How to tell good acting apart from bad acting?
I guess we do so instinctively, but how to put into words what exactly makes someone a bad/good actor? Watching old movies (examples: Soylent Green, Planet of the Apes) I always get a feeling of amateurish acting.
pic unrelated
Pretend you are the camera. That's all I ever do when watching movies.
That's a fucked up way to die
I would have taken a fat shit on the virgin to avoid this.
lowkey but convincing: good acting
loud and obnoxious: bad acting
I always pretend the camera is some shady dude guiding me through the experience, especially if it's a horror or thriller.
>psst, hey bud
>you want to see some fucked up shit?
i have aspergers, so i can't tell if their acting is convincing. i just go by how convincing a role's lines are
I doubt it. Life was shit back then. If someone promised you eternal happiness, you would have probably died for it too.
I would like to think because I am not a brainlet I would still be atheist. I've always been atheist so I don't see how living in a shithole would change that. If anything it would reaffirm the notion that we are alone.
>How to tell good acting apart from bad acting?
Best to actually know something about the craft.
Its the difference between saying "that movie looked pretty" and understanding WHY it looked good.
My rule of thumb has always been if the performance is able to make me believe the character I'm watching is real.
which way they died? drowning with tides?
Yup. They die slowly one by one as the waves get higher.
they genuinely, from the bottom of their hearts, thought they would be going to heaven, a place with eternal peace and happiness. As said, you would probably die for that as well if that's was the narrative at the time.
>If I lived in 17th century Japan, I'd still be as smart as I was in a 21st century first world country.
I don't think that faggot could get any dumber.
In broad, generalizing terms there's a big gap between old acting and the modern school of realism. Acting comes from theater, and many (if not most) actors study drama and are trained in theater.
Thing about theater is that it had to develop certain techniques so when people went to see a play the fuckers in the back rows wouldn't miss anything. This meant using makeup to accentuate expression lines and gesturing in what we now consider an "exagerated" way.
Good comparison is singers. Back in the day they had to learn how to use their body to make their voice resonate and fill out a theater. It was hard work and took dedication to master, not to mention to do night after night. With microphones (and cameras) they can do more nuanced, subtle performances. From having to learn how to throw your voice out it went to things like Elvis' soft crooning in "are you lonesome tonight", and from the grand exagerated gestures of theater to Liv Ullman transmitting emotion with subtle face gestures that would get lost if you were watching her from just a few feet away. Also modern art encourages realism.
Neither the old acting method or the modern are better or worse. We're just so used to the latter we think the old one feels wrong somehow.
First of all: Don't have autism.
Second: Do not have autism.
it was probably bait or he's underage. I probably should have left it alone.
What are you opinions on the Star Wars sand scene?
>*tips fedora*
Who's the edgelord here? All I'm saying is I've been an atheist since day 1. Everyone starts life as one anyway.
Your intuition is probably more right then you give it credit for. You probably already know what makes good acting and bad acting, but don't know the terminology to put it into a digestible form.
Another point is objectively good does not always mean interesting or engaging (and vice versa).
Good acting is about control. About drawing attention to what is required to sell a character, or another character, or a scene, and excluding all else. Range, emotion and realism can all be important. But it's primarily about control and the skill with which an actor imparts important information.
Refer to my post here Have a splendid rest of your day.
i rate it trap (pretty, but gay)
>The actor projects himself before him in the form of the character he wants to seem; lends him his own body, face, voice; makes him sit down, stand up, walk; penetrates him with sentiments and passions he himself does not have. This "I" who is not his "I" is incompatible with cinematography.
>Models. Mechanized outwardly. Intact, virgin within.
>Two types of film: those that employ the resources of the theatre (actors, direction, etc.) and use the camera in order to reproduce; those that employ the resources of cinematography and use the camera to create.
>I'm not a brainlet
>but I'm an atheist
I rate good acting to how well the character fits into the world around him. How does he preform the emotions and actions he is supposed to portray. I think bad acting comes into play when the character just feels like they're out of place and don't really fit the movie, giving believable performances. As much as I enjoy his work, John Wayne is someone I would consider a bad actor, because despite all of his roles, he just plays himself.