Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mel O&amp;#039;Drama" data-source="post: 155780" data-attributes="member: 23">This is interesting, because I completely agree with the beginning and the end of this sentence but I&#039;m not sure I agree with the middle.Not that I think any of the cast was necessarily weak, but I don&#039;t think they were all equally strong as actors. And that&#039;s something that defines a good ensemble: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Somehow, a good ensemble overcomes its flaws and even utilises them. So I suppose casting is everything.Another interesting one because of one of the leads being recast not just once but twice. I really enjoy Switt and Foster&#039;s interpretations, but something definitely happened in terms of chemistry from Sharon Gless&#039;s first episode that&#039;s really difficult to explain. I don&#039;t think it&#039;s down to talent or acting ability or whatever. It&#039;s just that indefinable magic that happens when an ensemble really works.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mel O'Drama, post: 155780, member: 23"] This is interesting, because I completely agree with the beginning and the end of this sentence but I'm not sure I agree with the middle. Not that I think any of the cast was necessarily [I]weak[/I], but I don't think they were all equally strong as actors. And that's something that defines a good ensemble: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Somehow, a good ensemble overcomes its flaws and even utilises them. So I suppose casting is everything. Another interesting one because of one of the leads being recast not just once but twice. I really enjoy Switt and Foster's interpretations, but something definitely happened in terms of chemistry from Sharon Gless's first episode that's really difficult to explain. I don't think it's down to talent or acting ability or whatever. It's just that indefinable magic that happens when an ensemble really works. [/QUOTE]

Verification

6 + 4 =