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.
That's part of it. 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." I think that's rather true. Watch somebody like Nancy Barrett and see how she relates to the other actors in her scene. It looks like she's actually paying attention to them. I never get that with Roger Davis.
Roger Davis shouts a lot. Lord, he's so loud some times that I have to turn down the volume on the television. When Jerry Lacy's Trask does that, it works. Trask is supposed to be that kind of a guy. He's a preacher, a fanatic, etc. It's perfectly valid. 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. But that's like raising your voice when you're talking to a non-English speaker. They're still not going to understand you.
And then there's the manhandling of his co-stars. It's already begun in the way he literally shoves Moltke around. Wait until we get to poor Lisa Richards. I swear to God, it looks like he was trying to cop a feel. In 1897, he pushes Joan Bennett around like she's a mop. I cannot believe that the directors or the scripts called for that.
Ranting is not acting. 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. Physically shoving your co-stars around is just plain mean. Knowing your lines, is to my mind, important, but it's not the be all and end all of good acting. 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). He's always the same guy.
Luciaphil
