Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crimson" data-source="post: 282019" data-attributes="member: 5079">It&#039;s true that Hepburn was, basically, always Hepburn.&nbsp;&nbsp; The same could also be said of nearly all of the great movie stars.&nbsp; Even Davis was only superficially versatile.&nbsp; She may have disappeared into a character on a couple of occasions, but mostly she was Bette Davis -- in a wig or with an (unconvincing) accent, but still Bette Davis.&nbsp;&nbsp; None of the actors of that era had the kind of technical precision we associate with Meryl Streep.What constitutes &quot;acting&quot;?&nbsp;&nbsp; Only if a performer becomes a different person?&nbsp; That eliminates virtually everyone.&nbsp; I keep my expectations of acting simple.&nbsp; Whether the actor becomes the character, or the character becomes the actor, does the performer embody the emotions and thoughts of that character?&nbsp; (With Kate the answer is &quot;sometimes yes, sometimes no&quot;.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crimson, post: 282019, member: 5079"] It's true that Hepburn was, basically, always Hepburn. The same could also be said of nearly all of the great movie stars. Even Davis was only superficially versatile. She may have disappeared into a character on a couple of occasions, but mostly she was Bette Davis -- in a wig or with an (unconvincing) accent, but still Bette Davis. None of the actors of that era had the kind of technical precision we associate with Meryl Streep. What constitutes "acting"? Only if a performer becomes a different person? That eliminates virtually everyone. I keep my expectations of acting simple. Whether the actor becomes the character, or the character becomes the actor, does the performer embody the emotions and thoughts of that character? (With Kate the answer is "sometimes yes, sometimes no".) [/QUOTE]

Verification

What month follows July?