[ SECRET POST #5211 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5211 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 27 secrets from Secret Submission Post #746.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

[(Anonymous)]

So I think there's the obvious kind of good acting where you inhabit the character and all of that, yes, very good acting, obviously

But I also think that something that doesn't get enough credit is acting that's not about inhabiting a character at all, that's just about being charismatic on screen, and I think it's really undervalued. I think the best example of this, maybe, is Patrick Swayze. Patrick Swayze doesn't really play a character - but he's still a great performer, because he's absolutely magnetic when he shows up on screen, and he's always great. The eye is simply drawn to him. It's such an important quality. Burt Reynolds is another guy like this. I would watch Burt Reynolds do anything in a movie. It's not about what character he plays - he is just fascinating to watch do things in movies.

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

[(Anonymous)]

I would argue that what you're describing here is screen presence, and that it is a completely different thing to being a good actor. Acting is a skill, screen presence is a happenstance.

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT
I agree, although I wouldn't say it's exactly happenstance. I think there are some people who (through skill) learn to be charming and are therefore fun to watch, but can't/don't really act compellingly (in the sense of embodying varied characters and making them believable).

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

[(Anonymous)]

I guess you can probably learn it, but there are definitely people who are just born with 'it'.

Re: What constitutes 'good acting' for you?

[firecat]

Then there are the people with screen presence but a limited acting range, and the ability to choose roles that let them work within that range. I'm thinking Robin Williams, Ah-nold, Keanu Reeves (though I've heard some people say Reeves has a wide range. I haven't seen it myself).