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!
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!
