DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '02 I => Topic started by: Philippe Cordier on May 29, 2002, 05:46:34 AM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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! [lghy]
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. [wink2]
-
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! [lghy]
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. [wink2]
Bwah ha ha ! How could I forget Geoffrey Scott? He was equally dismal as Crystal's first husband on Dynasty.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. [wink2]
-
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. [wink2]
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. ;)
-
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
-
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
Excellent point!
I think to dismiss acting on DS as "bad" is a cheap shot, more often than not. These performers had to learn 3 or 4 new half hour scripts every week and play them through without stopping once. The only other venue where you will ever see this type of acting is in a live theater production - and even then the actors have weeks and weeks to rehearse! The DS players had about an HOUR to rehearse!
Considering that I'd say they did a darned impressive job more often than not. On soaps today the "actors" (and I use the term loosely!) stop and re-shoot every time they flub a line! The DS performers became accustomed to DEALING with flubbed lines and missed cues, etc. They learned to think on their feet, make instant corrections and carry on with the scene!
Now THAT'S what I call TALENT.
-
Considering that I'd say they did a darned impressive job more often than not. On soaps today the "actors" (and I use the term loosely!) stop and re-shoot every time they flub a line! The DS performers became accustomed to DEALING with flubbed lines and missed cues, etc. They learned to think on their feet, make instant corrections and carry on with the scene!
Now THAT'S what I call TALENT.
Well said Chris!
I think the DS actors did just great with trying to deal with their mistakes. If you ever watch the Blooper Show on TV that features the mistakes from today's actors, it almost seems like they're "trying" to make mistakes just to be funny! It's almost as if some of them are actually trying to goof off on purpose just to be funny!
-
hooked wrote:
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 no longer the only show that old with a dedicated fandom. Hasn't been for some time. Between reruns and channels dedicated to replaying old programs and the internet, there are plenty of other shows out there that get dissected like this.
There was a lot of bad acting on DS. I heartily concur with that. To say that there wasn't or that it's somehow remiss on our part to dare to criticize does the performances of some of the show's more talented actors an injustice.
Vlad said it all so well that I'm going to stop now :)
Luciaphil
-
Yes there are other shows from that period but can you tell me where their forum is on the internet with 60 pages of information and the DS FAQ page is another amazing example of dedication. DS was still done under special circumstances compared to all of the other shows. What is the point of analyzing the show? Addams family? Batman? Gilligans island? Mary Tyler Moore? Dick VanDyke? ...Whatever! DS kicks their butt everytime in everyway. (period)
-
Yes there are other shows from that period but can you tell me where their forum is on the internet with 60 pages of information and the DS FAQ page is another amazing example of dedication.
Go to any search engine and type in "Star Trek" (a show replete with its own devoted fan base, controversies, hammy performances, and spaceships made out of styrofoam, spit, and a prayer). Go to any bookstore and go look in the performing arts sections. You'll find a bunch of books on everything from "The Twilight Zone" to "Batman."
Every show has its own fandom. You may not think much of say, "The Andy Griffith Show," but there are plenty of fans that consider it one of the best television comedies of all time. There are also people who weren't impressed. I personally thought Trek boasted some great writing, but I bet I could find a bunch of people who thought it was terrible. There are a mess of us here who moan and complain whenever SciFi does a marathon of "Twilight Zone," but again, I would wager that there are tons of people who are thrilled to get to watch these. It's not a competition between shows. There are multiple fandoms out there and it's just a fact.
DS was still done under special circumstances compared to all of the other shows. What is the point of analyzing the show? Addams family? Batman? Gilligans island? Mary Tyler Moore? Dick VanDyke? ...Whatever! DS kicks their butt everytime in everyway. (period)
If there is no point in analyzing the show, then why are we here?
I have seen some amazing acting on DS. Really, really talented performances, some good writing, some really cool ideas. All that came about under the same limited circumstances. I've also seen some stuff that even I could do better at (and I cannot act my way out of a paper bag).
See, I don't get this. I've heard this before and I still don't get it. Okay, they had crappy circumstances, little to no rehearsal, terrible production values, and a producer with a limited attention span. No question. I'm with everyone there.
But even in these conditions, some of the actors really and truly shone. They could have just come to work, said their lines, and gone home. But they didn't. They contended with all the trouble and the mess and what sounds like a lot of confusion and did a great job. I cannot in good conscience say that the entire cast did that. Some of them were less talented than others. Sorry, but that's the way it is. If we're going to single out people and say, "so-and-so was amazing," then it logically follows that there are going to be people who were merely adequate or out and out terrible.
Luciaphil
-
I really think that when we criticize some of the performers and praise others, we really aren't talking about 'talent' at all. The obviously talented are easy to spot. So are the less-than-talented.
I think what we nit-pick and whine about are those performances that come across as fraudulent.
When John Karlen is over the top, I love it....this is an actor who looks like he's died and gone to heaven playing Willie Loomis.
When Addison Powell does the same thing, I hate it...because (to me), his performance is condescending and he appears (to me) to believe that the role and the material are beneath him.
I think we're willing to accept different levels of talent, but not different levels of honest effort, from the actors.
Oh, and I'm one of those people who can spend hours on end dissecting the writing of Twilight Zone. I may adore Dark Shadows, but when it comes to writing...well...I'm sorry, but IMHO, there is absolutely no comparison, on any level.
Raineypark
-
Yes there are other shows from that period but can you tell me where their forum is on the internet with 60 pages of information and the DS FAQ page is another amazing example of dedication. DS was still done under special circumstances compared to all of the other shows. What is the point of analyzing the show? Addams family? Batman? Gilligans island? Mary Tyler Moore? Dick VanDyke? ...Whatever! DS kicks their butt everytime in everyway. (period)
When VantageNet was our host, the posting board that followed behind us in the entertainment category in terms of traffic was called The Wonderfulness of I Spy-- a board dedicated to the show that ran from '65 to '68. I've also seen message boards and websites for The Avengers, which ran from '61 to '69 and had a revival series (The New Avengers), and was brought back recently as a movie (but I'm not bitter ;)); there are also posting boards for Man from U.N.C.L.E., which ran from '64 to '68 and had a Return of... in '83. Those are the ones that come to mind cuz they were personal favorites. :D
I don't know much about the production circumstances of the others, but I've heard Patrick Macnee speak about similar experiences, particularly in the early years of Avengers, to what we know about the making of DS.
-
OK you guys try to remain calm here! Some people like LIVER too, but what about it! If we search the internet we can come up with a site for people who chat about liver and its virtues too...but I still say a nice hunk of my mothers lasagne thrown in a bowl looks and tastes a lot better than LIVER. What I meant by why do we analyze it (and did not get a definitive response too) is what is the pont? To make some negative determination that there was indeed bad acting on DS? I am not in disagreement with that statement I just dont see the point. We are here for a good time right? The show is over and done with and it has shaped and influenced our lives enough to come here so lets enjoy ourselves while we can. The show rules and I want to leave the trekkies on their site where they belong. Remember now...RELAX
-
When John Karlen is over the top, I love it....this is an actor who looks like he's died and gone to heaven playing Willie Loomis.
When Addison Powell does the same thing, I hate it...
Same here! Not for all the same reasons, or at least I don't really think about the reasons. It is just PAINFUL to watch! When I finally got to watch Willie's dream last night, I thought "That's not so overly done..." Willie was supposed to be a coward and it was totally in keeping with his character. I enjoyed him having fun and going with it.
I do realize that the directors may have preferred AP being over the top, but then I ask myself WHY? "Let's see, let's have Frid playing his role in a stately and dignified manner. Then lets hire Moe to play off of him! Yeah, that's the ticket."
-
I was a DS watcher during its original heyday and it was no secret that other soap performers felt Jonathan Frid and Lara Parker were the best performers on DS. Nancy Barrett, Louie Edmonds, Joel Crothers were also well thought of. However, Grayson Hall could be good and she could be REALLY awful. AT least Grayson admitted she considered DS to be professional laziness. She camped up the show WAAAAY too much at times. There is a scene in the Leviathon eps where Julia is threatened by a Ghost and Halls' performance has to rank as one of the worst in tv history. John karlen was also hit or miss for me. Geoffrey Scott WAS consistently terrible in all of his scenes. Kate Jackson on the other hand, improved every day and was really good by the end of her run.
-
Every show has its own fandom. You may not think much of say, "The Andy Griffith Show," but there are plenty of fans that consider it one of the best television comedies of all time.
I think the point was that DS is the only SOAP (daytime serial) in constant rerun. The only other soaps in reruns are from prime time, or current soaps on SoapNet. Prime time shows like Andy Griffith et. al. also had the luxury of stopping the film and reshooting any time something went wrong.
Certainly some of the actors on DS sucked (Sky Rumson? Oh dear lord!) but unless I missed the original point in this thread, some viewers unfamiliar w/DS might look at it today and think all the actors are bad because of the line flubs or what have you. It's when you know when and how the show was made you become more impressed with the acting in general (except for Sky Rumson).
-
Off topic- - -You know, I happened to be watching an episode of Charlie's Angels the other morning, and it hit me how very AWFUL both the writing and acting were! It happened to be an episode made after Kate Jackson had left the show, but all three "angels" and even "Boz" were just horrendous, the villains cartoonish, and I wondered how I ever could have seriously watched the show for even one moment! Then I remembered, I was a lot younger, and even watched Gilligan's Island and F-Troop with great enjoyment.
The point I wanted to make is, when I watch any of those programs today, I'm appalled at the idea that I EVER thought them funny or even sat through them! When I watch DARK SHADOWS today, I never feel that way. DS transcends the other shows from my childhood/teen years, and always will, I am sure. I feel the same way about this program as I did 35 years ago, and that's saying something about how special and unique it was.
Sure, we had Addison Powell and Geoffrey Scott, we had other God-awful performances that smell up the room when we see them on the screen--but much as DARK SHADOWS transcends other shows of its era, so Jonathan Frid, John Karlen, Lara Parker, Louis Edmonds, David Henesy and so many others transcend the disgraceful acting of those few dreadful actors and make the scenes shine despite them.
Love, Robin
-
What is the point of analyzing the show? Addams family? Batman? Gilligans island? Mary Tyler Moore? Dick VanDyke? ...Whatever! DS kicks their butt everytime in everyway. (period)
and:
What I meant by why do we analyze it (and did not get a definitive response too) is what is the pont? To make some negative determination that there was indeed bad acting on DS? I am not in disagreement with that statement I just dont see the point. We are here for a good time right? The show is over and done with and it has shaped and influenced our lives enough to come here so lets enjoy ourselves while we can
Why analyze the acting -- or the writing, or the directing, or any other aspect -- of DS? Why analyze or critique anything?
I analyze something if I want to understand it, see what's behind it. If I'm puzzled, pleased, or angered by something, I want to know why it has had that effect on me. That's the way my mind happens to work -- analytically (sometimes, anyway).
I also analyze DS because it is worth analyzing. In fact, I'm continually surprised how much the show lends itself to analysis. This is my second viewing of the series (plus a partial viewing as a child), and after posting regularly during the last run on SciFi, I didn't expect I would have much of anything to say this round -- but I've surprised myself.
As nostalgic as I feel about many other shows I grew up with -- The Beverly Hillbillies, The Dick Van Dyke Show, Bewitched, I Love Lucy, The Brady Bunch -- I don't have any interest in studying them the way I do DS. DS seems to reach to a different level with its classical storylines, nightmarish features, mythological underpinnings, and theatrically trained company of actors. There's just so much more to it than the other shows, for me.
I enjoy discussing all of these aspects of the show with other intelligent, informed viewers -- and there are many of them here. DS is far from mindless entertainment -- again, my opinion -- which might not warrant much discussion.
Also, preaching to the choir doesn't interest me, if there's a more interesting angle. Little did I know, though, when I made what I thought was a fairly obvious comment in that earlier thread that so many impassioned postings would result.
I asked the question at the top of this thread -- was there bad acting on DS? -- because there were strongly made statements in the previous thread that denied that there was. Some comments in that earlier thread seemed to imply that either 1) there was no bad acting on DS, or 2) that it is better to close one's eyes and not see the bad acting.
Someone had suggested that the reason why viewers of the show often dismiss the acting on DS is that they are reacting negatively (and ignorantly) to the show's theatrical style of acting.
I wanted to respond to that statement because, although it provides some explanation, I think it falls short in explaining a lot (if not most) of what many viewers see as bad acting on the show. Since I didn't accept this explanation, I wanted to consider the range of acting presented on DS, to consider why much of it is excellent and -- in stark contrast -- a certain amount is poor.
MB wrote:
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.
I remember that from the old board now that you mention it, MB. Although your explanation may be right, I shudder to think so! :o As Kuanyin says:
I do realize that the directors may have preferred AP being over the top, but then I ask myself WHY? "Let's see, let's have Frid playing his role in a stately and dignified manner. Then lets hire Moe to play off of him! Yeah, that's the ticket."
It never made sense to me that stage-trained actors (with no television experience) such as Frid, Parker, and KLS regularly kept the overacting well in check while a handful of others did not, if the over-the-top style was what the directors truly wanted.
However, something that would tend to support your view are comments Lara Parker has made ... I'm pretty sure that in one the Pomegranate Press books she expressed her horror at being continually asked to blow things up to a point far beyond any realistic human emotion or behavior. If that's true, we can be thankful that she and many others were either unable or unwilling to produce such "acting" and instead gave powerful and nuanced performances. Actors like Powell, on the other hand, and the one who played Aristede (sorry I can't remember names), and a few others, apparently had no problem accommodating. As a result, their performances are viewed by many viewers to be quite wretched much of the time.
Maybe someone can put this question about what the directors wanted in terms of performance to one of the panels at the upcoming festival?
As is apparent, there isn't going to be agreement on the quality of the acting among those discussing the show here. C'est la vie!
-Vlad
I was done writing this when I saw RobinV's comments:
Sure, we had Addison Powell and Geoffrey Scott, we had other God-awful performances that smell up the room when we see them on the screen--but much as DARK SHADOWS transcends other shows of its era, so Jonathan Frid, John Karlen, Lara Parker, Louis Edmonds, David Henesy and so many others transcend the disgraceful acting of those few dreadful actors and make the scenes shine despite them.
Well said. Such comments prove that someone who cares about the show can also view its shortcomings realistically -- or analytically!
:)
-
I think the point was that DS is the only SOAP (daytime serial) in constant rerun. The only other soaps in reruns are from prime time, or current soaps on SoapNet. Prime time shows like Andy Griffith et. al. also had the luxury of stopping the film and reshooting any time something went wrong.
If you do enough reading about most television shows and films, you find that most of them dealt with difficult circumstances of some kind. Even some of the makers of films from some of the better endowed studios in Hollywood's golden era coped with problems that other might have felt insurmountable.
Difficult working conditions, insistence on only using one take (W.S. Van Dyke was a favorite director of studio bosses because he was notorious for only using one take, hence his nickname "One-take Woody"), actors, writers, directors who were horrendous to work with or who were battling addiction problems--the list goes on.
And if you do enough reading or watch enough interviews of the actors from those shows or the old movies, you will often hear them saying "we never expected anyone to see this more than once." (Which is why movie actors often lost out on television royalties--they never expected it to take off and their agents often didn't insist on them including the clauses in the contracts).
Yeah, they're not soaps, but you don't need to be on a soap to have a hard time of it. It happens.
Luciaphil
-
Wow this took me a while to sort through and read all these comments! very interesting but have to agree if you look on the net or any bookstore a lot of shows in the past have a lot of fan following today was there bad acting on DS ?(the original ? )of course (One common theme Sky Rumson was awful) but what i find a lot is people who can't believe anyone cares about any old show and if you mention DS they just think that because of the kind of show it was it must have had bad actors! some days i laugh my head over some of the bad acting scenes and others I'm moved to tears over the wonderful acting! After all this time!hey works for me!
jennifer
love the T Zone marathons too!
-
I also analyze DS because it is worth analyzing. In fact, I'm continually surprised how much the show lends itself to analysis.
I agree with you completely, Vlad! Even though there are several shows that I prefer to DS, (please, I don't want anybody to set a curse on me for saying that) I don't feel inclined to discuss any of them. I don't belong to any discussion forums/groups other than those connected to DS. I don't know if it's the serial format of DS, the variety of characters, or the richness of certain story lines that make me feel this way, but I could discuss its content and its performers endlessly. Chalk that up as one more great feature of the show!
ProfStokes
-
It never made sense to me that stage-trained actors (with no television experience) such as Frid, Parker, and KLS regularly kept the overacting well in check while a handful of others did not, if the over-the-top style was what the directors truly wanted.
However, something that would tend to support your view are comments Lara Parker has made ... I'm pretty sure that in one the Pomegranate Press books she expressed her horror at being continually asked to blow things up to a point far beyond any realistic human emotion or behavior. If that's true, we can be thankful that she and many others were either unable or unwilling to produce such "acting" and instead gave powerful and nuanced performances. Actors like Powell, on the other hand, and the one who played Aristede (sorry I can't remember names), and a few others, apparently had no problem accommodating. As a result, their performances are viewed by many viewers to be quite wretched much of the time.
Maybe someone can put this question about what the directors wanted in terms of performance to one of the panels at the upcoming festival?
The subject came up at the DS tribute in L.A. last Spring. Jerry Lacy described working on the show as hard as well as fun since he had to get up for performances because every morning Lela Swift (who was sitting further down on the panel from him) would tell him, "We need more. More." He said that one day he decided to let her have it by really pouring it on for her and she reined him in, saying he should save it for later when they'll need it again, and that's when he knew what she wanted. Lara Parker agreed with him that directors always wanted more theatricality, saying that Hank Kaplan used to give out grades for it. She said he'd open the dressing room door and say, for example, "B minus".
Unfortunately, no one thought to pose a question about it to Lela directly.
-
The show had bad acting many times even by the actors that most would call the GOOD ones. That fact can not be disputed in any acting class anywhere. We do not need a post to find this out. It is a fact that is well known. I just was wondering where this point was being taken. When it is stated as a fact (which it is) then some conclusion must be made to bring a closure for the idea. Now that there is general concensus that there was bad acting on DS what can we do? Did I mention that there was some bad acting on DS? Let me put it another way..the acting on DS was (a lot of times) BAD!! My opinion is that the acting on DS was bad. Hmmmph!!
-
because every morning Lela Swift (who was sitting further down on the panel from him) would tell him, "We need more. More." He said that one day he decided to let her have it by really pouring it on for her and she reined him in, saying he should save it for later when they'll need it again, and that's when he knew what she wanted. Lara Parker agreed with him that directors always wanted more theatricality, saying that Hank Kaplan used to give out grades for it. She said he'd open the dressing room door and say, for example, "B minus".
Unfortunately, no one thought to pose a question about it to Lela directly.
That's an interesting commentary because I have posted before that the Henry Kaplan directed episodes seem more nuances and "less stagey" than the others, particularly Lela. And in particular, under Henry's direction, Grayson seemed more restrained. I always assumed it was because Lela was intimidted by Grayson and didn't give her **any** direction. . .but my take on whats been said here, is that these actors were constantly told to go over the top. ..hmmm, interesting tidbit.
-
The show had bad acting many times even by the actors that most would call the GOOD ones. That fact can not be disputed in any acting class anywhere. We do not need a post to find this out. It is a fact that is well known. I just was wondering where this point was being taken. When it is stated as a fact (which it is) then some conclusion must be made to bring a closure for the idea.
Sorry, Hooked, I'm not going to rise to the bait. You read my posts and for whatever reason choose to misunderstand and misrepresent them. I'm sorry you didn't find anything here worthwhile to discuss, but I'm sure there are plenty of other posts and threads that are more rewarding to you. I do have to say that I personally find your smugness offensive (e.g., advising others to "RELAX" when they were thoughtfully responding to your "questions").
Jennifer wrote:
what i find a lot is people who can't believe anyone cares about any old show and if you mention DS they just think that because of the kind of show it was it must have had bad actors! some days i laugh my head over some of the bad acting scenes and others I'm moved to tears over the wonderful acting!
Jennifer, dear, I believe you've intuitively grasped the raison d'etre of this discussion (and is it possibly you've done so without having gone through the entire other thread which was the setup?)! Wonder what so many others found so difficult about this ... Honestly, if only you had responded earlier, some of us wouldn't have spent so much time spinning our wheels ...
Thanks to Midnite for providing strong evidence (backing up the MB) concerning what the directors wanted in terms of acting. I must say that's a bitter pill to swallow (but I'm trying to do so >:( )! It sounds like according to the directors' "grading scale," the Addison Powells gave better performances than the likes of Parker, et al. ::) Perhaps this revelation (to me, at least) about the directors' views on the acting will provide the necessary closure some felt this topic required a priori for some reason.
Julia99 wrote:
That's an interesting commentary because I have posted before that the Henry Kaplan directed episodes seem more nuances and "less stagey" than the others, particularly Lela. And in particular, under Henry's direction, Grayson seemed more restrained.
I don't think I had ever read your comments about this in the past, Julia99, and I definitely hadn't been aware of this from my own viewing. I've never examined the various directors' styles very closely (that may have to wait till my third viewing!). BTW, J99, I was just thinking last night that our paths haven't crossed since the VN days! Good to "see" you again. :)
-Vlad
-
Well I am not here to win you over Vlad so I too am sorry that you must be so condescending in your response to my post to your great debate. Unfortunately you are unable to give a definitive answer as to what your point is...Still. I dont see what the big deal is..give an answer and you will have closure for a question. Its that simple.
-
Well I am not here to win you over Vlad so I too am sorry that you must be so condescending in your response to my post to your great debate. Unfortunately you are unable to give a definitive answer as to what your point is...Still. I dont see what the big deal is..give an answer and you will have closure for a question. Its that simple.
Well, I'm ending this exchange now, though I do intend to respond to your query on the Testing board. As to your point about no one answering your questions, hooked, I actually think that everyone that has replied to you here has gone out of their way to answer as best they can and I can't imagine that further explanations can be offered to you that wouldn't be a rehash of what's already been said.
I'm not locking this topic at this point because others may want to add their opinions about the acting and directing on the show. However, ANY further comments from ANYONE for or against the issue of whether this is a valid discussion topic will be removed. As is stated in the guidelines, "The purpose of these forums is to discuss DARK SHADOWS, its characters, actors and storylines." Since the quality of the acting on the show is obviously something that other posters have found interesting enough to want to share their views on it, it's not your place to question the validity of the discussion, to demand closure, or to declare the debate pointless. I'm the only person here that is required to read each and every post on this board, so please consider moving off of threads in the future if you don't like the subject matter. And in this particular case, I have two suggestions to offer you: either you can reread the replies given to your messages because I don't understand why you continue to insist that you're not getting any "definitive answer", or you can stop reading this topic entirely as it obviously is not to your liking.
In addition, the quote above is missing its last line because I removed it. Ridiculing another poster is never acceptable.