>Country matters
>>24776882Modern Shakespearian actors just look so stupid. It's like they can't help but contort their face, and sometimes even body, into the most ridiculous expressions in the attempt to act 'realistically'. It's like they've forgotten how to express emotion.
>>24777090shakespeare, known for his realism
>>24777104Anon was saying that the actors are trying vainly to be too realistic.I agree with him, it just ends up being exaggerated
>>24777114it’s supposed to be. it’s melodrama.
>>24777118I disagree with that. Characterization is integral to his plays.
>>24777118Shakespeare's not melodrama, there's a massive difference between those two theatre traditions. But even if you do believe Shakespeare requires 'exaggerated acting', there's a difference between the exaggeration of old-fashioned theatre acting with a clearly defined emotional effect on the audience, and the exaggeration of modern theatre acting which is more a vanity project for the actor to have a spasm on stage.
>>24777122well you can’t disagree that it’s melodramatic. it is by definition.
>>24777126>old-fashioned exaggeration vs modern exaggeration think you’ve moved the goalposts so wide that it’s no longer about my original point.
>>24777130Melodrama arose almost two centuries after Shakespeare.
>>24777143Try articulating yourself better if you have a disagreement. We both agree modern Shakespearian acting is completely different from old Shakespearian acting, only I think that change in styles was also a decline in quality. Do you have an opinion on this matter or not?
>>24777157melodrama is inherent to the anglo-saxon cultural universe.
>>24777159not sure you have cause to be acting indignant. it’s not the conversation i was having.>it just ends up being exaggerated>it’s supposed to be
>>24777170Anon, the word 'exaggerated' is being used to mean two completely different things here, and you're confusing them together. If an actor were to scream at the top of their lungs every single line of Shakespeare, we would say 'that is ridiculously exaggerated', and you would obviously not then reply 'it's supposed to be exaggerated'. Use your brain.
>>24777181for context, the only exaggeration made reference to was >they can't help but contort their face, and sometimes even body
>>24777192That's just not true. In that same post, and throughout this thread, there's been further descriptions of what is meant by the exaggeration of modern Shakespearian actors. Why are you having so much trouble understanding a simple concept?
>>24777165Welles was a ham that absolutely sucked at acting Shakespeare, like all Americans. His opinion on how Shakespeare should be acted is of no importance.
>>24777198sorry>in the most ridiculous expressionshow could i have missed that >Why are you having so much trouble understanding a simple concept?why are you having so much trouble having a normal conversation without feeling the need for this weird needling?
>>24777207>how could i have missed thatAlso the mention that it was in the attempt to appear realistic. And, again, because you had so much trouble understanding, there was further clarification.>why are you having so much trouble having a normal conversation without feeling the need for this weird needling?Why am I having this conversation with you? You're literally just whining and complaining now. If you have something to contribute then do so, or I'm not going to reply any further.
>>24777201>yuro>seething about Americamust be a day ending in y
>>24777213Not seething, just a fact that every country has their cultural limitations.
>>24777211i don’t want you to reply! you steamrolled this adjunct conversation onto me.reread your replies, each has a ‘performing correctness’ that isn’t even about the topic. working too hard to sound condescending. you’re getting something out of it.
>>24777201convenient! surely you’re a yank too though?>sucked
>>24777226>reread your replies, each has a ‘performing correctness’ that isn’t even about the topic.Just articulate your opinions for once instead of making these vague statements. What is the topic? It seems to be about Shakespearian acting, and the differences between new and old, and that's exactly what my replies are about. If I'm mistaken then explain how.
>>24777242thought you weren’t going to reply any further?
>>24777247I replied because you seemed to be attempting to clarify yourself, but now you've clearly given up.
>>24777250i’m not interested in keeping this going, was i unclear about that?
>>24777229>convenient!Not really. Welles is just forced into every discussion about Shakespeare because he has a massive reddit fanbase that worship him despite being mediocre at everything he did.
>>24777269welles actually had a similar opinion about american actors and shakespeare. which must mean you’re both wrong? since he cant be right?now you don’t know what the hell to do eh
>>24777274Welles is there describing a cultural idea which Americans lack, not the cultural way feeling and behaving which is what really stops Americans from acting Shakespeare.
>>24777289which is wrong because americans actually do have the cultural understanding of the crown?
>>24777321Which is wrong because there's something much more fundamental in American culture that stops them from acting Shakespeare. Marlon Brando understood this, describing American accents and approach to language being too foreign to English culture.
>>24777326>Brandocorrect me if i’m wrong but wasn’t he also american?
>>24777330I didn't say all Americans' opinions on Shakespeare are worthless.
>>24777254No.
>>24777341if i was a lesser man i’d start asking whose being reddit now. just kidding. actually welles talked about that before as well, it was a boilerplate question interviewers used to ask actors in the 20th century (about how americans say ‘gawd’ rather than god etc).
>>24777326>yuro>culturepic one
