No need to, I get what you're saying Coz :cool:
Printable View
No need to, I get what you're saying Coz :cool:
I'd say proportionally there were an equal amount of great actors. The reality is though that there is and was an overabundance of mediocre and just plain bad actors.
There's big difference in the approach towards acting between different eras in movies. Now it's good taste when everything is as "life-like" as possible, but it didn't used to be that way. I like the movies where acting was acting, not life-imitation.
I understand, Coz, and to an extent can agree. Acting and film-making has evolved dramatically, but not always for the best (which is why MST3K could've gone on forever if the SyFy channel didn't blow frogs). For me, the bottom line is whether or not it can make me forget that I'm watching a movie or an actor playing a role - regardless of whether or not the acting is stilted.
Am I making sense?
My theatre courses included "Styles of Acting" and "Styles of Directing." Basically, I like being able to operate from and appreciate a broad variety of differing perspectives.
surprise, look who i am in agreement with here. :grouphug:
i think there's a lot to be said of great actors of all eras. it's difficult to say how a james stewart or cary grant or joel mcrea (yes, i had to get him in) would do today, as it is difficult to say how any of today's great actors would have done in another era.
it's one of the reasons i usually object to "best of all time" in discussions of things like sports. the games change so much from generation to generation. it's all completely subjective, which is fine, but it's also entirely speculative as we lack the ability to bring james stewart back to life and put him in a current film.