Minerva wrote:
But to state there is a good//bad way of acting suggests that acting is an objective art when it is anything but that. he added elements to his performance too that were unaided by the script. (ie: those cutesy looks towards Ariadne, his interactions with Eames, his reaction to Cobb waking up on the plane).
acting is not objective, but what I'm referring to is more readily seen by the eye. There were clear moments where it seemed like he wasnt in the scene that was happening...he was in some scene that he envisioned in his head. I liked the moments that you mentioned as well, but its the other weak moments that threw me off.
Minerva wrote:
Why can I not consider stunt work as acting? In some drama schools, you can learn stage combat, circus skills or dance and isn't stunt work an extention of that?
it can't. Here's why. In drama schools, dance and stage combat arent taught to actors so that they know dance and stage combat...they are tuahgt so that they develop control and finesse of their bodies. Its to aid them in their ability to use their body in transformation and in physicalizing the emotion and psychology of the character. Its a form of training of the actor's body.
the stunt work is a different thing. It's being done for the sake of stunt work, not for the sake of being a better actor.
