I understand I know… it’s an overgeneralization… tbelow are some examples of rather fine acting from the sixties…
I couldn’t aid yet think the other day as I watched Ben Hur on television that actors of the fifties and sixties sure were stilted in their shipment.
You are watching: Why was acting so bad in old movies
I might close my eyes and recognize a film as being from the 50’s/60’s just from the sound of the actors ANNOUNCING every one of their lines… the male actors, anyway… all the actresses seemed to be singing their lines back then.
And I LOVE old movies… so what was it movie history buffs? A holdover from the stage? The style of the times? Or did the actors just suck back then?
I was about to refute your dispute by saying Papillon, but thankfully I conserved myself some embarassment by checking, as it was made in 1973. However before, one more Steve McQueen special - The Great Escape, and also of course Butchy Cassidy and the Sundance Kid are two 60s films I think are actors quite well.
Butchy Cassidy and also the Sundance Kid
One of the ideal movies of all time, in my opinion.
I was referring more to the acting style uncovered in such classics as the Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, Spartacus, etc.
A holdover from the stage? The style of the times? Or did the actors just suck back then?
It was combicountry of the first 2, primarily because the Method style of acting hadn’t really been totally developed (in big part bereason that style is just efficient in mediums that let the audience have a cshed look at the actor.)
Throughout the evolution of acting, the “Presentational” style of acting ended up being the welcomed method. This style concentrated on, literally, presenting your character to the audience so that everyone could see what was going on, what the character’s inspiration was, etc… It was unrealistic, but it operated. If you look, you’ll check out that it’s not just actors in the sixties that sucked, actors in the fifties, forties, thirties, twenties and teenagers sucked also. Even the classical performances, if ceded this particular day, would suck. With the expansion of movies and TV, the presentational style had actually noticeable restrictions. It’s toughness was clarity, however movies and TV made a lot much less blatent acting clear as well. The “Method”, or represetational, style of acting began to dislocation the presentational style in movies and also TV. The tool allowed for this even more accuarate acting style.
So, yes, it was a holdover from the phase, and also yes, it was the style of the times.
I totally agree with Squirrel Killer’s evaluation. However, I’d favor to mention a really, really good actor/director from the silent film era called Buster Keaton. He was one of the first to realize that he was using a totally various media from the phase, and also he provided it to the fullest. I’m not a genuine massive fan of older movies, however this man was really funny. Complete deadpan, quite cynical, all through a veneer of wholesomeness which society demanded of their mass entertainment back then.
I think 99% of what’s thought about “good” acting in any type of given period will certainly seem weird (not necessarily “bad”) in the future. I don’t think the movies you’re citing (prefer The Ten Commandments) are particularly good examples bereason if you look at some of the reviews from the time, tright here were a lot of folks even ago then that taken into consideration that “bad” acting.
A better comparichild could be to look at what was thmust be “realistic” acting during a offered period – Marlon Branperform was taken into consideration “realistic” in the "50s, however regarded today the majority of his stuff appears downbest histrionic. Robert De Niro was taken into consideration “realistic” in the "70s, yet most his acting from that duration currently appears fairly stylized, and also as soon as you view him currently in a contemporary film alongside modern actors, his acting seems mannered by compariboy. Of course, naturalistic acting isn’t the only sort out there, however I’m using it as an example because exaggerated, non-naturalistic acting doesn’t seem to age as much as realistic acting (human being look at Jerry Lewis this day and say “exactly how could anyone ever think that was funny?”, but that’s a bit of a stselection point to say in a period as soon as Jim Carrey can command $20 million a movie) and also so I’m not really certain exactly how relevant that is to the discussion.
As for the question of why “realistic” acting from the "50s and "70s appears much less real than “realistic” acting this day, one feasible explanation is that it’s taken actors 100 years to number out exactly how to act naturally onscreen, yet I think it can extremely well be that tbelow isn’t a solitary, never-changing standard of what constitutes “realistic” habits – for all I recognize civilization really did act favor Marlon Branexecute in the 1950s.
See more: Who Is Bill Murray A White Sox Fan ? Who Is The Biggest Celebrity Cubs Fan
There’s always the over-the-peak ones that obtain great attention and also are topical or timely. Once the topical timely part wears off, so does the appeal of the performance. Beverly Hills Cop pertains to mind. When I remained in institution I couldn’t escape it-civilization telling Axel Folie Jokes, laughing prefer Eddie Murphy, that frigging one-finger-at-a-time synthesizer layout music from the movie, gack. But now, where is the love for it?
I still favor Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird, or Jimmy Stewart in many movies. The relentless detail and also tempo of Guy Whatshisconfront in Memento, the lsit goes on. Some stuff simply holds up. Some stuff is expensive at the time but doesn’t stand also up well to time.