You can’t really say “he isn’t acting; he’s just being himself!” as a valid complaint. Acting isn’t merely being someone else. It is being someone (yourself or another) convincingly in an artificially constructed reality. Just being yourself, and pulling it off, takes some skills, in the artificial environment of a television show (or a movie, for that matter). Seinfeld and Romano both had to do that.
Another observation: The great Johnny Carson frequently stated that he thought comics naturally made decent actors, because their entire business is based on reacting to things. Just the act of telling a joke, he felt, was the essence of acting. So they were generally good already. Some better than others, of course, but all comics (according to Carson) were going to be decent actors.
Paraphrasing Roseanne Barr in some article I read:
“The trick to the success of my show was that I knew I was not a great actress, so I hired the best actors and actresses I could find to make me look good.”
It worked wonders for her (Laurie Metcalf and John Goodman, as well as other cast members, stole the show most episodes).
Although I liked both Seinfeld and Romano’s shows (and have seen every episode of both), I would have to say Ray Romano did a better job of “acting”.
Both were funny in their shows, but often you could see Seinfeld saying lines that were not in character - funny, but not with the facial expression or body movement that made you think it was real and not scripted.
Ray, on the other hand, could at least play a scene as if he really were experiencing a situation for the first time.
However, both Seinfeld and Romano followed Roseanne’s lead and were clever enough to get great supporting actors to carry the show.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, Romano is one of three stars in a dramatic series, Men of a Certain Age. That might be a good basis to take off of in order to judge whether his work in Everybody Loves Raymond is representative or not. (Or perhaps not, since Seinfeld has no major dramatic role I can think of to compare it to.)
While Seinfeld’s acting chops were definitely lacking, I don’t think he was bad as most people make him out to be. Yeah, in the early seasons it could be a little annoying watching him trying to suppress a laugh or grinning like a fool, but he could deliver a line and, being a stand-up comic, had good timing. And as others have mentioned, his role wasn’t one that required a lot of emoting or dramatics. It was a show that relied more on the chemistry between the characters than anything else, and it had that in spades.
Also, sometimes the bad acting actually worked in his favor. Think about when he had to register discomfort and deliver a line in a really whiny voice - “I don’t want to be a cowboy!” “I don’t want to be a pirate!”
Well Everybody Loves Raymond was supposed to be funny. It was not, not in the least little way, it was just irritating and dumb. So … I vote Seinfeld. At least he was funny, a very good thing in a comedy series I hear.
Jerry is a very poor actor and had a lot of trouble pulling off “straight man” scenes (e.g., opposite Kramer) and non-comedic scenes (discussing relationships w/ George in early episodes.)
ELR sucks as a show but I don’t remember Romano’s acting ever being a distraction. IMHO he has shown himself to be a competent actor on other projects.
I richly loathed both of their sitcoms, but over time Seinfeld at least became convincing in his portrayal of his fictional self. Romano, for my $, never did. I haven’t seen Seinfeld in anything but commercials and interviews since leaving the show; so I can’t comment on any work he’s done. I’ve seen Romano in a few episodes of Men of a Certain Age and he’s still just dreadful to watch.