bad acting
-
arcblade — 18 years ago(September 01, 2007 07:08 PM)
Wow, I'm responding here to quite an old post but hey, maybe just maybe I'll be seen.
I, like lizzylee, grew up watching older movies and my friends did not. Indeed my closest friends simply refuse to watch them period assuming them to be bad and using the black and white color and the "overacting" notion as their rationale. I gave it some thought and having a natural penchant for social experimentation I set about observing the people around me in various situations as they arose naturally. Typically we consider the "overacting" to be as a result of stage or silent influence and I don't doubt the truth of that at all. However, it struck me that as I was growing up it was the real human type of acting in older movies that had appealed to me (specifically Jimmy Stewart's work with all of the natural subtleties of facial expression and voice that he displayed). And so faced with teh accusation that older styles of acting made such movies unrealistic and thus unwatchable (as if the premise of 80% of all movies of any time period constitutes realism) I took another look. And guess what? I found that the "overacting" wasn't over acting at all really. No, a bad actor then is the same as now, someone who was obviously acting and who seemed wooden in delivery. The syle of acting was, it seems to me, actually more real to how people really are. People (real people) ARE over the top. People at home and in real life do scream, they do shake/tremble, they studder even if they don't have a studder, people throw tantrum and when they get mad they act like fools and their faces turn colors and their veins show. Peopel sometime try to hide their feelings but are betrayed by their eyes and tehir manner. People, in short, are not smooth. The modern school of acting isn't realistic, its simply pretending that humans function smoothly. NOONE is as smooth as movies would have us believe we are. In the end older films displayed us as more frail, more nervous, and more real; older movies showed us who we were while newer movies show us who we wish we could be. The new hero never falters never breaks his flow and never fails to complete a sentence no matter what the situation; its a nice dream but it not real. Its just another change from man to superman, consider two good movies from different eras in High Noon Gary Cooper was presumed dead by the town because he'd have to face 4 guys alone and he was nervous and afraid, in Die Hard Bruce Willis accounts for 34 or so while cracking jokes. -
jhndce — 14 years ago(January 27, 2012 08:10 PM)
Lizzylee,
I too was watching the old movies by the time I was five. I once asked a co-worker if he'd ever seen a certain classic film, and his response was that he didn't watch films that were made before he was born. -
mcclurestephen — 19 years ago(December 09, 2006 09:07 PM)
i dont think so! however ill indulge you with this fact. consider the fact that it was 1933 for crying out loud! maybe you just have to be a big fan of the old classic horror films, but i found the entire film fantastic.
-
steve-brink — 18 years ago(April 09, 2007 06:18 AM)
The movie was made in Hollywood and many of the actors were American. My grandfather was an extra in the movies during that time, and you can see him in one of the scenes as a "bobby." He lived in Hollywood and later Westwood for his whole adult life.
Bear in mind, this movie was made during the Depression, and no one travelled much, so much of the movie was made at Universal Studios' sound stages. -
ryanyarb — 19 years ago(July 19, 2006 08:49 PM)
I think the acting in The Invisible Man is incredible although Claude Rains's performance is a bit dated. But Rains still manages to create a terrifying character. I write more extensively about the Invisible Man on my website www.skeletontree.net
-
hachmom-1 — 18 years ago(July 05, 2007 05:10 PM)
Una O"connor annoys me, though not as much as she did in "Bride".Remember this was Claude Rains first film.I think he did quite wellIm always surprised to look at this film after Dracula and Frankenstein and realize how much technical advancement had taken place in 2 years (i feel the same way when I watch the Mummy)
-
jquirk-1 — 18 years ago(August 06, 2007 12:07 AM)
Una O'Connor was annoying in this film and in "Bride of Frankenstein," similar to Jar Jar Binks in "Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace." Outside of that, this movie was great. Claude Rains was superb. This ranks somewhere in my top five of the classic Universal monster movies. The special effects were great for the time.
-
mixza737 — 18 years ago(October 05, 2007 06:36 PM)
Yeah, the only acting that really bothered me was Jenny Hall, screaming throughout every scene, and sometimes for no reason at all. I mean, woman in the 1930's were usually portayed as screamers who fall all over the place when anything bad happens, but Mrs. Hall was over the top even for that period. She seemed like she had some sort of mental disorder.
-
critic-2 — 16 years ago(June 12, 2009 12:21 PM)
Gloria Stuart is beautiful, but, frankly, not too good in this film. I thought her acting in "Titanic" was better.
The actor who plays Dr. Kemp is not very good either.
But Claude Rains and everybody else are excellent.