"Screen Presence"

Did Waltz show any real acting range in the Tim Burton or Polanski films he did?
― Exit, pursued by Yogi Berra (WilliamC), Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:05 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark

I'm not looking for range. His screen presence is tiresome.
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:11 PM (31 minutes ago)

This set off all kinds of interesting questions in my head.

Can "screen presence" be defined or quantified? Are there actors who can, or have, overcome their screen presence with acting ability? Are there examples of actors trying to tone it down and failing?

What actors have toned down their screen presence for the better, or for the worse? Likewise, are there actors who have played it up for the better, or for the worse?

By "actors" I mean male and female.

I thought he was good in Carnage. :/

a small, unambitious film but yeah he was p good in it

there are actors who do one thing pretty much invariably (like, say, Jack Nicholson) - which I believe is what Alfred was referring to - and then there are others who are more chameleonic. either approach is fine, depending on what the film calls for.

Are screen presence and schtick interchangeable terms?

star power baby

actors who do one thing pretty much invariably (like, say, Jack Nicholson)

The Pledge, The Passenger, King of Marvin Gardens, The Fortune, The Crossing Guard... you can't even draw a post-Cuckoo's Nest line really

sometimes he did "Jack" movies after McMurphy, sometimes not.

i frankly think de Niro was "the same" more often, even before he became a full-time ho

well deniro often "works small," as they say. but yes, i'm sometimes struck by the similarity of his performances of characters who on paper would seem to be strikingly different.