seperis | because it is very early and I'm very awake

The horrible danger of insomnia combined with friendsfriends--God. It's *crack*. I am totally understanding the draw. Currently working on avoiding ep reviews nad spoilers, since I haen't watched The Return yet.

Anyway, while cruising along, I came across an entry--oh, just an entry of SGA squee, pre-episode, mentioning this and that and then, randomly at the end, a sudden diatribe against Joe Flanigan's acting skills. There was generalized horror and repugnance and the usual--weirdly usual, almost rote--discussion of the level of suckitude, so normal I don't even *notice* with any more than a blink.

Huh, I said, and as usual, skimmed and wandered off.

But it being five in the morning, I thought, well. It's fandom, and this is what we do. We sit around dissecting shows, characters, and actors. So I have to ask, because I can--um, what the hell?

I don't pretend to be anything close to an expert on acting, other than hoping Keanu Reeves is given few lines at any given time and a lot of really good shots of him being hot. That's as far as I get on appreciating this nebulous realm of 'good' versus 'bad'. But the fairly constant discussion of Joe Flanigan's lack of talent, lack of emoting, lack of this, lack of that--often paired up, oddly enough, with essays on David Hewlett's brilliance at whatever the poster has watched/did watch/is watching--it really makes me wonder. Otherwise squeeful individuals break into really *sudden* critiques of things like how Joe performed a ten second facial expression during a scene, or lapse into--and this is what's jarring, I'm reading along on meta and halfway through the paragraph just--boom. This sudden really *odd* invective. And at first it was annoying, then I progressed to the shrug/personal taste, then I started to doubt myself and wonder if there was something wrong with *me* that I wasn't climbing on the Joe Sucks At His Job Bandwagon, and progressed to think, wait. Am I sitting here thinking I need to *look* for reasons to critique an actor because half my fandom spends quality time--and a serious number of entries--telling me that he sucks? Was my John bias showing?

Wait, I thought. I like the character of John. The character is played by Joe, who plays the character of John in a way I like. Ergo, I think I like how Joe does his job. I remembered the stuff

thepouncer sent me and thought, huh. I liked that, too. That was kind of a relief.

I think at this point, it's just the build-up of seeing it so often--wow, so damned often, Jesus--and seeing it, not always, but a good chunk of the time, in direct contrast to a meta on DH's fantastical talent. Long, long entries on fantastical talent. Long, long entries on fantastical talent and etcetera. And you know, the coolness is there to love the actor. What I can't quite work out is how slamming Joe comes into a essay about how great DH is. Is that--supporting evidence or something? That kind of loses me in wondering what on earth the point is. I'm not sure how repeating in various formats how *much* Joe sucks is somehow going to make the DH adulation more convincing. I mean, I was sort of convinced without it? Then I just got irritated.

So I had this thought. It's a stupid thought, but then, everyone has stupid thoughts and they post them anyway. I was wondering, is there a direct correlation between how dramatic/flamboyant a character is--think McKay, Lex Luthor, Lionel Luthor, Justin Taylor--and the higher incident of actor popularity? I'm thinking of how TW in SV also picked up a lot of flack for being a sucky actor, with the exception of the times he was very flamboyant--Red comes to mind, and the beginning of season three that I can never remember the name of. Or Brian, for that matter in QaF.

Hmm. I feel this weird need to ponder this, but I also feel a real need to clean my bathroom, and neither are getting done at this second, because my greater need is to blankly stare at my flist in hopes I'll get sleepy. I'm just--weirded out by it, I think.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think you have something there, the idea that people ooh and ah over the flamoyant actors and roles, and their seeming lack of respect of actors who portray their characters in a more low-key way and perhaps naturalistic way. Al Pacino has handed in much more subtle, realistic performances than when he yelled, "HooHA!" in Scent of a Woman , but that role was the one he got the Oscar for. I read a review of All the King's Men that said Seah Penn would undoubtedly be up for the Oscar in his scenery-chewing role in a very bad movie. Low-key actors who hand in solid, believable performances don't often get recognized or praised for the job they did. They make it look too easy.

I believe in Shep, he comes off as "real" to me, so I can't quibble over the actor's performance. I've only ever seen him in one other thing, a pilot for a show that didn't get off the ground, and he played a very similar sort of character, so I don't know if he has much range. He's certainly shown a nice range of behaviours within the character: we've seen him angry, intense, casual, teasing, deadly serious... plus, he has really good timing for comedy, and that's not easy, damn it!

I remember tripping over my first critique of JF's performance and going, "Buh, whu..!?", too. I just didn't get where the criticism came from. They get really oddly specific, too: they will critique the way he lifts his eyebrow for a paragraph, for heaven's sake. I think if you are looking THAT closely at a performance, you need to blink a few times, rub your eyes, and sit further from the television set. I mean, they just get really bizarrely nit-picky when critiquing the Flan.

I also think Welling is better than people make him out to be, because some fans seem to think that Clark's bumbling dopiness is the actor being clunky with the performance... but every time Welling is asked to play something other than dopey old Clark-bar, he seems to be rather good at it, and those same fans act all surprised. I think it must be rather difficult for a man in his mid- to late-twenties to play a gawky, small-town, teenaged boy, and really, he's done a nice job of it. Clark feels like a real person to me, one I want to smack upside the head, but a real person nonetheless.

Um-Huh. I think I borrowed your brain for my response there-darn it! Really should read everything before posting, not after *duh*.

Sometimes it's best to post BEFORE you read everything, so that your own true response to the LJer's post comes out instead of reflections of what others have written. And there's always someone posting as you are writing, so you miss stuff anyway!

If Lovitz didn't exist, someone would have to invent him. "That's ACTING, sir!" He's hammy *and* cheezy, and I guess that's why Subway sandwiches hired him for their commercials. ;)

Yeah, I do bear a soft spot in my heart for him.
Acting! Brilliant! Thank you! and 'yeah that's the ticket' being two of our much quoted SNL routines for a while there.

because it is very early and I'm very awake

Master Thespian says, "ACTING!"

Re: Master Thespian says, "ACTING!"

Re: Master Thespian says, "ACTING!"

Re: Master Thespian says, "ACTING!"