am i a nerd?

[elizabeth]

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.

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!"  . 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!

[Maria_Merriweather]

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.

[Philippe Cordier]

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 ...

[Nancy]

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!    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

[Stuart]

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.

[Nancy]

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

[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

[Dr. Eric Lang]

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.

[ksgemini]

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

[elizabeth]

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".  

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.  

[Minja]

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.[/size][/color]

[shadow=purple,left,300]Always, Minja[/shadow]

[Carol]

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!

[Craig_Slocum]

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.

[Stuart]

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.

[CastleBee]

>>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.