![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Apr. 28th, 2015 05:33 pmWhat am I gonna do if Trainery Vriska becomes canon guys
What am I gonna do
What am I gonna do
Apr. 28th, 2015
"Rowsdower."
Apr. 28th, 2015 08:38 pmUntil I was in maybe my late teens, early twenties, I didn't know what people were talking about when they discussed "good acting" and "bad acting."
Like: I watched Mystery Science Theater a lot, but I couldn't really see any difference between the acting in a movie like Pod People and in ET. It was all just. People saying stuff? I couldn't tell the difference.
I remember zoning out during some movie thing we were watching in class in grade school, thinking that Good Acting must be an arbitrary thing like fashion, and thus that it had been different in every culture's every historical era. There probably existed, or someday would exist, a place and time in which the guy who played Zap Rowsdower would have been a great actor! Logic.
Another thought Little Me had on the subject of acting: Maybe in Hatshepsut's era, the good actors were the ones who could sort of remain on kind of the same plane, keeping all their limbs showing at once and their face always perpendicular to the audience with facial expressions as flat as possible and not visibly move their mouths, like in the art of the time?
Fig 1. - Good Acting.
In this time period, the goal of "good acting" might well have been looking 2D, and in general just trying really hard to resemble pictures from the Book of the Dead. Flashstepping from one rigid pose to another so the audience can't tell you're moving.
Yeah - that's definitely possible and even likely, thought Little Me, entirely satisfied with this hypothesis and the premises behind it.
I figured that whatever people were defining as "good acting" in the present was probably based on some similar artificial ideal whose identity I just hadn't yet isolated.
In retrospect, it's kind of astonishing that it took until last year for me to be diagnosed with ASD.
Like: I watched Mystery Science Theater a lot, but I couldn't really see any difference between the acting in a movie like Pod People and in ET. It was all just. People saying stuff? I couldn't tell the difference.
I remember zoning out during some movie thing we were watching in class in grade school, thinking that Good Acting must be an arbitrary thing like fashion, and thus that it had been different in every culture's every historical era. There probably existed, or someday would exist, a place and time in which the guy who played Zap Rowsdower would have been a great actor! Logic.
Another thought Little Me had on the subject of acting: Maybe in Hatshepsut's era, the good actors were the ones who could sort of remain on kind of the same plane, keeping all their limbs showing at once and their face always perpendicular to the audience with facial expressions as flat as possible and not visibly move their mouths, like in the art of the time?
Fig 1. - Good Acting.
In this time period, the goal of "good acting" might well have been looking 2D, and in general just trying really hard to resemble pictures from the Book of the Dead. Flashstepping from one rigid pose to another so the audience can't tell you're moving.
Yeah - that's definitely possible and even likely, thought Little Me, entirely satisfied with this hypothesis and the premises behind it.
I figured that whatever people were defining as "good acting" in the present was probably based on some similar artificial ideal whose identity I just hadn't yet isolated.
In retrospect, it's kind of astonishing that it took until last year for me to be diagnosed with ASD.
