And yes, I see what you mean. John Simm's whole body was basically thrumming like a lute string, with tension, while Dave Tennant was leaping and fallopping about the stage.
I think, in many ways, Dave's eloquence and "flow," while less emotionally accurate, nonetheless communicated Shakespeare's actual words more clearly.
However, what I "bought" more from John Simm was Hamlet's doubt that the ghost of his father might really be the devil in disguise.
As a side note, I'm now wondering in exactly how many places did Shakespeare make the point that there's an inverse relationship between sincerity and eloquence.
I think Tennant gets better as he goes on with this particular speech. It's not that he acts it badly or anything because his performance is excellent. It's... not that his performance is insencere or anything, but... gah! It's hard to describe. I'd say that in general, his performances have more discipline and pitch and self-control. He has that core of strength within him that makes him an incredibly effective performer and a joy to watch
( ... )
Ah, yes. Both ways (So tense you can barely move, and so full of restless energy that you can't stop moving) are actually true ways that different people feel/express their anxiety.
So neither performance is more "right," or "correct" in performing that scene. It's just that each actor is interpreting the character as a different type of person...
when I made that comment about sincerity vs. eloquence, I was actually talking about the text of the soliloquy, not about how it was acted (How come this actor, who's making stuff up, convince people how hurt he is, while I, who actually do feel hurt and rage, can't get anyone to take me seriously? Oh, gawd, I'm a fraud and a failure and and coward, and I deserve to be beaten up, because I can't fight back
( ... )
Yes -- Dave is a wonderful actor, performing the lines and the motions with eloquence and elegance and with a sense of timing and feeling that leaves you breathless, but he is clearly acting. However beautifully and enjoyably, he is performing. Whereas John is somehow *there*, is bleeding out in front of your eyes. It's not always as elegant and beautiful, but it's raw and immediate and it punches you right in the gut.
Yes. That's exactly it. John's one of those few actors in the world who can make me completely suspend my disbelief. He doesn't just act things; he truly seems to *experience* them in front of your eyes. It's incredible how well he can pull you in and make you believe the things he's saying.
Comments 5
And yes, I see what you mean. John Simm's whole body was basically thrumming like a lute string, with tension, while Dave Tennant was leaping and fallopping about the stage.
I think, in many ways, Dave's eloquence and "flow," while less emotionally accurate, nonetheless communicated Shakespeare's actual words more clearly.
However, what I "bought" more from John Simm was Hamlet's doubt that the ghost of his father might really be the devil in disguise.
As a side note, I'm now wondering in exactly how many places did Shakespeare make the point that there's an inverse relationship between sincerity and eloquence.
Reply
Reply
So neither performance is more "right," or "correct" in performing that scene. It's just that each actor is interpreting the character as a different type of person...
when I made that comment about sincerity vs. eloquence, I was actually talking about the text of the soliloquy, not about how it was acted (How come this actor, who's making stuff up, convince people how hurt he is, while I, who actually do feel hurt and rage, can't get anyone to take me seriously? Oh, gawd, I'm a fraud and a failure and and coward, and I deserve to be beaten up, because I can't fight back ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment