Why hasn't acting in general evolved beyond exaggerated theatricality that was developed for the stage instead of growing into a separate form in cinema? Bresson had the right idea in developing the concept of the cinematic actor as being only, in his own words, a "model" for the cinematography, music and dialogue to shine through. The "models" were simply there to release dialogue and basically be part of the scenery while the audio-visual aspect took over. And if you think about it, purely cinematic techniques like the close-up aren't used as much as they could be to express the subtle emotions of the human face, disregarding a few notable examples. Even in the early days when Dreyer sought an exact kind of emotion from Falconetti the end result was still cartoonishly excessive - but perhaps this is a bad example come to think of it given what the film was really aiming for in the other histrionic visual techniques used. Obviously acting is not the only part of cinema that has simply been transposed from the stage to the screen without much evolution but it's one of the most apparent to the point of determining most actors' career paths.
Why hasn't acting in general evolved beyond exaggerated theatricality that was developed for the stage instead of...
MUMMY
Normies need exaggeration or they get bored/confused and leave, just look at the public reaction to any modern works which don't spoonfeed.
Many filmmakers followed Bresson's path and stick to more naturalistic, less cartoonishy acting, with The Dardennes being the most prominent example. I think audiences still crave theatricality, though. Many consider the acting in these films cold or robotic, even though they resemble reality way more aptly
lol
I'm honestly trying to make sense of what your saying OP because i'm stupid but Theater acting or Stagey acting isn't bad in films
It's just has to work in context of the film. Eva green is a good example of theater acting working in films.
>t. a person who has never seen stage acting
They've diverted a massive amount.
he isn't wrong. hyperbolic acting really is a constant on stages and has been for a long time. there are no close-ups on stage, so you have to rely on overacting to make your emotions apparent enough for the audience
This.
Why do British Soap Operas have everyone whispering everything? you couldn't do that in traditional theater.
Pretty much every "subjective drug use" montage in the history of cinema, where small gestures are shown in distorted, super close ups reveal a kind of "acting" that is totally impossible in theater.
Cinematic acting is still hugely stylized and doesn't resemble reality at all, but that's a combination of the needs of cinematography, the limitations of lighting, and most importantly: the adherence to the script and words on paper.
Mike Leigh, Altmann and others made strides in breaking free from that Character A, Character B, Character A - clean cut dialogue style but it hasn't permeated the mainstream.
More to the point you look at something like the films of Refn where he goes in the opposite direction - minimalism of dialogue. Silence as amplification of meaning.
Not everyone goes to your experimental kabuki plays
>Why do British Soap Operas have everyone whispering everything?
They do?
People love actors too much right now.
They're interested in their personal affairs, and how they are in real life.
They wanna see them do so many things, and have the movie focus on them.
That's why famous ones always get the big bucks, and bring in viewers for their name alone on new movies.
>without much evolution
watch the theatrical-style acting in any drama from 1931, then watch the acting in any drama from 1960 onward, then admit how BTFO you are. i'll wait
>then admit how BTFO you are
This is an 18+ website.
rich, coming from the person who doesn't appear to have seen any old Hollywood at all and probably only watched joan d'arc in a film class. otherwise you would realize how little sense the OP makes.
watch all quiet on the western front. it's essentially filmed stage acting. watch anything from the 2nd half of the 20th century, it isn't even close to the same.
The point is that movie acting still relies on exaggerated theatricality and a career in the movies is still tightly bound to stage acting, you dolt.
Man, Eva Green looks fucked up.
>tfw mumblecore was right
in answer to your question, conventions are conventions
Bresson was right about everything.
I still havent seen anything as awe inspiring as Au Hazard Balthazar, Mouchette, or Diary of a Country Priest since I saw them for the first time.
watch the public enemy and tell me acting hasn't changed massively you fucking tard
>Bresson had the right idea in developing the concept of the cinematic actor as being only, in his own words, a "model" for the cinematography, music and dialogue to shine through.
I don't get it.
Because that's wrong.
How?
A lot of it does and a lot of it doesn't. I think in a lot of productions it feels exaggerated because of bad dialogue and not particularly because that's what the actors are going for.