From: osborn@socs.uts.edu.au (Tom Osborn)
Subject: Acting and MA (was Re: Kung Fu TV series)
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 12 Oct 92 02:29:31 GMT

burdickd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Dakin Burdick) writes:

>>For me to enjoy a movie fully I require most of all believability in
>>the characters, the fight scenes, the environment etc.  Thus good acting,
>>a reasonable plot, and good choreography are the most important parts (IMHO)
>>of a good martial-arts movie (or TV program).

>Well, Steven plays the same character all the time, but I guess he's 
>getting good at it.  Jean-Claude is slowly getting better.  Chuck,
>Jackie, and Cynthia concentrate on their choreography.  As for plot,
>there are few martial arts movies that have a "reasonable" one.  
>If your Chuck's girlfriend, you are going to die.  If you are 
>Steven's family, you are going to die.  If you are Jean Claude's
>girl friend, you get plenty of beefcake.  If Bruce had lived three
>more years, he would have shown up all these guys.  Jackie Chan
>is the only one who could give him a run for his money.

>Dakin >burdickd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

I have to agree with Dakin. Indeed, I'll go further. One of my non-martial arts
hats is sitting on a board of a professional theatre company where the notion 
of what is and is not acting is a major issue. 

Firstly, there is plain acting, which involves basic techniques of rhythms,
timing, projecting, stillness, ... - all physical skills. The effect of these
skills (when performed OK) is that an audience will 'believe' that the actors
are authentic characters. Otherwise, the acting appears staged. If there is
a directorial intention for comedy or farce, ..., the character will still
appear believable, but in a comedic or farcical, ..., context. Bruce Lee
achieved this quite well. The rest of the above named MA actors never had
it. Caradine had it very well (inspite of pretty poor MA).

Secondly, voice intonation, emotional gesture and facial expressions are
a sign of higher acting, with better understanding of character development
and interaction. It took *extreme* situations of passion (as Dakin indicates) 
to get the emotional signs working for most of the above. BL and JC were able
to work these skills in everyday situations and in the extremes. Arnold Schw...
manages it (Teutonically), but the rest don't have a clue (I haven't seen
Rothrock). Chuck is so 'humble' about his success that I don't trust anything
ever reported about him (these guy's Personal Managers are there to manage all
the hype and image releases - tailored information for *you*).

The director, choreographer, cinematographer assemble the action and give us
viewpoint and logical sequence. They will never use an actor beyond their 
skills, because the consequnces are too easily criticised and financially
damaging. If the acting is poor, the situation and the music (etc) can arouse
(emotionally) the viewer to compensate for the gaps in the viewer's belief 
system.

There is a saying that all Hollywood leading men must look like soldiers,
and all leading women must look like *mom* (when I was 5). Freud didn't
say that, but I'm sure he would have. This makes it easier to sucker in the
audience emotionally and keep the receipts up.

Lastly, there is star quality - ie, 'presence'. Some people have it, most
don't. It seems to be a mix of confidence, sexuality, (slow) timing, gesture,
eye skills (pointing, etc), re-assurance (to the viewer), and the unlistable
unknowns that make them special. Not all good actors have it, not all stars
are good actors. And so on...

Tom Osborn.
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts