Was There Bad Acting on DS?

[Philippe Cordier]

I haven't been able to post my response to earlier comments until now since I haven't had computer access since last Thursday, and I only have a few minutes to write now.  I decided to make this a new topic since the discussion in the thread "Am I A Nerd?" had veered off course a bit.  (Though I suppose by now everyone has pretty much had their say.)

Some may never be convinced that bad acting ever occurred on DS.  I don't think I've ever deliberately, cynically tried to play "spot the bad actor," but sometimes you don't have to hunt for it  -  it jumps out at you.  Maybe my own acting training or my stint as a theatre reviewer have conditioned me to have a critical eye, but I don't think such a background is necessary to realize that there is overacting, hamminess, and occasional ineptness in the acting on the show.  I hasten to add, for those who don't know me, that I have praised the acting of the majority of the actors on the show consistently in detailed commentary (e.g., Nancy Barrett, Thayer David, Louis Edmonds, John Karlen).  It's in contrast to such good work that some of the bad performances stand out.

Yes, there are plenty of explanations for any bad acting that might have occurred   -   tight budgets, limited rehearsal time, a scarcity of actors in NYC who were trained for TV work, etc.  Although I agree that stage acting may be more expressive or exaggerated, and that some of the actors on the show had no training for television or film, I don't think that fully accounts for all of what many viewers feel is at times "overdone" acting.  If the problem -  or should I say "special circumstances"  -  behind the sometimes stagey acting of some of the actors on the show is simply a difference in NYC (theatre) and LA (TV/film) acting styles, then why is it that actors like Jonathan Frid and Lara Parker (and others) who had no previous TV experience consistently gave controlled performances and were able to reign in their supposedly exaggerated, theatrical tendencies?  Could it be because they were just damn good actors?  And that some others were not so good?

I agree that we do see some very "big" acting on DS, i.e. Broadway-style acting.  A perfect example would be the actress who played Jenny in 1897 and the antique shop co-owner in the Leviathan period (sorry I can't remember all the names).  In my own personal opinion, she was an effective actress on the show despite having a "big" style.  A broad style of acting is not the only explanation for what many see as the occasional bad acting by some actors on the show during the course of its five-year run.

I'm willing to overlook Frid's difficulty with his lines because the character he has created is so original and layered.  Joan Bennett had many fine moments despite having recurring difficulties with lines.  I'm entertained by Grayson Hall's sheer repertoire of, let's call them "acting accessories" that she assembled to produce our beloved Julia Hoffman; but I'm more impressed by those moments, much rarer, when real emotion came through Julia.

I admit that I'm partial to naturalness in acting, which we see throughout the work of KLS, Joel Crothers, and others.

I'm also skeptical, to put it mildly, that Dr. Lang's performance (to use only one recent example) would look much better if we were viewing it on stage.  Maybe to a silent film audience it would have been OK, but acting has evolved since the days of vaudeville.

There is such a thing as subtlety, shading, nuance, and realism in stage acting, too.  IMO, there are performances on DS that lack any of those attributes.  Some actors gave only one-dimensional characterizations.  Instead of characters, we got caricatures and cartoon villains (for example).  It's possible that that's what the directors wanted, and it may be unfair to blame the actor.  However, I don't think it's wrong to point out a bad performance.

I don't think it's only the "staginess" that some viewers have objected to.  Some performances were amateurish or flat without being over the top.  Sometimes this may have been because of inexperience, and the actor may have had potential that was later developed, but the fact remains that their work on DS was very ...  let's say elementary.

Those who hold that no one on DS ever "broke character" may wish to consult the old thread started by Chris2 titled  'Alexandra "Giggles" Moltke.  Examples of actors who went out of character are plentiful.

I don't think it should be necessary to apologize if one views the show with a critical eye.  For some of us, that comes naturally.  I can't help but make shades of distinctions, see gradations and contrasts.  It seems to me that a discussion forum like this is an appropriate venue to discuss the things that frustrate us as well as those that give us enjoyment.  Not criticism for critcism's sake, but IMO such discussions add a drop of reality to the tincture.  I think the show is strong enough to withstand a healthy does of skepticism at times.  It's surprising how irreverent some of the actors themselves can be about the show's shortcomings, including their own acting.  I give Chris Pennock a lot of credit for his candidness when he writes in KLS's DS Almanac 2000:

"I did have talent for shameless, over-the-top, quasi-Shakespearean-chewing-the-scenery acting."

And I don t think Mr. Pennock was the most egregious example (at least he got a lot better as time went on)!

Finally, I think some comments made in the other thread were a little hard on DarkShadows' brother.  Just because he thinks the show has bad acting doesn't make him an ignorant rube.  There are intelligent and thoughtful people who may have no interest in the show.  That doesn't make them morons.

[Stuart]

Of course there were bad actors and performances on "Dark Shadows" -- no one should have to pull a performance together in less than 24 hours with changes being made up until the last minute, but those were the limitations of the show and the conditions it was recorded under.

There are some painful performances along the way, but generally the results were a lot better than they should have been.

[Barnabas]

Of course there were bad actors and performances on "Dark Shadows" -- no one should have to pull a performance together in less than 24 hours with changes being made up until the last minute, but those were the limitations of the show and the conditions it was recorded under.

There are some painful performances along the way, but generally the results were a lot better than they should have been.

I totally concur.  You have to also remember that the acting on other soaps at the time was worse (with few exceptions).  They weren't playing the parts for posterity!

[jennifer]

I totally concur.  You have to also remember that the acting on other soaps at the time was worse (with few exceptions).  They weren't playing the parts for posterity!

great post Vlad
of course there was bad acting on DS sometimes i think that is why i like it so much! It is not perfect but frankly
perfection bores me some of the top rated movies
with wonderful acting have bored me too! My family pokes fun at me for watching the show and my theater
friends make fun of it  but as i point out to them It's all in the frame of mind. what is "good" acting to me may be horrible to someone else!I love DS because It is still enjoyable to watch for me bad acting or not!

Still crazy after all these years!
jennifer

[hooked]

Everyone has had 35 years to analyze DS and compare it and its actors with other shows.  Where are some of these other shows?  DS is still around despite everything because it is a great show.  In another 35 years it will be a legend among shows for breaking a few molds and defining an era.  Vive les Dark Shadows!

[Dr. Eric Lang]

Of course there are many instances of "over-acting" and often a scene is lightened by unintentional humor because of it. Eric Lang is a good example.

On the other hand, I much prefer someone who tries too hard over someone who doesn't try at all. Over-acting doesn't come off as badly in an over-the-top venue like DS as under-acting does.

Lee Beery, who played Joanna Mills in 1840, has to be one of the worst actresses ever to grace the show in my opinion. She was just terrible. I'll take an entire episode of nothing but Dr. Lang over one scene with Joanna! Only slightly better (again IMO) was Lisa Richards as Sabrina. These are much better examples of what I consider "bad acting" than the occassional line flub or overly dramatic gesturing from some of the others.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I don't think I've ever deliberately, cynically tried to play "spot the bad actor," but sometimes you don't have to hunt for it  -  it jumps out at you.

GOD, YES! Does the name Geoffrey Scott ring any bells?! Every one of his scenes as Sky Rumson during Leviathans was/is sheer torture to endure!

What's really awful, though, is to realize that Scott's acting never actually improved. It's pretty bad when almost 30 years after his stint on DS, a publication like Soap Opera Digest wrote about how thrilled they were to see Scott's character written out of Guiding Light because his acting was so bad.

[Dr. Eric Lang]

GOD, YES! Does the name Geoffrey Scott ring any bells?! Every one of his scenes as Sky Rumson during Leviathans was/is sheer torture to endure!

What's really awful, though, is to realize that Scott's acting never actually improved. It's pretty bad when almost 30 years after his stint on DS, a publication like Soap Opera Digest wrote about how thrilled they were to see Scott's character written out of Guiding Light because his acting was so bad.

Bwah ha ha ! How could I forget Geoffrey Scott? He was equally dismal as Crystal's first husband on Dynasty.

[ROBINV]

There was tons of bad acting on DS, some by the very best actors.  

There are those who didn't seem to have even one bad day, like Nancy Barrett, Joel Crothers, Humbert Allen Astredo and Thayer David.  

Jonathan Frid was sublimely good, but even I, amongst his most ardent fans, admit he had his bad shows.  And there were times he was only fair to middling.  The same could be said for Grayson Hall.  When they were at the top of their form, they could bring you to tears with their performances.  Joan Bennett rarely did anything for me, but I loved her in her old movies.  Perhaps it was Liz I didn't care for, because I thoroughly enjoyed her as Judith in 1897.

I never cared much for Lisa Richards, Roger Davis (who I much preferred as vampire Dirk), wood-man Geoffrey Scott, the horrific woman who played Joanna in 1840, Addison Powell.  

Being a newbie at acting doesn't, IMHO, give one license to turn in a terrible job (like Donna McKechnie, sorry to her fans).  DARK SHADOWS gave Kate Jackson her start, and while she was tentative, acting-wise, I thought her luminous and enchanting.  David Selby was amazing as the original Quentin, but the writing never matched his talents from then on, sad to say.  

I'm rambling, and I know once I sign off, I'll think of someone really good or bad I forgot to mention.  But I guess that's what the "modify" is for.

Love, Robin    

[deron]

While sometimes the acting was bad, there were times that it did work well.  I think we can all remember a number of episodes that everything clicked.  The acting was good, the writing was good and everything flowed well.  These moments are always worth the over the top acting that happens sometimes.

I admire these group of players.  It was practically live TV, because there were very rarely any retakes, and with the little time they had to learn their lines, I believe some of them did a wonderful job.  Also take into account that they weren't doing the same ol' kind of dialogue that the other soaps were doing.  They were dealing with subject matters that no one else in daytime was doing.  

Were there some bad actors in DS?  Of course.  Even the best TV shows and movies will have a few bad actors in it most of the time.  It was the flaws in the regulars on DS, though, that gave them character that I will always remember them with.

deron

[Philippe Cordier]

Very thoughtful and astute commentary, Robin.  (I also basically concur with your assessment of individual actors, with one major exception, which is pretty amazing!)

Just a footnote on the theatricality of the stage-trained actors to underscore my point that stage training isn't the culprit that can completely explain away either the scenery-chewing or the ineptness of a few of the actors ...

Mr. Frid's theatrical training served him very well.  His physical stance and voice (very different from his own everyday speaking voice) help create and define a believable character.  One of my favorite moments (and one of the most theatrical of the entire series) is his speech describing the death of Josette when he tells of her running from him in horror, jumping to her death from Widows Hill, to Carolyn and Victoria in the Great House during a thunderstorm very early in the series.

The setup of the scene with this lengthy, baroque speech is pure theater.  The key with Frid is that he is both theatrical and believable.

I would submit, by way of contrast, that several other actors were theatrical but NOT believable.  I'm not sure I want to go into specifics and risk hurt feelings ...

Since I've already mentioned Addison Powell, though, I'll add another comment that is admittedly speculation.  I understand that he earned a prestigious stage award, and I've tried to reconcile that fact with his work on DS.  The only explanation I've come up with is that he condescended to the DS material.  In other words, he felt that the Dr. Lang material was on the level of a Saturday morning cartoon and that the DS audience, consisting largely of teenagers and children, didn't expect -- or deserve -- anything more sophisticated.  Actors make choices, and I think he acted at a level that coincided with his view of the material.

Granted, the Dr. Lang and Adam business wasn't a high point in the series, but it does derive from a complex, philosophical novel by Mary Shelley.  IMO, if Powell had aimed higher, he might have brought some dignity to the role, and thus improved the storyline.

Considering that Frid brought such depth, dignity and realism to the role of a vampire, I'd say that Frid's was a considerable achievement.

[kuanyin]

 I understand that he earned a prestigious stage award, and I've tried to reconcile that fact with his work on DS.  The only explanation I've come up with is that he condescended to the DS material.

There IS another explanation. Could it be that prestigious awards can sometimes be overated? Perhaps everyone was mad at another performer (ala Russell Crowe this year) or the other performances cancelled out votes?

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Vlad wrote:
>I understand that he earned a prestigious stage award,
>and I've tried to reconcile that fact with his work on DS.
>The only explanation I've come up with is that he
>condescended to the DS material.

There IS another explanation. Could it be that prestigious awards can sometimes be overated? Perhaps everyone was mad at another performer (ala Russell Crowe this year) or the other performances cancelled out votes?

Well, there always that possibility. But there's also another possible explanation for Powell's performances as Lang - could it be that that's the way the DS directors actually wanted him to play the part? I've mentioned this before, but they could have reigned him in if they'd wanted to. It's certainly true that in later periods of the series the directors spent a good deal of their time working out the special effects and frequently out of necessity had to leave the actors to their own devices. But this portion of the story is fairly special effects free, so I find it hard to believe that most of what the actors were doing wasn't at least with the directors' blessings, if not their actual designs. Just think of how shocked some of us might be if we ever learned that Lela Swift and John Sedwick were actually in the rehearsal room telling Powell that his performance wasn't broad enough and to take it up a notch.

[Cassandra]

Well, there always that possibility. But there's also another possible explanation for Powell's performances as Lang - could it be that that's the way the DS directors actually wanted him to play the part? I've mentioned this before, but they could have reigned him in if they'd wanted to. It's certainly true that in later periods of the series the directors spent a good deal of their time working out the special effects and frequently out of necessity had to leave the actors to their own devices. But this portion of the story is fairly special effects free, so I find it hard to believe that most of what the actors were doing wasn't at least with the directors' blessings, if not their actual designs. Just think of how shocked some of us might be if we ever learned that Lela Swift and John Sedwick were actually in the rehearsal room telling Powell that his performance wasn't broad enough and to take it up a notch.

Good Point MB. I was thinking along the same lines. Perhaps, this is exactly the way the writers wanted Lang's character to be portrayed.
On another note, I think it's fair to say that I thought most of the actors did a pretty good job considering the many different roles some of them had to play. Unlike soap operas where an actor will play one role to the end, the actors on DS had a variety of them to play! Considering the multiple time periods that were played out on the show, it must have been a challenge for the actors to adjust to each new character that was introduced. Naturally, some of them had their bad days, but for the most part, I think they did a pretty good job.

[Raineypark]

The only explanation I've come up with is that he condescended to the DS material.  In other words, he felt that the Dr. Lang material was on the level of a Saturday morning cartoon and that the DS audience, consisting largely of teenagers and children, didn't expect -- or deserve -- anything more sophisticated.  Actors make choices, and I think he acted at a level that coincided with his view of the material.

Vlad has brought up an issue I'm not sure I've seen mentioned before....the fact that neither DS, nor any other soap in production at the time, was respected by the industry that produced it.   The audience was looked down upon as dim-witted housewives, star-struck teenagers and kids.  

I think there's little doubt that most (if not all) of the people who worked on these shows would have jumped ship in a New York minute if offered a job on night time TV, the movies or Broadway.

Those who did good work on DS did it out of self-respect, and respect for their co-workers....not because they thought they were making history.  Those who's work leaves much to be desired, were just marking time and paying the rent.

Raineypark