From a technical perspective of the craft and from an audience perspective, what constitutes “good” acting?. Looking for an answer beyond it being “believable” because that’s very surface level and what even makes the performance believable?
Register / Log In
The bottom line is as an actor it’s not our job to tell the whole story. Partly because there are many other disciplines waiting to contribute their part (costumes, lighting, cinematography, sound des...
Expand commentThe bottom line is as an actor it’s not our job to tell the whole story. Partly because there are many other disciplines waiting to contribute their part (costumes, lighting, cinematography, sound design, production design, editing), but also because as a viewer I need room to insert my own POV. So if, as an actor, you’ve decided your subtext for the scene is A, but I interpret it as B and someone else interprets it as C, then congratulations you did a great job. If you try to force A down our throats because you think that’s a “complete” performance, well then now I’m bored.
1 person likes this
Thanks for nice a question
Mungunzul Amgalanbaatar Glad it was helpful
Sure it ll be help for me thanks a lot
1 person likes this
Good acting, technically means executing your role “as if” it was you not acting but living it. (The “as if” is in quotes as it is an acting form as coined by Stanislavski that actors use in preparati...
Expand commentGood acting, technically means executing your role “as if” it was you not acting but living it. (The “as if” is in quotes as it is an acting form as coined by Stanislavski that actors use in preparation). Details are too much for this space, but I would be happy to explain in more detail at another time.