all know really good actors who have gone over the moon to demonstrate "range" and "vulnerability" and all those Oscar soft spots and consequently made their characters more one-dimensional and lifeless than any robot.
This makes me want to do a follow up list of the Top 10 One-Note Performances.
For the record I disagree about Bardem, and point to his creepy little smirk during his whole conversation with Woody Harrelson as just one example of the sneaky complexity Bardem puts under the surface.
Let me throw this one out to the floor: Mark Wahlberg in The Departed. Sre there any levels there or is it simply Mark Wahlberg doing a good job with all the film's best lines? I can't decide.
Edwin - Touche' on Rain Man. You see what on getting at, but I may be shortchanging Hoffman's work there. I haven't seen it in a long time.
Judi Dench's Oscar turn in "Shakespeare in Love" is a pretty obvious example.
I think a really good actor can be great in anything, or as great as possible with that particular director and crew. For example, I loved all of the small roles in Midnight in Paris (especially Adrien Brody of course).
The only time a one-note performance is bad (at least for that reason) is when it was written to be more than that.
I think the answer to the question is an obvious YES. And you even listed two fantastic examples in Glengarry Glenn Ross' Alec Baldwin and Full Metal Jacket's R Lee Ermey. And honestly, what's more fun than a really great one-note performance?
Uh oh. Movie Confession Time. I don't think Robert Duvall is that great in Apocalypse Now. In fact, I found him to be one of the least interesting things about it, one-note performance or not. He just felt like a distraction in between Martin Sheen and Coppola's virtuoso directing. :/
Id include Gene Hackman in The French Connection. A lot of people have said he was one note in it, but I think he was fantastic in it. He's acting is defined by his body language, the very first few minutes tells you exactly what this guy is all about yet as the case closes in on him the more obsessed he becomes to the point that its chilling.
Johnny Depp in the first Pirates movie.
And because we are light on women, Emily Blunt in The Devil Wears Prada.
Oh no Emly is beyond nuanced,it's in her eyes and body language and also when she thanks hathaway for helping her with a name and her final scene,2006 best supporting perfomance sorry jennifer but it is true,her line readings are priceless even her flipping of hathaways hand saying "don't touch iy" withthe fashion book..
Heath Ledger's Joker
Viola Davis in Doubt is the first come to my mind.
And I think Network contains many great one-note performance. Especially Ned Beatty
Andrien Brody in Midnight in Paris is also fantastic (but It's more of a cameo than an one-note performance)
Does Sean Durkis's performance in Rises of Planet of Apes count??
What about Michael Madsen as Mr. Blonde in Reservoir Dogs? That would be my choice for supporting actor winner that year.
tombeet: Viola Davis doesn't really count. At all. Ned Beatty...also, really not. And Andy Serkis in Rise of the Planet of the Apes? Really? That role is almost entirely about physicality. If you can't intuit emotion from physicality, of course it's going to SEEM one note, but it's really not. If you had said Tom Felton from that movie, I'd believe you.
How can anyone mention one note performances in Doubt without mentioning Amy Adams.lmao. Viola had like 2 scenes.lol
Looking at the comments, I guess the question is still burning. Or maybe the burning question is now, what is a one note performance?
For me, there's a big difference between the supporting turn that for obvious reasons can only be developed in one or two scenes, and the leading turn by a wooden, untalented actor playing a complex character with the only one note he/she has. And also, within the former I think we should differentiate not having as much character arch as the lead character, but still some arch (or maybe not the arch we want the character to have) from a flat, badly written character (those that can be played as caricatures come to my mind).
Personally, I have no problem if a supporting player can get gold from a character that is one or two dimensional. I think it proves how talented he/she is getting gold where others would go the most obvious, predictable way.
What a marvellous question!
My feeling is that a performance which might be considered "one-note" is just an opportunity for an actor to work within a more tightly callibrated range of expression - there is still room for dynamism, nuance and the suggestion of complexity beyond what is shown on-screen. In the hands of a skilled actor (or maybe just the "right" actor) this compression creates an exciting energy, whereas a lesser talent won't find the nuances and will just seem flat.
Of course, it takes more than just a great actor to shape a great performance and in a way this becomes even more apparent when you're talking about a "one-note" role, because the context in which the character occurs will play a greater part in shaping the audience's perception than it would when the actor is given a more expansive playing range. The editing, lighting, costume, sound etc. are huge signals for the tone of a performance and when done thoughtfully can add tremendous shade and sophisticated detail that can support or subvert a performance in interesting ways.
I might argue that it's in these kind of tightly-bound supporting roles that the actor does their most collaborative and therefore generous work?
There's nothing wrong with a one note performance if the role is limited or the way the character is written. I think the problem is that we attached negativity to the term "one note performance ' when there are many great ones.
It looks like people are lumping "one-note performances" into whining about short roles that they didn't like. There was nothing one-note about Anthony Hopkins in "SOTY" or Judi Dench in "Shakespeare in Love." Are you kidding me? It's a wonder no one has brought up Beatrice Straight in "Network" yet. There was a LIFETIME of history, hurt, and indignation in her single monologue to William Holden's character. Nothing one-note about it. Now whether that should have won an Oscar is for another discussion (in my book, yes, but YMMV). I don't think that Alec Baldwin was particularly Oscar-worthy in "Glengarry," but it's not b/c the performance was one-note. If there had been more of his character on-screen, maybe. Another sequence of "something." It could have been the same kind of tone hit from his "ABC" speech. Compare that to what Baldwin was nodded for in "The Cooler." It's a lot of one thing for sure (suave but menancing gangster), but there's some other interesting notes going on too. I like that that was his first nod. Hopefully when "30 Rock" ends, he can find another great film role. I doubt he'll ever top Jack Donaghy though. I guess what I'm trying to say (not too well) is that a short performance shouldn't routinely be pissed on as not Oscar-worthy. They have to be judged on their own merits according to how those performances worked in their respective films. Some are worthy, and some ain't.
Actually, I immediately thought of Thelma Ritter, Shelley Winters, and heck, even Doris Day. Long glorious careers built out of hitting the same note (okay, about three notes) over and over again. But I don't want to make people get mad at me and I really, really like all three performers.
Are wooden actors considered "one note?" People like Andie MacDowell and Brooke Shields, Kim Novak etc. Shiny bright stars with a bit of charisma and/or beauty but not much ability at variety.
How about Ed Flanders as Harry Truman in MACARTHUR? There are performances of historical characters that are memorable because they capture the essence of the original's personality, even if they don't look or sound much like the original (George C. Scott in PATTON), then there are performances like Flanders's which are memorable because they capture the look and sound of the original so _perfectly_. Comes down to impression vs. imitation, I suppose.