Smuel's good morning extravaganza

Sheesh, I just meant like push yourself to talk to her. But now it sounds like you accidentally killed her or something.

Next time try to aim for the sweet spot half way between nervous chatting and full-on murder.

Good morning.

 

Jesus **** no! It was a reference to Grim Fandango, I just felt poetic. No one is dead (well, except the protagonists of Grim Fandango)

Good **** morning

 

You know that bit in Bohemian Rhapsody where he sings "Miss Miller! No! We will not let you go! Miss Miller!" etc. Well, today I learned that this isn't a reference to one of his school teachers after all. He's actually singing "Bismillah" which is an exclamation in Arabic or something.

Bit weird, but okay.

Good morning.

 

What the hell did I just watched?

 

If you think I'm watching that whole thing, you're crazy.

Good morning.

 

Got too excited too early eh? No wonder you couldn't last a full 20m when it's furry related.

Good morning (though I'm guessing a morning riddled with shame for Smuel).

 

LOL

Anyway....
The wonders of internet and users' perseverance

Good morning.

 

If you think I'm watching that whole thing, you're crazy.

Good morning.

 

I have long pondered over what to say for my 2024 post in this thread.

After comparing and weighting multiple options, I have ultimately decided on the following:

Good morning.

 

...and the crowd goes wild!

Good morning.

 

Are you sure you don't want to watch it? It's even worse than what the thumbnail might suggest....

Good morning.

 

Both seemed to be too long for what they are.

Good morning.

 

Did all go well? Given that you stopped posting around 8 months later, I'm assuming it did. Give Junior Japes a cute little wave from your old forum buddy Smuel sometime.

Good morning.

 

... or alternatively, I guess it didn't go well, and that trauma combined with your latent PTSD finally took you to breaking point.

<Presses F>

Good morning.

 

Today I can't really manage to wake up....

Good morning.

 

If Barabbah can post when he's still asleep, then the rest of you slackers have no excuse.

Good morning.

 

My girlfriend just left on a multi-week trip abroad.

<Simon and Garfunkel starts playing>

♫ Hello wanking, my old friend... ♪

Good morning.

 

Okay, that's that done. Now onto some computer games!

Good morning.

 

Good morning.

 

Something has been puzzling me for a while, and I think I finally figured it out.

What is good acting?

People always say that Al Pacino is one of the greatest ever actors, but I could never see it. He always just seems to be playing the same character to me. On the other hand, people say that Keanu Reeves is not a good actor, but I could never see that either. He seems fine to me. So here's my theory which explains these observations.

There are three main components to acting - emotion, mimickry, and charisma.

Emotion is the ability to convincingly portray feelings that the character has in the scene. If the character just suffered a loss, they should appear upset. This is the most basic element to acting - if you can't even do this reasonably well, then it's obvious you are reading lines from a script. It's actually quite rare to see an actor who can't do this in a professional setting, since casting directors aren't so bad at their job that they would let this slip through. You do occasionally see it when a non-acting celebrity has a guest appearance in something. It's also common with child actors, but of course that's excusable.

Mimickry is the ability to pretend to be someone who has a different personality from you. If you're normally light hearted and joke around, then can you play the role of a quiet stoic person? If you're naturally reserved and obedient, can you convincingly act as a loud domineering type? This is rare to see in general, because casting directors will usually try to cast actors in roles that match their regular personalities. Then the studio isn't taking so much of a risk. You do see it when comedians successfully play a serious role, and everyone says how surprising it is.

Charisma is the unquantifiable factor that determines whether an audience wants to watch that actor or not. Part of it is plain old physical appearance. Part of it may be whether they feel natural and comfortable in front of a camera. People without charisma could be great at expressing emotions, but if they aren't compelling when they do it then nobody cares and they will never get any big acting roles in the first place.

Any given actor can combine the above three things in different amounts. Most Hollywood stars have a lot of charisma, and can do the emotional side of acting too. When people say they are one-note, or don't have range, I think they are referring to the actors not being great mimics. This manifests in them usually playing the same type of characters. There is probably a sense in which mimickry trades off against charisma. Tom Cruise is compelling because of his intensity - if he tried playing a relaxed dude, he'd lose some of his natural charisma, and the result would fall flat. Directors know this, so if they are casting the role of someone intense they will look for a "Tom Cruise type". If the role calls for cocky they will try to get Robert Downey Jr. If the role needs a lot of gravitas they will call Morgan Freeman. And if it's someone British they'll go for Michael Caine.

In my opinion, great actors are the ones who can do mimickry well. Daniel Day Lewis is the quintessential example. Does he have charisma? Actually, I'm not sure. The thing is - his level of mimckry is so insanely high that he can just mimic a charismatic person, and it works. But the man himself? He seems kind of quiet and uninteresting. Perhaps that's inevitable for a truly great mimic. In any case, people may not care about the distinction, and lump him into the "great actor" bucket with the regular Hollywood stars.

So, it's all sorted out? Not quite...

One final complication is that everyone has varying levels of face blindness. The worse afflicted can't recognise faces at all, but that's pretty rare. Then you have classically autistic people, who can see faces, but have trouble reading emotional cues. In the middle you have most people, who have no trouble with broad strokes, but may not notice details. Then at the top end you have the people who can read the most subtle of micro-expressions and get hired as "human lie detectors" by the FBI.

Where am I on this spectrum? I don't do too badly, but I'm definitely not up there at the top end. I once knew someone who was. We'd be in a business meeting with a complete stranger, and after we came out he'd say "Oof, that guy is having trouble at home," and I'd be like "Eh? What are you talking about?" and he'd say "I could see it on his face." Variations of this happened more than once. So yeah, those people do exist.

Putting it all together, I now think I have an explanation for my original Al Pacino/Keanu Reeves confusion. Al Pacino probably is really great at the emotional expression side of acting, but I can't see it. To me, he's just playing the same type of character over and over again. Keanu Reeves might be below average, but it's good enough for me. I totally buy that he's angry, or confused, or whatever is required in the scene, because he can muster the emotional cues to the level that I can perceive them. But people who are better than me may not be convinced, and declare him to be wooden.

Therefore, purely in terms of emotional acting, each actor will be at a level that convinces a proportion of the population. In that sense there is no such thing as "good" or "bad". Reeves might be good enough to convince 65% of people (including me), while Pacino can convince 99%. Justin Bieber's guest spots on SNL may only convince 10%, but that doesn't matter because nobody is watching SNL, or Justin Bieber, for the acting.

So, to summarise, when people say "so-and-so is a good actor" they could mean "His emotional range is equal to or above the level that I can perceive", or "He can play different characters" or simply just "I like watching him."

When they say someone is a bad actor, they could mean "I'm not convinced by his emotions", or "He always plays the same type of character", or "I don't like his face."

You won't know which it is without discussing it further.

Good morning.