Riedel on Spacey hosting and his nominees for Best Actor — Page 2

little_sally said: "I see that the wording of my response was weird. What I meant essentially was there's not way Cott is a sure bet and there's no way Groban will have to battle for the 5th slot."

Ah! This makes sense! Haha.

"Because he's giving a better performance than Groban. Don't get me wrong, Josh is fantastic in Natasha, but Cott is slaying over there at Bandstand in a better, more demanding role"


LOL

The Tony Awards have never been about who's giving a better performance. That is some childlike naivete.

Wow you're the only one i've heard say that. People have had only good things to say about him.

"You cannot quantitatively measure a performance, so there's no way it could be factually true or untrue."

Well too bad 'cause I just did. When you "act" by indicating every word that comes out of your mouth, that's shmacting. That's what Corey Cott did when I saw him last night. It was egregiously amateur. Can he sing the house down? Yes. But his acting was straight out of a high school play.

I do know a lot of people. Did u feel that way?

Liza's Headband said: "You cannot quantitatively measure a performance, so there's no way it could be factually true or untrue. With the exception of vocal execution (i.e. singing the notes on a written sheet of music), a performance can only be subjective. End of story.



"

The statement above is indicative only of your lack of education. Scholars, critics and philosophers have been evaluating acting objectively for 2,500 years; and they have produced thousands of pages of criteria in the process.

Acting may be evaluated objectively in terms of practical skills such as vocal projection and physical dexterity, verisimilitude, and appropriateness to both the character's action and the overall action of the play. This is just a partial list.

The fact that somebody somewhere will like even the worst performance only proves that a subjective response may outweigh objective criteria. It doesn't prove the latter don't exist.

Why do people on here take his articles seriously? Really?

Liza's Headband said: "Go away, Philly Pinto. "



I know, right? I called out his last username and then he created this stupid one. Pinto, we don't want you here.

The committee whose job it is to decide those things already decided he's a lead. He's above the title so is automatically a lead.

GavestonPS said: "Liza's Headband said: "You cannot quantitatively measure a performance, so there's no way it could be factually true or untrue. With the exception of vocal execution (i.e. singing the notes on a written sheet of music), a performance can only be subjective. End of story.



"

The statement above is indicative only of your lack of education. Scholars, critics and philosophers have been evaluating acting objectively for 2,500 years; and they have produced thousands of pages of criteria in the process.

Acting may be evaluated objectively in terms of practical skills such as vocal projection and physical dexterity, verisimilitude, and appropriateness to both the character's action and the overall action of the play. This is just a partial list.

The fact that somebody somewhere will like even the worst performance only proves that a subjective response may outweigh objective criteria. It doesn't prove the latter don't exist."

Gaveston, yes, some relatively standardized objectives can be applied to the craft.

But how are verisimilitude and appropriateness of interpretation of role and text objective performance attributes? As we see constantly, working pros, critics as well as ordinary viewers disagree - often even among themselves - on the value to assign acting performances along these exact criteria.

What may be seen by one viewer as truthful another may not buy at all. What may be seen as an appropriate and well executed interpretation by one viewer may be seen as a safe and unimaginative, even boring, one by another and a novel, compelling one by yet another; just as those same viewers might perhaps have very different interpretations of the text itself and, often, very formative previous experiences seeing it enacted in very different ways.

One viewer's ingeniously and archtypically animated Richard III may be another's obviously and stereotypically hacked schemer. One viewer's sassy vivacious Hildy Esterhazy is another's vulgar debasement.

Even a single viewer's response to a performance might be strongly affected by mood or any number of extrinsic factors. And, as often noted in our responses to acting on screen, might change dramatically from one viewing to another.

"The "Tune is in the Tree—"
The Skeptic—showeth me—
"No Sir! In Thee!" "
Dickinson

Updated On: 4/20/17 at 09:41 AM