Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James from London" data-source="post: 292105" data-attributes="member: 22">I&#039;d say the latter. Drama is a collaborative medium - it&#039;s very hard to separate writing and acting, they&#039;re interdependent. An actor can only really be as good as the scripts they&#039;re given., Victoria Prinicipal was at her best on DALLAS when Pam was living away from Southfork because the story gave the character more space to hang out and interact naturally with her friends and family. (Her situation at the ranch was kind of artificial and so she seemed kind of artificial too. That&#039;s not even a criticism really, that artificiality is part of what made DALLAS DALLAS.)Patrick Duffy was always good, but I don&#039;t think he was ever better than on New DALLAS where he got to be more than just the good brother or the knight in shining armour. He was the head of the family, with the weight of both the past and present lying heavily on his shoulders. I&#039;d never seen him give such a multi-layered performance before, but he simply wasn&#039;t required to in the original series.I think when actors are accused of &quot;just playing themselves&quot; that&#039;s almost the biggest compliment you can pay them. It means their acting is so authentic it doesn&#039;t even look like acting anymore. If there is strain and effort, you don&#039;t see it. That&#039;s why, famously, Oscars have often gone to actors playing someone with a disability - because all the Effort, all the Acting is up on the screen for you to see and applaud.Or those are the roles he gets cast in. He may not get considered for any other kind of part.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James from London, post: 292105, member: 22"] I'd say the latter. Drama is a collaborative medium - it's very hard to separate writing and acting, they're interdependent. An actor can only really be as good as the scripts they're given., Victoria Prinicipal was at her best on DALLAS when Pam was living away from Southfork because the story gave the character more space to hang out and interact naturally with her friends and family. (Her situation at the ranch was kind of artificial and so she seemed kind of artificial too. That's not even a criticism really, that artificiality is part of what made DALLAS DALLAS.) Patrick Duffy was always good, but I don't think he was ever better than on New DALLAS where he got to be more than just the good brother or the knight in shining armour. He was the head of the family, with the weight of both the past and present lying heavily on his shoulders. I'd never seen him give such a multi-layered performance before, but he simply wasn't required to in the original series. I think when actors are accused of "just playing themselves" that's almost the biggest compliment you can pay them. It means their acting is so authentic it doesn't even look like acting anymore. If there is strain and effort, you don't see it. That's why, famously, Oscars have often gone to actors playing someone with a disability - because all the Effort, all the Acting is up on the screen for you to see and applaud. Or those are the roles he gets cast in. He may not get considered for any other kind of part. [/QUOTE]

Verification

6 + 4 =