Mama, this isn't in reply to you... but you made me think of it...

Old Classics. And I'm NOT presenting this as controversial, (although it may be); I'm just pointing out something interesting.. to me that is.

The transition from Stage Plays to Film was gradual... and in fact continues to this day. Early films, many of those classics you refer to, were 'acted' with the lingering adherence to "Stage Play Brought To Film"... which means an absolutely HUGE difference in 'acting'. Early films were, for the most part, 'stage acting brought to film'... UNTIL.. today of course, where they learned that film is different. So to my point...

What is lost today, IMO... is that a "Stage" performance in a film today would be regarded as 'bad acting' actually is NOT... again IMHO... (but with a lot of actors who will back me up on this). In point of fact.. STAGE acting... and again, IMHO.. is actually far more DIFFICULT than the more 'considered' reality of acting performances today in film AND what would be considered today as "good acting".

There are great actors today... every bit as great as yesteryear... that ain't it. But it's also true that a great director and perhaps MORE importantly a great 'film editor' can create a great acting performance out of pure @#$#. That wasn't possible on Stage... OR in early films in which they mimic'd stage plays. Hell, even *I* can do it... create what I want YOU, as the audience, to see/feel, by editing.. NOT great acting.

To stress.. that does NOT make early films 'better'... or 'performed better'. Not saying that. Can't stress this too much... actors today, (well, some anyway), are every bit as good and probably BETTER because they have work before them to build on.

When I took acting in college... late 60's, early 70's, this was VERY thoroughly discussed. today no... because 'stage'.. in film that is, is dead. Well, for the most part... some films DO adhere to that philosophy and do so VERY well but it's rare... today it's been developed to the point where I doubt most would see the distinction. The movie I just talked about "Knives Out'.. incorporates a LOT of stage technique, (no where near entirely but it's there).

Ok... I'm struggling with this, . My acting was almost entirely 'on stage'... BUT... we did film... just not major motion pictures. Stage was FAR more difficult... I suppose the easiest example is 'projection'... you had to SPEAK UP in a live performance or the audience can't hear you... BUT... you have to do that convincingly... or it doesn't work. and that's only ONE example.

To sum this up... all of us, ALL of us, are aware of how actors today idolize their predecessors. What I have attempted to explain is why that is so. What comes off to us today, (the audience), as 'less'... perhaps even 'corny'... actually DID take enormous talent... talent equivalent to anything today.. if not more-so. - JamesJM