Post by Salzmank on Sept 13, 2017 18:17:45 GMT
Doghouse6
I don't think anyone here would pillory you, especially when, as always, you lay out your case so well.
I do wonder, however, if believability is the sine qua non of acting; for me, at least, I find what you described as magnetism, forcefulness, and entertainment to be just as, if not more, vital, as I continually note that acting is unreal ipso facto. That does not mean, I hasten to add, that I dislike believability, but I can never quite convince myself that it's real, even if emotion comes achingly close to reality. (Hope that makes some sense.) Meryl Streep is, as you say, an actress who becomes her character, but even with her I can see the machinery if I look close enough, hidden though it may be. Perhaps that's simply a natural feature of screen-acting, as the screen heightens artificiality just by virtue of its existence. Or perhaps it's some problem on my own part.
Oh, well: I'm no expert on acting, and what I said may be completely off-base, but I am reminded of certain scenery-chewing performances that can never convince me of their reality but that are immensely enjoyable, so much so that I am dragged across the suspension of disbelief line in spite of myself. Certainly one cannot count Stanwyck in this category, but I suppose the point has relevance to your larger argument.
I have never--if I may say so--felt a complete lack of reality with Stanwyck, what I wrote before to one side, except in Ball of Fire (in which I experienced exactly what you're describing in regard to her). Again, hoping this all makes some sense, folks...
I don't think anyone here would pillory you, especially when, as always, you lay out your case so well.
I do wonder, however, if believability is the sine qua non of acting; for me, at least, I find what you described as magnetism, forcefulness, and entertainment to be just as, if not more, vital, as I continually note that acting is unreal ipso facto. That does not mean, I hasten to add, that I dislike believability, but I can never quite convince myself that it's real, even if emotion comes achingly close to reality. (Hope that makes some sense.) Meryl Streep is, as you say, an actress who becomes her character, but even with her I can see the machinery if I look close enough, hidden though it may be. Perhaps that's simply a natural feature of screen-acting, as the screen heightens artificiality just by virtue of its existence. Or perhaps it's some problem on my own part.
Oh, well: I'm no expert on acting, and what I said may be completely off-base, but I am reminded of certain scenery-chewing performances that can never convince me of their reality but that are immensely enjoyable, so much so that I am dragged across the suspension of disbelief line in spite of myself. Certainly one cannot count Stanwyck in this category, but I suppose the point has relevance to your larger argument.
I have never--if I may say so--felt a complete lack of reality with Stanwyck, what I wrote before to one side, except in Ball of Fire (in which I experienced exactly what you're describing in regard to her). Again, hoping this all makes some sense, folks...