# Acting style or just bad acting?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acting-style-or-just-bad-acting/754831
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [May 15, 2016, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acting-style-or-just-bad-acting/754831 "2016-05-15T11:26:03Z")
**Posts on this page:** 11
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2016, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acting-style-or-just-bad-acting/754831/21 "2016-05-20T04:03:50Z")
> [@Totenfeier](#):
>
> I believe the “older” acting style was called the “presentation” or “presentational” style. In what is probably an apocryphal story, Sir Lawrence Olivier was asked the secret of acting; he supposedly replied “Learn your lines and hit your marks.” That theatrical style was, I think, above all else an effort after a certain _clarity_ of both diction and action. Everything was just a tad louder, a hair slower, and a bit more precise than it would be in real life, so that the audience would not get mixed up about what was happening. You can see it in many American movies from the thirties - early fifties. It was essentially the difference between _playing_ a character and _becoming_ the character - the essence of method acting. A method actor might very well consider playing a drunk character while drunk; a presentational actor - unthinkable. Control was key.
I agree with NAF1138 that this isn’t right, but it’s not wrong, either. What it is is conflating style with technique.
You might say that there’s a “presentational” style and a “realistic” style. There’s also a “naturalistic” style, but that’s out of fashion right now (that was David Mamet and Caryl Churchill - lots of people stammering and speaking over each other at rigidly specified points of the script).
“Method” doesn’t have much to do with the style, but it has to do with how you get ready to do it. It happens to lend itself more to realistic and naturalistic styles, and probably influenced their popularity, but one can absolutely do realistic and naturalistic styles without using Method acting techniques.
Short, not entirely accurate version:
Method - Feel it. Recall your own experiences which are like those your character is going through. Remember how you felt then in your own experience, and put that feeling into the words and actions your character is doing.
Classical - Do it. Make your face, body and voice do what a person in your character’s situation would do. Whether or not you feel anger is irrelevant. You raise your fist like so and your voice like thus and you portray - you _act_ - anger.
---
### Author:  [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2016, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acting-style-or-just-bad-acting/754831/22 "2016-05-20T08:49:20Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#):
>
> **Car 54** was especially broad and Joe E Ross could only play that way. He was a poor actor and [terrible human being](http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2011/01/king-of-slobs.html). Ed Gwynne, though, has shown he can handle more subtle roles (a Harvard graduate and successful writer/artist).
Nitpick: _Fred_ Gwynne.
---
### Author:  [@FairyChatMom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FairyChatMom)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2016, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acting-style-or-just-bad-acting/754831/23 "2016-05-20T11:32:12Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> Someone once told me: when one actor in a movie is bad, blame the actor, but when all of the actors are bad, blame the director.
This brought to mind an amateur production of _Jesus Christ, Superstar_ that I saw eons ago. Apparently, the director had a favorite gesture that he made all the actors use all the time over and over to the point of being distracting. They’d hold their hands in front, palms up as if their hands were full, and move them up and down for emphasis. Rage, confusion, sadness, fright - no matter - that was the gesture. We applauded politely, but went home and mocked the performance among ourselves.
More recently, we went to a local production of _The Lion in Winter_. The actor portraying Richard was apparently supposed to be enraged the entire time, judging by his constantly clenched fists. I don’t know if he was told to do that or chose to do it, but once I noticed, I couldn’t un-notice.
Yeah, I know, you can’t expect professional quality from community theater and I certainly don’t think I could do any better, but they’re just my observations and opinions…
And I know Car 54 and other shows of that era were very broadly done - it was a different time and there were different expectations of entertainment. But seeing similar broad acting these days seems out of place - hence my question. Different styles for different audiences, I guess.
---
### Author:  [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2016, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acting-style-or-just-bad-acting/754831/24 "2016-05-20T11:47:17Z")
> [@FairyChatMom](#):
>
> And I know Car 54 and other shows of that era were very broadly done - it was a different time and there were different expectations of entertainment. But seeing similar broad acting these days seems out of place - hence my question. Different styles for different audiences, I guess.
Also Comedy in particular has a short shelf life and what is funny to one generation changes rapidly. I listened to an interview with Michael Schur recently (creator of Parks and Rec, Brooklyn 99 and writer on The Office) and he was talking about how none of the 20 somethings on his writing staff thought anything before 1985 was funny. Annie Hall? Not Funny. Young Frankenstein? Not funny. George Carlin? His later stuff was ok but mostly not funny.
Some stuff is timeless, and sometimes if you are introduced to it early enough you might still like old comedy, but comedy is very much of a time and place.
---
### Author:  [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2016, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acting-style-or-just-bad-acting/754831/25 "2016-05-20T12:23:13Z")
Multi-camera sitcoms are stage plays. Most stage acting requires a certain amount of exaggeration so that you can be seen and heard from the back of the auditorium. Even though TV allows for subtlety, the history of where sitcoms originated still have those stage play conventions, right down to the writing, and we’re used to it, so it works.
Sometimes a show can start out as wacky and get more subtle and real as it goes on, like _MASH_. Sometimes it can start out traditional and go weirder and broader as it goes on, like _Married With Children_ or _The Drew Carey Show_. As they develop, the acting style changes.
Shows like _Cheers_ and _Barney Miller_ went in with a certain style already figured out, and was written and cast with that in mind. Most others are throw-it-at-the-wall type concepts.
---
### Author:  [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2016, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acting-style-or-just-bad-acting/754831/26 "2016-05-20T12:34:42Z")
Sitcoms can be formulaic, and as long as the audience likes the formula, it will be reused.
I remember a few years ago, the British comedy _Couplings_ had some kind of dream sequence where the characters were saying what they really meant, and it was all one dimensional.
Man: I have a large penis. Let me show it to you.
Girl: Me! Me! Me! It’s all about Me!
If the same thing were done for _Two Broke Girls_, it’d be something like this:
Caroline: I want to be privileged and rich again.
Max: I’m a drug abusing whore and Han is short and effeminate.
Earl: I’m an old relic victim of white oppression.
Oleg: I have a large penis. Let me show it to you.
Sophie: Me! Me! Me! It’s all about Me!
---
### Author:  [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2016, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acting-style-or-just-bad-acting/754831/27 "2016-05-20T15:31:20Z")
When actors change media, they may find that what used to work fine doesn’t work now. They have to learn to adapt.
Silent movie actors had to over-emote on screen to convey feelings they couldn’t express vocally. When talkies were invented, sometimes the silent movie techniques actors had learned made their performances seem unnatural and over-the-top.
A comedian who’d learned his craft in vaudeville may have developed a larger than life persona that worked perfectly on stage in front of a big crowd… but which seemed excessive and bombastic on a small TV screen.
Or a stand-up comic who’s never really acted before may seem lost for a season or two on a sitcom. He may seem like he’s still doing his shtick, rather than becoming a character.
---
### Author:  [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2016, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acting-style-or-just-bad-acting/754831/28 "2016-05-20T16:22:27Z")
> [@NAF1138](#):
>
> . . . [A]cting being “realistic” is a relatively recent concept and what is considered to be “realistic” today is 1) not actually and 2) different from what was considered “realistic” even 45 years ago. . . .
Yes.
There is really no such thing as “good” acting in any kind of objective sense, (and this is why the Academy Awards are so gratuitous, IMHO). Rather, there is just acting that conforms or not to whatever expectations a particular audience may have, whether that audience be an individual or a society. These expectations have always changed historically, and have little to do with being “realistic.”
---
### Author:  [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2016, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acting-style-or-just-bad-acting/754831/29 "2016-05-20T17:02:37Z")
> [@guizot](#):
>
> These expectations have always changed historically, and have little to do with being “realistic.”
Exactly. Also, a lot of times realism isn’t the goal. Some of my favorite types of theater, Brecht or Robert Wilson for example, don’t make an attempt at realism. That just makes them have different goals.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2016, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acting-style-or-just-bad-acting/754831/30 "2016-05-20T21:47:45Z")
> [@FairyChatMom](#):
>
> . . . Yeah, I know, you can’t expect professional quality from community theater and I certainly don’t think I could do any better . . .
Grin! It’s like an apprenticeship; it’s where you make all your mistakes…and learn from 'em.
“An amateur actor who doesn’t make mistakes has no soul. A professional who hasn’t learned from his mistakes has no brains.”
(Patrick Stewart, as Jean-Luc Picard, really should have figured out that he was hitching up his waistline too damned often!)
---
### Author:  [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)
#### Post date: [May 21, 2016, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acting-style-or-just-bad-acting/754831/31 "2016-05-21T22:11:04Z")
> [@dropzone](#):
>
> As I recall, Methodman Hoffman stayed up all night to get the right disheveled look for a scene. Olivier asked, “Dear boy, why don’t you just ACT?”
Actually, that story wasn’t really told in the right context. Dustin Hoffman [set the record straight on _Inside the Actor’s Studio._](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M6Kh5AXF0M)
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> (Patrick Stewart, as Jean-Luc Picard, really should have figured out that he was hitching up his waistline too damned often!)
I think Jonathan Frakes once said they called that [‘The Picard Maneuver’](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2o77i74T48)_!_
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acting-style-or-just-bad-acting/754831.md?page=1)