7 ms·

Why is acting in old movies so bad?

29 points by ggeorgovassilis 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
uniqueid 6y ago
Audio technology improved. That gave actors the option to speak quietly.
- ck425 6y ago
  You say that but theatre actors still need to project despite mics and they can act fine.
copperx 6y ago
I haven't clicked on the link, but I do know that early movie actors came from a theater background, where you can't act subtly. And it showed.
- jfengel 6y ago
  That's interesting, because a lot of the most popular actors today have theater backgrounds: Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Hugh Laurie, Judy Dench, Paul Bettany, and lots of others. It's a stronger tradition in the UK, though some American actors seek out that training as well. It seems to do especially well at teaching people how to be charismatic leads. My theory is that there's something about connecting with an audience and holding their attention when they don't have a camera telling them where to look. It's not about being "big", but about committing strongly to each moment. It's a hard thing to describe without theater jargon, which mostly means that we don't really understand it. We just know it when we see it. Early theater actors did have a very different style, not just un-subtle but athletic and operatic. Audiences then would find today's films underwhelming, without the actors filling the room with their voices and making their emotions as big as possible. That's more about taste than about medium: the same change has happened in the theater, and the naturalistic acting styles pioneered by Stanislavsky were invented for theater, not film.
kian 6y ago
TLDR: acting for the Theater and Vaudeville requires not only speaking in odd ways to be heard, it also requires one to exaggerate to project one's facial expressions and gestures. It took some time to get out of the cultural habits that instilled.
savanaly 6y ago
Quality of acting is a pretty subjective matter. We do see increases in "quality of output" over the same time scale on more objective metrics, like e.g. physical achievements. High schoolers today routinely accomplish the same feats reserved for the world-record holders of 100 years ago in almost any sport. It can't be all the nutrition and equipment and training...the results seem to match a model where each generation grows to meet and just barely surpass the expectations of the previous one. And while we can pretty easily verify that in some areas (like track and field), it's less clear in others. But arguably that's applicable to acting. Counterpoint: some areas seem to regress? Or maybe that's our mind playing tricks on us? Do you all remember how, recently, someone dredged up the Harvard undergraduate entrance exam from 1870 or whatever and its math and history problems were ones that would stump even today's graduate students?
stolenmerch 6y ago
Better technology to capture nuance in performance, but also better acting methods such as the American schools of Stanislavski's method as well as the Meisner Technique. These new techniques brought a richer psychological dimension to acting. Also, we don't have many very early films due to the combustible nature of silver nitrate, so more and ultimately "better" films survive from later in cinema history.
snowwrestler 6y ago
I read a few answers but did not see two major factors mentioned. The rise of mass media created celebrity culture, which empowered actors vs studio executives. This gave actors more say on how movies are made, and naturally, they made changes that make their work look better. Another major factor was the rise of improvisation as a recognized, legitimate, and valuable style of acting. In the old days the Script Was God in the studio system; actors did what they were told. The rise of auteur directors, and then celebrity actors, created room for directors and actors to invent lines and whole scenes on their own. This helps things seem more natural, and it allows productions to efficiently work around script problems that were not caught in pre-production.
pvaldes 6y ago
People learn imitating previous work. Until 1930, the main reference for acting was silent movies or theater. A different medium where you need to overcompensate with body movement what you can't express with the voice. Some silent film stars were still struggling to adapt in 40's probably. On the other hand, stereotypes and racist jokes were still part of many films in those years. Actors in roles of bad guys or soldier enemies were expected to act weird, clumsy and unable to talk correctly. The social rules about what was acceptable clothing or hair were also much more strict than today also, so many common gestures related with hats or clothes feel a little stiff today.
musicale 6y ago
The best answer is that there are fantastic performances from basically every decade of film. Watch those films, and enjoy them.
musicale 6y ago
Acting hasn't really gotten any better; we just changed the films so now you can't tell how bad the acting actually is. ;-)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

uniqueid 6y ago

Audio technology improved. That gave actors the option to speak quietly.

ck425 6y ago
You say that but theatre actors still need to project despite mics and they can act fine.

copperx 6y ago

I haven't clicked on the link, but I do know that early movie actors came from a theater background, where you can't act subtly. And it showed.

jfengel 6y ago
That's interesting, because a lot of the most popular actors today have theater backgrounds: Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Hugh Laurie, Judy Dench, Paul Bettany, and lots of others. It's a stronger tradition in the UK, though some American actors seek out that training as well. It seems to do especially well at teaching people how to be charismatic leads. My theory is that there's something about connecting with an audience and holding their attention when they don't have a camera telling them where to look. It's not about being "big", but about committing strongly to each moment. It's a hard thing to describe without theater jargon, which mostly means that we don't really understand it. We just know it when we see it. Early theater actors did have a very different style, not just un-subtle but athletic and operatic. Audiences then would find today's films underwhelming, without the actors filling the room with their voices and making their emotions as big as possible. That's more about taste than about medium: the same change has happened in the theater, and the naturalistic acting styles pioneered by Stanislavsky were invented for theater, not film.

kian 6y ago

TLDR: acting for the Theater and Vaudeville requires not only speaking in odd ways to be heard, it also requires one to exaggerate to project one's facial expressions and gestures. It took some time to get out of the cultural habits that instilled.

savanaly 6y ago

Quality of acting is a pretty subjective matter. We do see increases in "quality of output" over the same time scale on more objective metrics, like e.g. physical achievements. High schoolers today routinely accomplish the same feats reserved for the world-record holders of 100 years ago in almost any sport. It can't be all the nutrition and equipment and training...the results seem to match a model where each generation grows to meet and just barely surpass the expectations of the previous one. And while we can pretty easily verify that in some areas (like track and field), it's less clear in others. But arguably that's applicable to acting. Counterpoint: some areas seem to regress? Or maybe that's our mind playing tricks on us? Do you all remember how, recently, someone dredged up the Harvard undergraduate entrance exam from 1870 or whatever and its math and history problems were ones that would stump even today's graduate students?

stolenmerch 6y ago

Better technology to capture nuance in performance, but also better acting methods such as the American schools of Stanislavski's method as well as the Meisner Technique. These new techniques brought a richer psychological dimension to acting. Also, we don't have many very early films due to the combustible nature of silver nitrate, so more and ultimately "better" films survive from later in cinema history.

snowwrestler 6y ago

I read a few answers but did not see two major factors mentioned. The rise of mass media created celebrity culture, which empowered actors vs studio executives. This gave actors more say on how movies are made, and naturally, they made changes that make their work look better. Another major factor was the rise of improvisation as a recognized, legitimate, and valuable style of acting. In the old days the Script Was God in the studio system; actors did what they were told. The rise of auteur directors, and then celebrity actors, created room for directors and actors to invent lines and whole scenes on their own. This helps things seem more natural, and it allows productions to efficiently work around script problems that were not caught in pre-production.

pvaldes 6y ago

People learn imitating previous work. Until 1930, the main reference for acting was silent movies or theater. A different medium where you need to overcompensate with body movement what you can't express with the voice. Some silent film stars were still struggling to adapt in 40's probably. On the other hand, stereotypes and racist jokes were still part of many films in those years. Actors in roles of bad guys or soldier enemies were expected to act weird, clumsy and unable to talk correctly. The social rules about what was acceptable clothing or hair were also much more strict than today also, so many common gestures related with hats or clothes feel a little stiff today.

musicale 6y ago

The best answer is that there are fantastic performances from basically every decade of film. Watch those films, and enjoy them.

musicale 6y ago

Acting hasn't really gotten any better; we just changed the films so now you can't tell how bad the acting actually is. ;-)