If those evaluating acting are doing it naturally then what I am going to say here could be just a rationalization. But as much as what seems to me as extremism in demanding the absence of the actor in the portrayed character is influenced by things like the conclusion reached HERE then they could be missing things limiting themselves to see an entire dimension by only looking at it through the other one or at least a prematurely reached whole. Instead of that definition, I view acting more as being related to the existence of the portrayed character minus the existence of the actor. Yes, the addition to the second of those two could be much more damaging than a lacking in the first but that should still be within limit and not be taken as free pass on conservative acting.
No comments:
Post a Comment