"wooden" acting

Post #268,030 by rcareaga 9/18/06 10:57:32 PM Reply	"wooden" acting Keep in mind that excellence in acting is a moving target. The performances to which you condescend did not seem anything like so artificial to the audiences that originally watched the film. Casablanca was, at the time, just another drama off the WB assembly line. Only years later was it understood that somehow a random blend of ingredients had got it just right. cordially, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
Post #268,034 by inthane-chan 9/18/06 11:26:38 PM Reply	I do recognize it as a product of its time. I've seen many films from that era, and the acting comes across to me as stilted as well, so I've come to believe that it's a philosophical difference in how films were directed at the time. Believe me, I enjoyed it - my comments at the end were more "watch it even though I can't find anything to say about it" than "this film sucked, so watch it just so you can say you have." Odoru aho ni miru aho! Onaji aho nara odoranya son son!
Post #268,068 by tuberculosis 9/19/06 3:18:16 PM Reply	Actually people used to talk like that, see. And how. Does that mean our grandparents were stilted too? I mean, what's the big idea shootin' your mouth off about something you're too young to remember? Some swell movie critic you are. Why I oughta give you what for thats what I oughta do. You know, like the 3 stooges. You want to see lame acting? Check out Hell's Angels - a triumph of arial photography - with awful acting and a stupid plot woven in. To my ear, Casablanca has some of the least contrived dialog of the era - which is saying quite alot. CB gave us easily as many quotables (now cliches) as any two Shakespeare plays. [link\|http://www.blackbagops.net\|Black Bag Operations Log] [link\|http://www.objectiveclips.com\|Artificial Intelligence] [link\|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html\|Scrutinizer]

Welcome to IWETHEY!