I am a little unclear about what some  posters don't like about Roger Davis. Please explain.
That remark about acting in a vacuum is brilliant and so completely on target. Â
That's part of it. Â You often hear actors saying that "acting is reacting" and that so-and-so is such a great actor "because they know how to listen." Â I think that's rather true. Â Watch somebody like Nancy Barrett and see how she relates to the other actors in her scene. Â It looks like she's actually paying attention to them. Â I never get that with Roger Davis.
Roger Davis shouts a lot. Â Lord, he's so loud some times that I have to turn down the volume on the television. Â When Jerry Lacy's Trask does that, it works. Â Trask is supposed to be that kind of a guy. Â He's a preacher, a fanatic, etc. Â It's perfectly valid. Â When Roger Davis does it, I get the sense that he's trying to make sure the attention stays focused on him--that or he legitimately thought this was a way to express emotion. Â But that's like raising your voice when you're talking to a non-English speaker. Â They're still not going to understand you.
And then there's the manhandling of his co-stars. Â It's already begun in the way he literally shoves Moltke around. Â Wait until we get to poor Lisa Richards. Â I swear to God, it looks like he was trying to cop a feel. Â In 1897, he pushes Joan Bennett around like she's a mop. Â I cannot believe that the directors or the scripts called for that.
Ranting is not acting. Â Touching your hair (there's a reason why Midnite and the MB have that little counter at the top of the screen) to express emotion, is not acting. Â Physically shoving your co-stars around is just plain mean. Â Knowing your lines, is to my mind, important, but it's not the be all and end all of good acting. Â There's got to be more there.
Lastly, I never got much of a sense of differentiation in the roles he played (with the possible exception of Dirk Wilkins, and then not even much). Â He's always the same guy.
Luciaphil