|
Post by abraxas on Oct 8, 2010 16:15:03 GMT -5
Oh sorry GL I did not know that.
I never saw him as a ham, I think he's one of the greatest horror actors there has ever been. Although I do think the work he did in this film and in Theater of Blood are two of his best works. Have any of you ever see The Tower of London, from 1939. Its not a horror movie but a historical piece and he is terrific in it, he was also in the 1960 remake, where he played the opposite kind of character. It also has Boris Karloff best performance after Frankenstein as Price's club footed henchmen.
Of course even at the height of the camp area he played the Abominable Dr Phibes where he didn't speak a single word of dialog and yet he was better in that then most actors are in movies today.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Oct 11, 2010 9:41:20 GMT -5
See, that area right there with the Dr. Phibes films are precisely why it's so hard for me to determine acting ability in films. Half of the reviews for the films say he's way too campy and over-the-top in them, the other half says that he's doing a fantastic job, so I don't really know which side to believe and how he can go over-the-top. He just looks like Vincent Price in the roles, he doesn't look any different than in his earlier Corman/Poe films or his 50s works, so it just makes me even more confused as to how acting talent is judged.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Oct 12, 2010 8:13:01 GMT -5
Well, the issue isn't that I don't like his campier films. I am sure you can tell, however, the difference between a fun campy film, and this deadly serious work of art.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Oct 12, 2010 9:38:32 GMT -5
Indeed, the tone of the film is quite easy to tell, but if he plays it exactly the same way, and I don't see a difference between something like this and a film like The House on Haunted Hill, how does that really help? He seems like the same kind of person in both films, so how does it help to judge when the two different styles come out exactly the same?
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Oct 12, 2010 10:28:33 GMT -5
Dont know what to tell you then, if you see the character he played in "Hill' and Dr Phibes as being the same type of acting
|
|
|
Post by GL on Oct 13, 2010 9:36:52 GMT -5
So now you know why I don't judge acting, that right there. It's fun to recognize a popular actor in the genre, but in using that tactic to rate a film is totally useless on my end and why I don't do it.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Oct 14, 2010 10:35:46 GMT -5
Well most people have an idea of what bad acting is
|
|
|
Post by GL on Oct 15, 2010 9:36:23 GMT -5
So know you know why I say it all looks the same to me.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Oct 15, 2010 14:00:14 GMT -5
I mean a movie doesn't have to be greatly acted, but at least it should be fairly well acted, and for most people bad acting is all is needed to take them out of the film, because they simply don't believe the characters conviction.
Well GL here is a little exorcise for ya, watch some Robert De Niro film, say Taxi driver then watch The Thirteenth Child or Skinwalkers and you'll see what is good acting and what is bad acting.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Oct 18, 2010 9:38:30 GMT -5
Well, there's the eternal question that comes up when I think about this kind of thing:
Is it the acting ability or just the role of the character being portrayed in the film?
That always comes up when I start to think about acting ability and it always prevents me from enjoying the movie and I miss out on what's going on because I'm debating in my head whether or not I'm supposed to enjoy the actor's performance or whether or not the character written into the story is out-of-place and so acting in accordance with the guidelines of the character makes them stand-out and be called out because he's not supposed to be in a film like that.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Oct 18, 2010 9:49:35 GMT -5
Don't be silly, man. Here is a rule of thumb that I tend to follow. When watching a film, just try to allow yourself to be completely engrossed and emotionally involved in it. If you cn do that and feel as if you are watching something more than a movie, then the acting has drawn you all the way in and it is good. If you constantly react to the silly behavior of the characters and think to yourself that you're watching a film, then that is not nearly so good. THis is not rocket science. You understand this. If you don't, then I don't know what to tell ya.
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Oct 18, 2010 11:41:15 GMT -5
Is it the acting ability or just the role of the character being portrayed in the film? It's about whether the actor is convincing in the role. Think about all the SyFy originals and low budget horror that you watch. Have you ever noticed at all that a lot of times it actually seems like an actor is reading from a cue card? Or that in every situation, their reactions and the way they speak seem really wooden, or monotone? That's bad acting. On the flip side, have you ever felt an emotional reaction to a certain character? Have you despised or been scared of a villain, or been rooting for a good guy and actually felt something when they were killed off? If you have, then the acting was either good, or at least acceptable, and the actor has some kind of screen presence or charisma. And still waiting for my copy of Witchfinder General, finally just ordered it from Amazon since we are on dial up speed right now.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Oct 18, 2010 14:32:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GL on Oct 19, 2010 10:51:50 GMT -5
Don't be silly, man. Here is a rule of thumb that I tend to follow. When watching a film, just try to allow yourself to be completely engrossed and emotionally involved in it. If you cn do that and feel as if you are watching something more than a movie, then the acting has drawn you all the way in and it is good. If you constantly react to the silly behavior of the characters and think to yourself that you're watching a film, then that is not nearly so good. THis is not rocket science. You understand this. If you don't, then I don't know what to tell ya. Well I do that regardless of watching a person act. I view films from the point of view that I'm an invisible character watching everything that transpires from the viewpoint of the camera. The camera is my eyes as I'm watching everything that happens, so I'm part of what goes on pretty much from the get-go. It also explains why I hate the Blair-Witch-styled shaking camera and why I tend to fall for all the cheapest of jump-gags since I'm watching it from the viewpoint of a character in the middle of all the action. Is it the acting ability or just the role of the character being portrayed in the film? It's about whether the actor is convincing in the role. Think about all the SyFy originals and low budget horror that you watch. Have you ever noticed at all that a lot of times it actually seems like an actor is reading from a cue card? Or that in every situation, their reactions and the way they speak seem really wooden, or monotone? That's bad acting. On the flip side, have you ever felt an emotional reaction to a certain character? Have you despised or been scared of a villain, or been rooting for a good guy and actually felt something when they were killed off? If you have, then the acting was either good, or at least acceptable, and the actor has some kind of screen presence or charisma. That woodenness you speak of is pretty much right where that guide-point looses me. It's not all that hard to guess that just about any time a person who's looking slightly off center of the camera could be reading cue cards, and what if he's being a good actor but it's just the camera angle they chose to shot the scene that gives the impression they're reading cue cards when they're really not? My girlfriend and I go over that almost everytime we watch those, and it always boils down to that exact argument: maybe it was just the angle chosen that gives the impression of off-camera cue-card reading. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, and we both agree that there's times where we've spotted it happen, but I can't distinguish it from the actual times or bad camera placement. As I said, I know I've been exposed to it all the time, I just can't recognize it for what it is. The other thing about that is I get wrapped up more in what they're saying than how they're saying it. If what they're saying is confusing or illogical, I'll notice that far easier than if they're saying it stilted, woodenly or whatever term you want to use. And I tend to notice that more often after reading others point it out in reviews online than I do on first-run viewing experience anyway, as I'm engrossed in the action of the story. That's actually not that bad of an example, I have to admit. So, since De Niro said his in more of a cohesive effort, not really sputtering or pausing, is that what you're getting at, as I noticed that the girl in the top one tended to halt a second or so before reacting to her come-on. Is that what you're getting at, as I noticed that bit quite easily.
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Oct 19, 2010 11:55:49 GMT -5
That woodenness you speak of is pretty much right where that guide-point looses me. It's not all that hard to guess that just about any time a person who's looking slightly off center of the camera could be reading cue cards, and what if he's being a good actor but it's just the camera angle they chose to shot the scene that gives the impression they're reading cue cards when they're really not? My girlfriend and I go over that almost everytime we watch those, and it always boils down to that exact argument: maybe it was just the angle chosen that gives the impression of off-camera cue-card reading. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, and we both agree that there's times where we've spotted it happen, but I can't distinguish it from the actual times or bad camera placement. As I said, I know I've been exposed to it all the time, I just can't recognize it for what it is. It's more about intonation and expression. Meaning, you can usually tell by someone's expression, intonation and interaction with other characters that they are focused on reciting or reading a script, rather than sounding as if they are actually having a conversation. The best actors lose themselves in a character. There is never any time you feel as if they are reading lines, it seems natural. Base it on experiences in life. Do the actors seem like they are reacting in a believable way to you? Surely you have seen someone angry, or happy, or sad, or scared. When an actor is supposed to be conveying this onscreen, do you find it believable compared to situations you have experienced?
|
|