Replies

One of the interesting twists when talkies suddenly made voice acting important in movies was the reaction of many viewers who -- having grown up with traditional stage performances with the emphasis on enunciation and unaided projection and then silent films where voices were irrelevant -- were shocked at naturalism when talkies took over. "That isn't acting" and "Anybody could do that" were common reactions. "Acting" meant feet firmly planted, an unaided, unamplified oratorical voice projected to the cheap seats, and clear enunciation because otherwise an actor couldn't hope to be understood.

Of course, everyone can't convey emotion through facial expression and subtleties of voice in closeup shots. Go ahead. Try it. Make a fool of yourself. It's an art form, as is oratorical declamation, and they are different art forms. Which is why so many of the iconic screen actors of the silent stage could not manage the transition to talkies, despite the new ability to do multiple shoots and extensive sound editing in post-production.

We often remark at how often the great actors of the Golden Age of Hollywood are far superior to modern movie and tv actors in enunciation and phrasing. Yes; they often speak far better than 99 percent of people speak in real life. These were classically trained actors who still reflected stage conventions. And that, of course, is extremely artificial. Most modern films and shows are striving for naturalism.

The CD of great Shakespearian actors of the pre-talkie era is doubly fascinating when one pauses to realize that most of those presentations by legends of live theater would be laughed off the stage today, except in a campy, parody movie where they are played for laughs.