|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 16, 2020 20:18:29 GMT
This one drives me nuts.
That the majority involve corny over-acting.
The majority actually don't, especially foreign language movies and movies from England. The performances in those are as natural as any movie made these days. Ingmar Bergman movies are a great example, that involve some of the most naturalistic acting in movie history. These are all nuanced, realistic performances.
Thoughts?
Robert Mitchum for example. He isn't the greatest actor in the world, but he rarely overacted.
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on Nov 17, 2020 3:44:36 GMT
I'll take a little "over-acting" any day over the mush-mouthed mumbling of many modern-day actors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Nov 17, 2020 3:49:58 GMT
I’ve discussed this before about the original King Kong. Chalk it up to bad acting or a very theatrical style? This was a time before method actors like Brando arrived on the scene. But even before that, there was plenty great acting in both the silent films and early talkies.  |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 17, 2020 3:53:41 GMT
I’ve discussed this before about the original King Kong. Chalk it up to bad acting or a very theatrical style? This was a time before method actors like Brando arrived on the scene. But even before that, there was plenty great acting in both the silent films and early talkies. I actually disagree. I can list many actors before Brando who weren't "method" that were far better actors than anybody in King Kong and better actors than most modern actors. Laurence Olivier's quip about method acting holds some truth imo. Silent movie acting was a different style, because it had to be. It relied on exaggerated facial expressions, because they had to relay everything without talking. Though there are silent movies where the actors give subtle realistic performances as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Nov 17, 2020 3:57:45 GMT
I’ve discussed this before about the original King Kong. Chalk it up to bad acting or a very theatrical style? This was a time before method actors like Brando arrived on the scene. But even before that, there was plenty great acting in both the silent films and early talkies. I actually disagree. I can list many actors before Brando who weren't "method" that were far better actors than anybody in King Kong and better actors than most modern actors. Laurence Olivier's quip about method acting holds some truth imo. Just commenting on how much the style changed. I’m not leaning one way or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 17, 2020 4:07:06 GMT
I actually disagree. I can list many actors before Brando who weren't "method" that were far better actors than anybody in King Kong and better actors than most modern actors. Laurence Olivier's quip about method acting holds some truth imo. Just commenting on how much the style changed. I’m not leaning one way or the other. I will add to your comment then. There were actors who were good at the style and actors who weren't. Like now, there are actors who are great at what they do and actors who aren't. Edward G. Robinson for example, could do every style of acting. He adapted as the styles changed. James Cagney, less so from what I have seen. Bette Davis would sometimes go back and forth within the same movie and that is my only issue with her acting.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Nov 17, 2020 19:12:47 GMT
There was some overacting in the silents and early talkies. You had to overact a little in the silents. Without dialogue, you had to sell emotions visually a little harder. And that bled over into the early sound movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 17, 2020 23:36:50 GMT
There was some overacting in the silents and early talkies. You had to overact a little in the silents. Without dialogue, you had to sell emotions visually a little harder. And that bled over into the early sound movies. I agree, but some people who refuse to watch older movies think it lasted all the way through the 1950's.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Nov 18, 2020 0:50:43 GMT
Just commenting on how much the style changed. I’m not leaning one way or the other. I will add to your comment then. There were actors who were good at the style and actors who weren't. Like now, there are actors who are great at what they do and actors who aren't. Edward G. Robinson for example, could do every style of acting. He adapted as the styles changed. James Cagney, less so from what I have seen. Bette Davis would sometimes go back and forth within the same movie and that is my only issue with her acting. If you get the chance, check out the Gallant Hours. It's about "Bull" Halsey, and Cagney is excellent. Granted it's one of his last films but any question about him being able to adapt to a more "modern" acting method is disproven here. Give it a shot. I admit that the transition to "talkies" in the early 1930's had a lot of overacting but the transition to sound wasn't that graceful for a lot of actors or directors. The Sign of the Cross by DeMille is a prime example of this (although I'd argue that even all the way up to the Ten Commandments DeMille's direction never gave up a lot of aspects of the silent era - still great films though).
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Nov 18, 2020 6:42:49 GMT
I dislike the theatrical style of acting in very old films. It feels like watching a stage play and lessens the illusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 18, 2020 6:52:10 GMT
I dislike the theatrical style of acting in very old films. It feels like watching a stage play and lessens the illusion. Did you even read my OP? You just re-stated the misconception that I am talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 18, 2020 6:56:16 GMT
One favorite bit of overacting is Frederic March in the 1931 Jekyll Hyde where he shouts "You hear me Oh God! This is my penance!"
He then gestures in a very stagey way and makes his departure.
The odd thing is, his Hyde is SO naturalistic. Not over the top at all.
I concur about preferring more theatrical acting to the modern "reading a phone book" variety.
I still cannot determine whether the weak voices are due to a lack of training or because those acting lack the vocal strength common in older performers. There are people who have no theatrical training who have strong voices so I am not sure it's due to that.
I've watched 1950s movies where they use non-actors in scenes and you can easily pick them out because their voices are so unwavering monotone (like many modern actors).
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 18, 2020 18:18:37 GMT
I'll take a little "over-acting" any day over the mush-mouthed mumbling of many modern-day actors. They even made it into a genre. I think it's called mumblecore or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Nov 18, 2020 19:41:22 GMT
There was some overacting in the silents and early talkies. You had to overact a little in the silents. Without dialogue, you had to sell emotions visually a little harder. And that bled over into the early sound movies.
This debate reminds me of Singin' in the Rain, which captured that rough transition very well.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Nov 18, 2020 19:57:42 GMT
There was some overacting in the silents and early talkies. You had to overact a little in the silents. Without dialogue, you had to sell emotions visually a little harder. And that bled over into the early sound movies.
This debate reminds me of Singin' in the Rain, which captured that rough transition very well.
So did The Artist
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Nov 18, 2020 20:03:18 GMT
I dislike the theatrical style of acting in very old films. It feels like watching a stage play and lessens the illusion. BUT the "illusion" is there in the theater when you are watching a stage play ... a movie just has more scenery !
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Nov 19, 2020 7:04:03 GMT
I dislike the theatrical style of acting in very old films. It feels like watching a stage play and lessens the illusion. BUT the "illusion" is there in the theater when you are watching a stage play ... a movie just has more scenery ! Film is a more immersive medium though. The main appeal of theatre is that one is watching a live performance, whereas film foregoes that in favour of greater authenticity and a more complete suspension of disbelief. Theatre-style acting is fine on stage but doesn't translate well onto film IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Nov 19, 2020 7:12:33 GMT
I dislike the theatrical style of acting in very old films. It feels like watching a stage play and lessens the illusion. Did you even read my OP? You just re-stated the misconception that I am talking about. Sorry, man. It was late when I posted the above and I haven't gotten much sleep for the last few nights, so my concentration is gone. I stand by my assertion though that a large proportion of vintage movies I've seen (as in pre-60s) contain a heavy amount of theatre-style acting that's uncommon in movies from later decades. In fairness to the actors, I think the cinematography and the studio sets and not just the acting itself add to the problem. I haven't seen nearly enough movies from these earlier decades to give a detailed critique on such matters, as most of my movie-watching focusses on titles running from the 60s onwards, by which time a more immersive style was coming into vogue. Based on what I have seen to date, I'm gonna have to disagree with you for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 19, 2020 9:23:13 GMT
Did you even read my OP? You just re-stated the misconception that I am talking about. Sorry, man. It was late when I posted the above and I haven't gotten much sleep for the last few nights, so my concentration is gone. I stand by my assertion though that a large proportion of vintage movies I've seen (as in pre-60s) contain a heavy amount of theatre-style acting that's uncommon in movies from later decades. In fairness to the actors, I think the cinematography and the studio sets and not just the acting itself add to the problem. I haven't seen nearly enough movies from these earlier decades to give a detailed critique on such matters, as most of my movie-watching focusses on titles running from the 60s onwards, by which time a more immersive style was coming into vogue. Based on what I have seen to date, I'm gonna have to disagree with you for now. It seems to me that many people like one or the other, but not both. I like all styles of acting as long as it is good acting. Maybe this makes it hard for me to see the difference now.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Nov 20, 2020 7:41:22 GMT
Sorry, man. It was late when I posted the above and I haven't gotten much sleep for the last few nights, so my concentration is gone. I stand by my assertion though that a large proportion of vintage movies I've seen (as in pre-60s) contain a heavy amount of theatre-style acting that's uncommon in movies from later decades. In fairness to the actors, I think the cinematography and the studio sets and not just the acting itself add to the problem. I haven't seen nearly enough movies from these earlier decades to give a detailed critique on such matters, as most of my movie-watching focusses on titles running from the 60s onwards, by which time a more immersive style was coming into vogue. Based on what I have seen to date, I'm gonna have to disagree with you for now. It seems to me that many people like one or the other, but not both. I like all styles of acting as long as it is good acting. Maybe this makes it hard for me to see the difference now. It may also come down to exposure. The vast majority of movies I've seen date from the 60s onwards, so the older style of acting seems odd to me. I don't think I'm particularly unusual in that regard. Couple that with the fact that vintage movies were made at a time when the technical limitations were far greater, were often filmed in black and white and when a stricter censorship code was in place and the end result is movies that can be less easily relatable to modern day audiences more au fait with a different style of acting.
|
|
