You remember that scene where Sean Penn finds out his daughter is dead? He's so overcome with grief and anger that he yells like some King Kong beast and has to be wrestled down by a whole squad of Boston policemen. Remember? Then the camera, I believe, milks the moments and cranes upward? Despite Penn winning the Oscar--and I even think they showed that clip during the broadcast--there was criticism from myself and others that he acted in a melodramatic, way over-the-top fashion. Now of course that's a decision that Penn made himself, in part, but if Clint Eastwood cuts that scene shorts, tells Penn to play it more subtlety, etc. then perhaps I never have a complaint. Do you mean to suggest that the director and how he chooses to edit have no effect on the perception of the acting on screen?

You ever seen In Love and War? That insipid tripe that starred the man who couldn't even be a convincing Robin, Chris O'Donnell, as Ernest Hemingway, you seen that? Now I'm not gonna say that O'Donnell is a bad actor, because even Keanu Reeves has had some glory, but he's very not good at all as the famed author. Had O'Donnell not been offered this project and done something more within his limited range, then perhaps I never have a complaint and a strike against him. But he did get cast and it was doomed from the start. Do you mean to suggest that casting has no effect on the perception of the acting on screen?

How do you explain Dicaprio's up and down career?

How do you explain the Marky Mark rule (see elswhere in post)?

How is Sandler actually good in Punchdrunk Love but completely out of place in Spanglish? (Saw it last night, that's why it's on my mind)

How was Pacino beyond brilliant as Michael Corleone then a caricature most of the rest of his career?

Don't tell me that quality or deficient acting occurs in a vacuum outside of the influence of casting, editing, directing, story, etc. For some it can, but for very many, many others, it doesn't. (Or are you just quibbling with my percentages?)