DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '26 I => Current Talk '02 I => Topic started by: Bouchard on May 21, 2002, 01:13:17 AM
-
?!?i LOVE this show, and i always get into the storyline, no matter what episode! but, my brother watches it, cuz he has nothing to do, and he's always dissing it and saying it has bad acting and everything, but i LOVE it and i think it's REALLY good! am i just some big nerd??
-
Only people with a deep appreciation for subtlety, creativity and inventiveness can truly enjoy the depth of Dark Shadows. It takes an incredible amount of maturity to understand the psychoanalytical nature of it. And if your brother bugs you again, short-sheet his bed!
Gerard
-
Let me guess, does your brother a WWF fan? >:( I honestly think there is a lot to what Gerard said. It seems like stupid people just can't get the depth that there is to DS. I'll admit that we may read more into it than was originally there, but to watch it and just say "Stupid show, bad acting" seems the height of doltishness.
-
Just join the club we're very deep here! LOL
jennifer
and do what gerard says!
-
Don't feel bad, my whole family does that 2 me. Just smile and pity them because they don't understand it, and you do :D After all, they don't know what they're missing.... 8)
-
?!?i LOVE this show, and i always get into the storyline, no matter what episode! but, my brother watches it, cuz he has nothing to do, and he's always dissing it and saying it has bad acting and everything, but i LOVE it and i think it's REALLY good! am i just some big nerd??
No! You are definetely not a nerd! If you love the show, then don't worry about what anyone else says to you about it. If your brother doesn't like it that much, then why is he watching with you? Apparently, he can't dislike it that much or he wouldn't be sitting there watching it with you. No matter how bored I am, you wouldn't catch me watching a show I didn't like. So keep watching and enjoy the show. :)
-
?!?i LOVE this show, and i always get into the storyline, no matter what episode! but, my brother watches it, cuz he has nothing to do, and he's always dissing it and saying it has bad acting and everything, but i LOVE it and i think it's REALLY good! am i just some big nerd??
The show has its share of good and bad moments. The first time around, I tended to go along with the story whether I thought it was particularly interesting or not simply because I wanted to see where everything would lead. I think I was more accepting of the various plot points then; I've become a little pickier this time around.
As for the acting, it may not have been Oscar caliber, but it wasn't that bad. In fact, with a few exceptions, I've found the DS players to be extremely skilled. Given the circumstances under which they had to work, they had to put so much more energy into each performance than modern TV actors. Their efforts had to transcend the cramped sets and the sometimes-questionable scripts, and they didn't have a very large time frame in which to make it all work. With all of that in mind, it makes the numerous exceptional performances (read the "Favorite Scenes" topic) that much more admirable. I'd like to see Tom Cruise or Jennifer Aniston try to strut their stuff in that environment.
To tell the truth, I never used to really notice just how many things went wrong with the show. Oh, some of the mistakes were pretty glaring (e.g. Bathia Mapes) but I didn't spend time looking out for all of the microphone shadows and cameramen cameos. I was too focused on the story to let my attention drift to all of the other things. Now that I know what happens next, I can afford to pick up on what goes on in the background, but it doesn't diminish my affection for the show. On the whole, I think that DS is a lot of fun, and I'm sorry for the people who are too blinded by flashy special effects, sex, and violence to appreciate it.
ProfStokes
-
Well put everyone! And, DarkShadows, how sad for your brother that you got all the imagination in the family [thumb]. I think you should get a few DS T-shirts, one of those big latte cups, a Barnabas ring, and a few other assorted pieces of memorabilia to prominently wear or display around your house. Drive him up the wall! [crazd]
-
Well put everyone! And, DarkShadows, how sad for your brother that you got all the imagination in the family [thumb]. I think you should get a few DS T-shirts, one of those big latte cups, a Barnabas ring, and a few other assorted pieces of memorabilia to prominently wear or display around your house. Drive him up the wall! [crazd]
Well said also CastleBee
i'm thinking of getting a few of those items for those
in my family who chose to make fun of me ;D
jennifer
-
*stands up and applaudes for ProfStokes* Very well put, Professor! ;D
-
In this day and age of computer generated special effects and short attention span acting and writing, I find Dark Shadows to be an oasis in today's state of TV. It is great to see real actors interact, and carry a good storyline over the course of months and don't treat the viewer as if they were 6 years old.
deron
-
There's no real middle ground with "Dark Shadows" -- people either seem to love it or hate it.
And I suppose that's not entirely surprising. On a technical and stylistic level, it really represents an era of television that just doesn't exist any more. Viewers today watching the show are continually asked to overlook the shortcomings of a frantic, underfunded production, something they otherwise simply don't experience.
"Dark Shadows" is a curate's egg throughout -- if you're willing to take the leap and enjoy it at face value without cynicism, it's amongst some of the most rewarding television you're ever likely to encounter.
-
You hit it right on the head Deron ;). Seems todays viewers want instance action, special effects, naked people etc :(. When I watch DS my mind is going a mile a minute. I think about the lines, performances, settings, camera work and yes the bloopers. Because they are all very creative and entertaining. Also the actors/actresses have interesting faces that I enjoy looking at. No bobby/ken dolls here. Yet each face is a pleasure. In my opinion the actings is superior :). and I believe Dan curtis choose the actors for their voices. Trained, professional and clear. Very unlike many of todays with their nasal even irritating voices. (maybe to many nose jobs.). By the way, I love the way Elizabeth says her A's. J
-
The only person in my family who doesn't like Dark Shadows is my dad. I think it's because of his strict religious beliefs, especially regarding witchcraft. I never heard of anybody who loves Dark Shadows being called a nerd. If so, then I must really be one. My huge master bedroom looks like the display room at the Dark Shadows Festival!
-
In this day and age of computer generated special effects and short attention span acting and writing, I find Dark Shadows to be an oasis in today's state of TV. It is great to see real actors interact, and carry a good storyline over the course of months and don't treat the viewer as if they were 6 years old.
deron
Perhaps a lot of people have never been to a live stage play. It is quite a different experience than watching a movie or TV show and in many ways much more enjoyable. That's what watching DS is like - it's like watching a play. Yes, there are flubbed lines, but most of these are forgiveable. In real life people stumble over their own words, they don't deliver perfectly rehearsed dialogues, so in some ways it seems even more "real" because of the flubs.
I also agree wholeheartedly with Elizabeth about the actors - the criteria for today's daytime TV is all about looks. All the performers are models, not actors. I don't know about the rest of you but I really can't relate to an entire town filled with models. DS used real ACTORS - people who looked like real people.
-
Excellent commentary by Prof. Stokes. Much better than that salon essay, I might add. And I agree with what everyone else has said. Very telling observations. At the same time ...
I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but when the acting was bad (as DarkShadows' brother has noticed), it was really bad. Worse, in fact, than just about anything else I've ever seen, including nonprofessional theater. I know many wouldn't agree and might feel like pouring boiling oil on me for saying that, but that's my opinion.
At one point in the series, I was ready to toss in the towel when I felt everything -- from the acting to the writing to the direction to the stage hands -- had devolved to a point where the show had become a joke. If I hadn't cared so deeply about DS, and if it hadn't been a part of me from childhood, I wouldn't have cared. I would have written it off like DarkShadows' brother does. Instead, I posted a rather over-the-top rant about my feelings, and fortunately, a couple of people encouraged me to persevere. I'm grateful for those posters. I'm thankful that I didn't give up on the show because the rewards that it ended up giving me have been wonderful.
DS continues to spark my imagination on many levels, and I'm constantly amazed at the depth and level of intelligence and creativity of both writers and actors overall. I've also learned not to take all of the series' shortcomings quite as seriously as I used to.
-Vlad
-
Very true Vlad -- soaps are weird beasts by their nature, trying to create a consistent product in a medium that's inconsistent by its day-to-day nature.
If we're being honest, they are very few truly amazing episodes of "Dark Shadows" -- I'd say that most of the time, only about 50% of what's attempted comes off. It's hardly ever quite as polished, dramatic, witty or well acted as it could be. What I think really engages the viewer, however, is the show's complete all-or-nothing approach -- that sense of incredible ambition in the face of zero resources and time.
The best elements of "Dark Shadows" are not the product of considered thought and diligent preparation -- instead it's a sort of good natured "let's put on a show!" vibe. And most of the time, that enthusiasm and sense of adrenaline is all that's needed to make the show enjoyable.
-
As for the acting, it may not have been Oscar caliber, but it wasn't that bad. In fact, with a few exceptions, I've found the DS players to be extremely skilled. Given the circumstances under which they had to work, they had to put so much more energy into each performance than modern TV actors. Their efforts had to transcend the cramped sets and the sometimes-questionable scripts, and they didn't have a very large time frame in which to make it all work. With all of that in mind, it makes the numerous exceptional performances (read the "Favorite Scenes" topic) that much more admirable. I'd like to see Tom Cruise or Jennifer Aniston try to strut their stuff in that environment.
I don't think even we devoted DS fans can truly appreciate the stifling, limiting conditions the actors had to endure and be expected to pull it off. For the most part, DS was one take, and that was it. No director yelling, "Cut! And this time, Jennifer, do it with more feeling!" And then somebody yelling, "Take 31!"
In the modern age, whenever an actor blows a line, it's a great source of entertainment for the other actors and the studio audience, which gets to see the scene reshot. None of that nonsense on DS, where the actors had to recover and keep going. I would love to know how bad things had to get to warrant reshooting a scene.
As much as I enjoy the bloopers and other imperfections today, I specifically remember as a kid being all-too-willing to overlook them. Somehow, I knew this was television, and they were trying to tell a story. Perhaps it was a matter of feeling comfortable suspending reality and absorbing myself in the story.
I wonder how many Oscar-winning performances were captured on the first take.
Ben
-
I think the bottom line is that if you take all these things we talk about such as the bloopers and the messed up lines and combine it with actors who do look like real people and act like real people, and mix that in with a revolutionary approach to daytime TV, it is just plain fun.
It's fun to see these characters going through these storylines whether they are bad or good. All these elements allow people like me and everyone on this board to talk about the show and have fun. I don't see that happening with very many shows these days. If Dark Shadows wasn't intriguing or entertaining Sci-Fi wouldn't be showing it over 30 years later and we wouldn't have a forum like this. I think the fact that fans are still this enthused about a show that has been off the air this long is a testimony of it's appeal.
deron
-
I don't think even we devoted DS fans can truly appreciate the stifling, limiting conditions the actors had to endure and be expected to pull it off. For the most part, DS was one take, and that was it. No director yelling, "Cut! And this time, Jennifer, do it with more feeling!" And then somebody yelling, "Take 31!"
Having been an extra in a few movies, I can testify to the length of time involved to do a single scene for the movies ... for example, the greater part of a day to shoot one scene that lasts a couple of minutes in the finished product. However, the majority of that time is background work with lighting, camera angles, etc., and doesn't involve the actors. That's the difference between location work and filming in a studio, like DS.
I was also a stand-in a few times, which means you replace the actor while the technical people make their adjustments; the actors really only work a few minutes, usually under an hour. But it was my experience that the actors had to be right-on from the first take. One of them was an Academy Award winner, Linda Hunt, so that's not surprising. Many of the actors in the scenes I was in were not that well-known, but they were just as professional. Conditions for filming movies are not necessarily any cushier than they were with a show like DS -- things are often hot, stifling, crowded, etc. Not to mention all the crew and people who are only a few feet away when an actor needs to be portraying a character.
I wonder how many Oscar-winning performances were captured on the first take.
An actress friend of ours who did a lot of TV work in the '50s mentioned to me once that Vivien Leigh wasn't much of an actress -- onstage. I was shocked, as I thought Miss Leigh was one of the most highly regarded actresses of all time, and I certainly admired her performances. Our friend said it was all in the camera work and doing retake after retake; she often dismissed acting for film and TV as "instant acting, like instant oatmeal" (she much preferred the stage). But "instant" acting, especially without the liberty of doing retakes, requires its own special skill. Several DS actors, like Nancy Barrett, Louis Edmonds, John Karlen, Thayer David, seem to have gotten it down to a science. DS does, however, seem to have cast a remarkable number of people at various times during its run who were rather lacking in that ability.
-
There have been a miriad of wonderful comments concerning the show in this discussion and I have to agree that many of us 'old timers' who watched the show in the beginning were caught up in the stories and the drama of such an original piece of work. Our affections originated then and have persisted to today. We were more tolerant of the flubs and flaws because it was an occurance that was well known from live tv. As for bad acting...well...some such as our dear Dr. Lang were classic 1950's style horror impersonations. :o I often wonder if Dan Curtis didn't actually request that kind of persona. No matter what, we are all devoted to keeping DS alive. If you are a nerd, welcome to the club. ;D Dawn
-
Perhaps a lot of people have never been to a live stage play. It is quite a different experience than watching a movie or TV show and in many ways much more enjoyable. That's what watching DS is like - it's like watching a play. Yes, there are flubbed lines, but most of these are forgiveable. In real life people stumble over their own words, they don't deliver perfectly rehearsed dialogues, so in some ways it seems even more "real" because of the flubs.
Well said Chris! That's what I love about DS. The verbal mistakes all just seem to natural to me, as in real life. We all make mistakes sometimes while we are conversing with people and I think that DS did a great job with what little they had to work with. With some of these shows today, the dialogue all seems so superficial. Alot of these actors and actresses don't speak too clearly either. If I didn't have close caption on my TV, I wouldn't know what the heck they were saying. ;)
-
Hi,
We went, last year, to the DS Convention at the Marriott WTC in NYC.
In it they ran one of Louis Edmonds' last interviews. In it he said that for a while there was pressure from the Network to keep topping whatever story had come before. That pressure resulted in those paralell time stories. He also said that the stories during this period became so complicated and far out that the cast itself did not understand what was going on. Remember TV shoots out of sequence to save on set changes, so the cast did not even do the scenes in order, first all the drawing room scenes, next all the Old House scenes etc.. Then he said that for a while they just walked through their parts until the storyline settled back down. It was all too confusing for the cast to get a handle on the charcterizations.
:-/
(Comment by Louis Janet/Elizabeth's husband who introduced her to DS. If you disagree with me, do not yell at her. She is in the shower and knows not of my response! ).
-
(Comment by Louis Janet/Elizabeth's husband who introduced her to DS. If you disagree with me, do not yell at her. She is in the shower and knows not of my response! ).
Hi, Louis! Thanks for your comments-- We promise to not tell her you were here. ;)
-
I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but when the acting was bad (as DarkShadows' brother has noticed), it was really bad. Worse, in fact, than just about anything else I've ever seen, including nonprofessional theater. I know many wouldn't agree and might feel like pouring boiling oil on me for saying that, but that's my opinion.
I join you in it. There were performers on DS who were excellent, some consistently so. But for every Nancy Barrett or Thayer David, there's someone who should never have been allowed a union card, let alone let loose on national TV. I know it's not a popular opinion to say this, but there was a lot of really really sucky acting, directing, and writing on DS. I'm sorry to say it, but I can't write it all off to lack of budget or the times . . . I've seen more than my share of community theater done on a shoestring with not a lot of rehearsal or even liveable space (my friend worked at a theatre where when it rained outside, it rained inside) and an awful lot of that surpasses what DS did. Sometimes there's simply no excuse.
At one point in the series, I was ready to toss in the towel when I felt everything -- from the acting to the writing to the direction to the stage hands -- had devolved to a point where the show had become a joke. If I hadn't cared so deeply about DS, and if it hadn't been a part of me from childhood, I wouldn't have cared. I would have written it off like DarkShadows' brother does. Instead, I posted a rather over-the-top rant about my feelings, and fortunately, a couple of people encouraged me to persevere. I'm grateful for those posters. I'm thankful that I didn't give up on the show because the rewards that it ended up giving me have been wonderful.
I remember that. I'm glad you stayed :) And I'll remember that when we get into certain parts of the show 8)
Luciaphil
-
I join you in it. There were performers on DS who were excellent, some consistently so. But for every Nancy Barrett or Thayer David, there's someone who should never have been allowed a union card, let alone let loose on national TV. I know it's not a popular opinion to say this, but there was a lot of really really sucky acting, directing, and writing on DS. I'm sorry to say it, but I can't write it all off to lack of budget or the times . . . I've seen more than my share of community theater done on a shoestring with not a lot of rehearsal or even liveable space (my friend worked at a theatre where when it rained outside, it rained inside) and an awful lot of that surpasses what DS did. Sometimes there's simply no excuse.
l
A key difference between soaps down in the 1960s (and even in the early 70s) and community theater is that in community theater, you are not likely to be given new material to memorize shortly before the performance. You also have the freedom to decide when and how much rehearsal you are going to need. If you give a bad performance one evening for whatever reason, you have the next night to redeem yourself (unless it was review night, lol, but even then you can still give a better performance). Every mistake you ever make on stage is not captured on video and sold some thirty years later for everyone to see and pick apart. If you look at something over and over again you will not only see very single mistake and hear bumbled dialogue repeatedly, it becomes really annoying. It is not a coincidence that many of the DS performers who rarely make mistakes have quite a bit pr previous TV or film experience behind them. John Karlen, for example, had a decade's worth of TV experience under his belt and most of that was one-take stuff. He was marvelous. He had his days too as does everyone no matter how good they are. Another example, Frid is a very talented stage actor (if you want to see wide range, see his one man shows) but the extent of that talent didn't translate on DS. He had very little TV experience before DS and no film experience. There is a world of difference between working in front of an audience and working in front of a camera. The experiences do not compare in any way, shape or form and I know this because I have done both. I've seen some marvelous stage actors in limited film and TV roles and they were awful. And that even after being able to do more than one take. The talent didn't translate on the camera. Likewise, I have seen actors who cut their teeth on film and TV who are horrible on stage. There are actors who are good at both - God Bless them! What makes one actor good at one medium and not another - who knows.
Nancy
-
Nancy wrote
Every mistake you ever make on stage is not captured on video and sold some thirty years later for everyone to see and pick apart.
andIt is not a coincidence that many of the DS performers who rarely make mistakes have quite a bit pr previous TV or film experience behind them
These are excellent points (and there were many others on this thread ). I continue to find DS amazingly creative and entertaining. Darkshadows--if you are a nerd you are in good company! 8)
-
It is not a coincidence that many of the DS performers who rarely make mistakes have quite a bit of previous TV or film experience behind them. John Karlen, for example, had a decade's worth of TV experience under his belt
That's exactly one problem I've had at certain times with the selection of some of the actors. With a tremendous pool of experienced, professional television actors available, why did the producers/directors so often rely on untested novices? In the case of some, like KLS, who had great training but no TV experience, things worked out beautifully. But it seems like taking an awful chance doing that on a regular basis.
There is a world of difference between working in front of an audience and working in front of a camera. The experiences do not compare in any way, shape or form and I know this because I have done both.
Yes, that is exactly what my "veteran actress" friend meant when she referred to film work as "instant acting" and "piecemeal" acting. That obviously was her own take on it, but to provide a tiny bit of context, her own resume began as a child actor on the radio, headlining on Broadway in the '40s and '50s, television work throughout the '50s and '60s, plus film and continuing stage work -- plus she does a mean impersonation of Ethel Merman and Carol Channing in the most unexpected places! :D She was the first to explain to me the difference among the various mediums, and why her own preference is for the stage, which allows the actor to present a character in its entirety, in a single two-hour span, live, before an audience ...
She also never shied away from calling a spade a spade when we've watched movies, discussed various actors, etc. There are horseshit actors who do horseshit work (her term, not mine ;D ). Whether some of them ever appeared on DS or not is something that will, perhaps, remain a point of disagreement among fans.
* * * *
Speaking of "live" performances, I need to start wrapping things up on the computer here so I can catch magician David Blaine's live stunt on TV tonight ... His hero is Houdini, who was also mine at an early age ... :)
-
Re: The novices thing...
Bear in mind that "Dark Shadows", especially in the early days, was an underfunded soap from a producer with no track record, on a network firmly entrenched in third place... For those reasons, it was rarely able to offer much reward for an actor, either financially or career-wise. For this reason, the majority of the young cast were relatively inexperienced, simply because those with proven track records were usually getting better offers and salaries elsewhere.
Kudos to those involved, however, for assembling a cast of the quality they acheived under those circumstances, because it was frequently far better than they really could have expected.
Fore example, it's common knowledge that Grayson Hall did the show initially because she had bills to pay and a family to support, and if we're being honest, looking over her resume prior to the show, the work was beneath her to a certain degree. However, for the experienced performers in the cast, there was the enticement of the wide range of character roles the series offered, and I guess that's what ultimately attracted so many talented individuals to the show's ranks.
-
Re: The novices thing...
Bear in mind that "Dark Shadows", especially in the early days, was an underfunded soap from a producer with no track record, on a network firmly entrenched in third place... For those reasons, it was rarely able to offer much reward for an actor, either financially or career-wise. For this reason, the majority of the young cast were relatively inexperienced, simply because those with proven track records were usually getting better offers and salaries elsewhere.
My objection to this is that NYC is teeming with poor, talented actors. I have struggling actor friends, who trust me, do not have the luxury of picking and choosing roles in television shows from networks third rated or no. I cannot believe that the situation in NYC in the late sixties was any different than it is today.
Some of the people on DS were incredibly talented. No question. Others . . . well, I won't go there since I've already been critical enough for one day :)
Luciaphil
-
Here I am again. Mr.Stoddard, ;)Elizabeth's other half. Having acted in about 300 plays and shows since 1976 (all stage) and having friends who have done film, I'll share this with you. :)These actors are stage actors. NYC Broadway actors. The style of acting used is for the most part stage acting. When you take classes for stage, you are taught to exaggerate small actions because as thousands of acting coaches in NYC are yelling at this very moment, "More expression!!!! They cannot see that in Row X!!!!". We also all studied Pantomome, (yes, like Marcel Marceau). That is because on stage long periods of silent acting with no dialogue occur and you must be able to convey the emotions and thoughts of a character non verbally to "Row X". Dark Shadows is very stagey. Curtis is drawn to stage acting style. Look at the entire episode where Willie accidentally discovers Barnabas' tomb. The whole time it is Willie. No dialogue. No music Look at his reaction when he opens the casket and Barnabas' hand reaches out and grabs him. This has been etched into my mind for thirty five years. :)No music. NO DIALOGUE. Just the strength of John Karlen's amazing acting skill. This worked on TV. It would have worked on stage and it would have made one hell of a silent. ;D
The show used long stretches of silence. At times today's producers of TV assume that the viewer is a complete mental vegetable. A newer show would have Willie making a running commentary, "Look a door is opening!!!!" "Look a hand is grabbing me!" :D. Curtis knew that it was TV and we could see what was going on . Curtis knew that.
Look at the number of characters Thayer David played. He even managed to be believable wearing the silly wig and Times Square joke shop eyeglasses they put on him for Count Petoffi!
The actors enunciate every word. They convey every emotion. Every action has a meaning and it is clearly conveyed. That is acting. Acting is communicating. If the audience says "What did he say?" or "Is he scared?" then the actor has failed, miserably.
Many of today's TV actors who swallow every word they say and speak in that horrid "Yuppie" accent while walking through a part conveying about as much emotion as someone reading the Manhattan phone directory and under playing .
Well off my soapbox. This time Elizabeth is napping. That seems to be the only time I can get at the machine! ;D
-
Louis I just loved your post. :) I agree with you about the state of TV today. I have no interest in those shows (like Law and Order) where all the actors wear gray and speak in a monotone. ::)
-
Good points on the theatricality of DS. Very true, and many of the aspects you describe are among the reasons I've been devoted to the show (the theatrical aspects you talk about, though not necessarily the occasional over-acting).
Many of us have been writing appreciatively about the show for many years, including the acting of the core ensemble, often relating it to a particular actor's theatre experience (e.g., in my case, I think I commented most extensively on Jonathan Frid when I began posting four years ago), so hopefully no one is getting the impression from comments in this thread that any one of us is saying the acting on DS is bad, period. Quite the contrary, but you would probably need to be familiar with many previous discussions.
It might be worth noting that even some actors who most of us admire, such as Grayson Hall, said she thought she was terrible on the show. Obviously, I don't think she was (except maybe in her first episode or two), and I appreciate her more now my second time through the series. But it's interesting to consider that actors often have a more realistic view of their own performances than worshipful fans sometimes do . . .
Personally, in making my comments I do have maybe half a dozen performances or periods of the show in mind during the course of its five-year run. If you watch it all, you will definitely see actors breaking character (one was fired shortly after he did so, though he was actually a good actor and better than his replacement) . . .
But I have no desire to start naming and listing these . . .
. . . hope my VCR is recording David Blaine ...
-
That's exactly one problem I've had at certain times with the selection of some of the actors. With a tremendous pool of experienced, professional television actors available, why did the producers/directors so often rely on untested novices? In the case of some, like KLS, who had great training but no TV experience, things worked out beautifully. But it seems like taking an awful chance doing that on a regular basis.
My own observation is that soap actors are seldom hired for their acting talent. It's more about looking the part and, in particularly, being good looking. You do get lucky and find a soap opera actor who is talented and nice to watch too. Soaps were initially a half hour so establishing "the look" was critical as it could impart reams of dialogue without the actor actually having to say anything, lol.
Yes, that is exactly what my "veteran actress" friend meant when she referred to film work as "instant acting" and "piecemeal" acting. That obviously was her own take on it, but to provide a tiny bit of context, her own resume began as a child actor on the radio, headlining on Broadway in the '40s and '50s, television work throughout the '50s and '60s, plus film and continuing stage work -- plus she does a mean impersonation of Ethel Merman and Carol Channing in the most unexpected places! :D She was the first to explain to me the difference among the various mediums, and why her own preference is for the stage, which allows the actor to present a character in its entirety, in a single two-hour span, live, before an audience ...,
Interesting. There are different kinds of actors. While there are just plain bad actors - no doubt about it - there are actors who are very good technical actors and others who are not. That is to say, some actors can think and behave a certain way like a light switch. Others are not like a light switch. Some people confuse the ability to be light switch with professionalism. Some actors perform better under some circumstances than another. Acting is essentially a creative medium and some creative people cannot become more technical. It doesn't make them less professional, it makes them more limited.
I also have to say that I simpl do not have the patience to watch something and struggle to pick out good and bad performances, writing or directing. For me to enjoy any type of program, I have to find the majority of the work interesting otherwise, why bother? That's just my view, of course.
Nancy
-
I have struggling actor friends, who trust me, do not have the luxury of picking and choosing roles in television shows from networks third rated or no. I cannot believe that the situation in NYC in the late sixties was any different than it is today.
There's two side to that argument -- on one level, there's the problem of good theatre actors sometimes making lousy television actors and vice versa, and on another level, there's also the time constraints of making soaps -- once a decision has been made to introduce a character, scripts have usually been written or plotted before the casting begins. Therefore, if the right performer didn't turn up during the audition rounds, it's a case of having to go with the least worst and hoping for the best, simply because time's run out and there's no option of abandoning things.
Casting is a really delicate art, especially for long-term roles like these. And in this particular format, luck plays a big part, as when the right elements fail to come together, it's terribly unforgiving for all involved.
-
There's two side to that argument -- on one level, there's the problem of good theatre actors sometimes making lousy television actors and vice versa, and on another level, there's also the time constraints of making soaps -- once a decision has been made to introduce a character, scripts have usually been written or plotted before the casting begins. Therefore, if the right performer didn't turn up during the audition rounds, it's a case of having to go with the least worst and hoping for the best, simply because time's run out and there's no option of abandoning things.
Casting is a really delicate art, especially for long-term roles like these. And in this particular format, luck plays a big part, as when the right elements fail to come together, it's terribly unforgiving for all involved.
Agreed. Also, in the case of DS, it wasn't always certain how long the character was going to be around. Julia Hoffman was to be a short term character as was the character of Barnabas. Actors take whatever they can get in the business and don't particularly worry as to whether or not they are the best choice for the role once they have secured it. It's a job. Frid had to be talked into even going on the audition in the first place as he was eager to head out to California to be in another Shakespeare production and find a teaching job. He went on the audition with the understanding the role would be a short term one. If it had been offered to him as a long term assignment, he may well have not taken it as his goal was to teach drama out west. He didn't have all that much interest in television work. John Karlen took absences from DS to pursue other things because no one knew how long the series would last even in that first year after Barnabas came on. Actors are always looking for other work even while doing a series so they can keep in front of the public eye in various capacities, especially when a series can be cancelled at any time. Nobody could be certain at the time of DS that the show would survive past the novelty.
Nancy
-
?!?i LOVE this show, and i always get into the storyline, no matter what episode! but, my brother watches it, cuz he has nothing to do, and he's always dissing it and saying it has bad acting and everything, but i LOVE it and i think it's REALLY good! am i just some big nerd??
Quite a few of my friends have what I consider to be good taste. Yet, we can all watch the same TV show, read the same novel or talk about an actor and have very different opinions as to how good or bad something was that we saw or read. It's amazing how varying the opinions can be, in fact.
I think the ultimate test of how much a particular show or novel has captured the collective imagination is the old test of time. If people are still talking about a show, novel or actor decades after the fact, that's a pretty good indication there was something to it.
Nancy
-
My own observation is that soap actors are seldom hired for their acting talent. It's more about looking the part and, in particularly, being good looking. You do get lucky and find a soap opera actor who is talented and nice to watch too. Soaps were initially a half hour so establishing "the look" was critical as it could impart reams of dialogue without the actor actually having to say anything, lol.
That's certainly the criteria today - but not so much in the "olden days." Aside from your stereotypical leading man types: Roger Davis, Joel Crothers, Don Briscoe - DS was much better at hiring for talent than for looks. Louis Edmonds, Thayer David, John Karlen, Jonathan Frid and Grayson Hall are anything but models!
I was an avid soap watcher from birth since that's what my mom had on the TV when I was little. There used to be much less emphasis on youth and looks in those days. Your typical lead characters were played by rather ordinary looking people in their 30's, 40's and . . . heavens! even their 50's! Today anyone over 30 is reduced to a supporting role.
I admire British TV much more than American TV. In GB they seem to understand the difference between models and actors. The performers on their shows for the most part are ordinary looking people. They look like your neighbors, or your co-workers, or friends or family. You can relate to them. Here in shallow America it seems all we care about is how attractive someone is, and talent be damned. I turn on just about any show and the entire cast is filled with models. I just can't really relate.
-
I am 39 ...I just started watching DS via tape and Sci Fi...People have nothing better to do than criticize...to me the phrases "get a life" and geek/nerd when used about someone's interests do not have any meaning...I was just reading someone from the Buffy cast was knocking the Shadows actors and actresses...well I'd like to see how many of today's respected TV personalities would perform live...people from Springsteen to Jackie O have been fans..I am a HS English teacher with a very real life and all kinds of interests...I got knocked for listening the Beatles and not heavy metal and punk in the 70's and early 80's in HS..now high school kids are helping to make Beatles music fashionable again...DS drew from many sources and came up with great stories and some really fine acting moments ..and as I always tell naysayers "if u dont like it u dont have to watch it..." U are not a nerd
-
As I said. NY acting and LA acting are two different things.
Dan Curtis was in NY drawing from the same talent pool as "Playhouse 90" and "Studio 54".
LA soaps drew from the same talent pool as "Mr. Ed". ;D
No seriously. At the time because of the shooting style required by early video, you had to play through a scene from beginning to end. It was too difficult and time consuming to cut & splice video that had no visible frames with scissors and glue. Electronic editing was a distant dream.
To do this, live stage actors who were trained to keep going in spite of mistakes and dropped lines and cues while not breaking character were needed. NY had those live TV and stage people who could do this.
LA used film and start and stop. Their actors (and there WERE actually good ones), were used to this and probably did not adapt well to the other.
As for that actor from Buffy....I hope that her teleprompter blows a fuse. ;)
-
I just viewed Bobubas' Frightvision Video today. (I recommend to those who are DS and Angel fans). On the part where Marie Wallace and KLS give a panel discussion...Marie states once again how DS actors and actresses were hired due to the fact they were mostly stage actor's who spoke eloquently and gestured big. And that's one of the many reasons she enjoyed working on DS. It is an amazing panel discussion and I urge anyone to go to Bobubas' website and order it. An added plus to Angel fans is the hilarious panel discussion of Mark Lutz (Grusollag) and Andy Hallet (The Host/Lorne).
As for that actor from Buffy....I hope that her teleprompter blows a fuse.
As far as that actor from Buffy goes...tho he survived the season finale (darn darn darn) you can watch him get dusted in his previous Buffy role as Cyrus on FX reruns of Buffy tomorrow morning in the second hour.[vryevl][/size][/color]
[shadow=purple,left,300]Always, Minja[/shadow]
-
I was an avid soap watcher from birth since that's what my mom had on the TV when I was little. There used to be much less emphasis on youth and looks in those days. Your typical lead characters were played by rather ordinary looking people in their 30's, 40's and . . . heavens! even their 50's! Today anyone over 30 is reduced to a supporting role.
I admire British TV much more than American TV. In GB they seem to understand the difference between models and actors. The performers on their shows for the most part are ordinary looking people. They look like your neighbors, or your co-workers, or friends or family. You can relate to them.
I have to agree with Chris on this. If you've ever seen a British soap opera then you'd know what Chris means. I've been a fan of Eastenders for years for exactly the reasons that Chris mentions: the performers are so flawless that you feel that you're eavesdropping on their private lives.
You don't get that feeling with the current crop of soap operas. I used to watch my mother's soaps, too: Love of Life and As the World Turns. When The Young and the Restless came on, my mother noticed the change from ordinary stories/ordinary people to Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous.
Maybe that's why I liked DS when it came on--it was different from any soap I had seen!
-
This really turned out to be a major discussion! I have a question for Elizabeth. What was Playhouse 90? I'm asking because it's listed in Craig Slocum's television credits, and I never saw it.
-
Actually, I think DS bit a fair bit of "model" casting -- no offence to any of the performers, but if you look at that cast, it's pretty obvious that it forms two tiers: There's a senior cast of heavyweight character actors who carry the stories, and a junior cast of attractive, inexperienced performers who tend not to play a major part in the stories but garnered the show a lot of valuable publicity by looking pretty in magazines, etc.
Now obviously, that's a big generalisation -- there were good and bad actors in both camps -- but that's pretty much the same way things work today. Even the better soaps like "EastEnders" suffer from it a great deal. I guess it's the nature of trying to produce a mass-market piece of television, which is the main thing working in this format is about.
-
>>What was Playhouse 90? I'm asking because it's listed in Craig Slocum's television credits, and I never saw it. <<
Not to be a butt-in-ski but I know a tad about Playhouse 90 (though I was just a mini-kid during this time and never had the pleasure of watching it).
I do know it was a well thought of dramatic anthology series, which ran on CBS from roughly 1956 to 1961. It featured lots of top level acting and writing. Apparently it was also a great place to launch a career because it seems that many young actors who later went on to bigger things had something to do with that show at one time or another.
-
This really turned out to be a major discussion! I have a question for Elizabeth. What was Playhouse 90? I'm asking because it's listed in Craig Slocum's television credits, and I never saw it.
Castlebee is right on target. :D Playhouse 90 was a 90 minute (hence the name) program that was performed twice (8:00 PM for the East Coast & again at 11:00 PM Eastern Time for the West Coast) live from NYC. "Marty" & "Requiem For A Heavyweight" were done on Live TV like this before they were made into motion pictures. I believe Diana Milay got her start on one of these anthology shows.
You would do an entire play "Live" straight through for 90 minutes, go get dinner and do it all over again 3 hours later. Because it was "Live" you did it just like a stage play. No breaks. No edits. In fact there is the famous "Richard III" that has a dead body start to giggle during the battle scene. No way to cut it out so the whole USA saw this poor guy goof up! :o
Just the sort of actors that DS needed and used. Also, the stagey acting was perfect for a Gothic storyline IMHO. ;)
There are kinescopes of the shows (They reran Mary Martin's "Peter Pan" every year for years on CBS). Sometimes they will show up on PBS' "Great Performances". :)
-
There are kinescopes of the shows (They reran Mary Martin's "Peter Pan" every year for years on CBS). Sometimes they will show up on PBS' "Great Performances". :)
Wow elizabeth! I did not know this was a Playhouse 90 production. I LOVED that version of Peter Pan - even more than the Disney animated film. :D
-
Perhaps a lot of people have never been to a live stage play. It is quite a different experience than watching a movie or TV show and in many ways much more enjoyable. That's what watching DS is like - it's like watching a play. Yes, there are flubbed lines, but most of these are forgiveable. In real life people stumble over their own words, they don't deliver perfectly rehearsed dialogues, so in some ways it seems even more "real" because of the flubs.
I also agree wholeheartedly with Elizabeth about the actors - the criteria for today's daytime TV is all about looks. All the performers are models, not actors. I don't know about the rest of you but I really can't relate to an entire town filled with models. DS used real ACTORS - people who looked like real people.
Very well said. I have always believed that a great part of the magic of Dark Shadows is the fact that it is performed by stage actors live on tape. What other show could ever boast that?
-
Thanks CastleBee and Elizabeth for the info about Playhouse 90, sounds like it was a great show! It wasn't made during my lifetime though. Wish I could see Craig's performance! :)
-
Here in shallow America it seems all we care about is how attractive someone is, and talent be damned. I turn on just about any show and the entire cast is filled with models. I just can't really relate.
Apparently, you're not the only one who's noticed this trend.
Since we've been discussing how soaps are continually being populated with good looking rather than talented actors, I thought I would share something that I happened to read in this week's TV Guide. According to Michael Logan's "Logan Rant," "As the World Turns" and "General Hospital" each recently fired a praiseworthy actor "because they weren't deemed sexy enough by the powers that be, something that happens way too often in soaps." So there are still people who care about quality; if only somebody would take the time to listen to them.
ProfStokes