In response to Original Poster quoted (below): If one is going to criticize an acting performance, you must understand a little about how an actor is required to perform their acting duties. A writer or director gives the actor a script, which is written by someone who is usually not the actor, unless the actor is starring in a role they wrote and directed for themselves. The actor must follow the directions given by the director, and read the lines written in the script, as it is written for a screenplay. Unless the actor is directed to "ad-lib," they must speak the lines exactly as they are written in the script, no matter how ridiculous the actor and the audience thinks the lines in the script are. In most cases, directors and writers do not appreciate actors complaining about the absurdity or lack of logic in their work, unless by chance they share a relationship that allows for that sort of bi-directional critique, which is not unheard of, but definitely uncommon. Typically a script accompanies a screenplay, which may also include details about where the actors should stand, what emotion they represent as they deliver the lines, how they move, and other detailed directions about their performance. A director will correct and criticize an actor's performance, and try to encourage them to perform to the best of their abilities, and praise them when they are pleased with the results.
The point where we as viewers should criticize the performance of the actor, ends where the screenplay stands, and the performance meets the requirements of the screenplay. Because a poorly written story has a bad screenplay is not the fault of the actor. Blame the writers and directors if you think the lines, movement, plot development, characters, and storyline are inplausible and stupid, it's not the actors fault.
Really for many cases, whether a film viewer likes an actor is a matter of taste, a little bit like whether some people prefer water, others soda beverages, some people beer, others wine, and others still a fine cognac. There is no accounting for taste really, although among actors and directors, where they are familiar with the skill and it's delivery, qualified people can criticize from a qualified standpoint. When awarding actors, there are oscars, and there are people's choice, the difference is obvious to some, that's why The Academy doesn't nominate awards based on box-office sales. The rest think they (The Academy) are snobs, those are the same people who would pour steak sauce on a finely prepared pound of flesh, which is why you know you are eating fine dining if there is no sauce on the tables, or no prices and no menu posted.
If you are going to blame an actor because of a story which is full of flaws, it makes you appear rather unintelligent. To me, critiquing Bjork's acting skills is like arguing whether a walnut or a dogwood is more like a tree. The poster keeps referring to the characters bizaare actions, but stating "she" "she" -- as though Bjork were the one actually doing the actions which the character of Selma were doing. If anyone were behaving unconvincingly here it is the character of Selma, not the actor Bjork. Bjork is merely "acting" as Selma is supposed to act, which is what makes her so good, we really believe that Selma is behaving self-destructive and naive to the point of denying herself a fair trial and a possible future, no matter how unsighted, with her son.
I didn't care for the song or dance in this film either, but that doesn't make it bad. It just means I don't like this flavor of song and dance. The movie was long and difficult for me to get through, but I enjoyed what it had to offer in spite of it's obvious flaws, and dreadful musical numbers. I never enjoyed Bjork's music or videos, but that too is just a matter of taste, her music and video is neither good nor bad in my opinion, just "not my cup of tea" so to speak. I am reminded of how the character Jeff comments to Selma that he doesn't understand musicals, one minute he's watching some film, and then people just start singing and dancing, he doesn't understand why.
Based on statements in your post, you sound like a crazy person who is jealous of Bjork. A rational response might just be to find her boring, not make all those judgmental and personal statements. Got pretty deep Bjork hatred there, it's sort of intense beyond simply Bjork boredom. It seems Bjorks performance was good enough to have an emotional impact on you, even if it is of disgust and hatred of the character she portrayed, Selma. You got the two confused, and you blamed Bjork for what seems to some viewers, Selma's somewhat absurd actions.
tallbird50 posted, among other absurdities:
I found Bjork unconvincing in the extreme. Her acting of "innocence" seemed contrived and twee. The musical numbers were too Bjork-ified which meant that for me it just seem like one long Bjork promo. I also found her actions which drive the tragedy of the plot stupefying. As her innocence had not been convincingly conveyed to me her actions in the court room were absurd. Keeping "mum" to the end because she'd promised too. Oh dear. How unutterably, tragically, pathetic.
She was also verging on cruelty in relation to her child. Not seeing him, not sending any message to him once she was in prison. Never buying him a birthday present because she wasn't "that sort of mum". You are supposed to sympathise as she is saving to pay for the operation but she doesn't set any money aside for the therapy that kid would undoubtedly need after such an upbringing.
I think about how that film could have been with an actor of Emily Watson's abilities playing the role of Selma and I can imagine it as being intensely moving and believable. But for me the film was irretrievably ruined by the over weaning presence of Bjork's personality.
Bjork is strangely, uniquely Bjork, and I don't know if I will ever share the fascination for her. Bjork is her own person, and doesn't try to be anyone that everyone else will love.
Dancer in the Dark was a film I found on Comcast's onDemand service courtesy of my Starz! Premium subscription. I was able to enjoy something in this film as I browsed the web, IMDb, and some of the posts here. I'm glad I didn't watch it in a theater where I couldn't smoke or go to the bathroom without missing any of it, even if very few minutes of this long film were devoted to plot development. It was all about getting to know the character Selma, and I feel I know her quite well now, like her or not. The person who wrote a review of
Dancer in the Dark for IMDb who said Bjork "emoted" Selma, was a little extreme in a way sort of funny to me. Not nearly as funny as someone who follows the adjective contrived, with a word like twee, to describe Bjork's performance as Selma.
reply
share
tallbird50
15 years ago
You are mind blowingly long winded and patronizing. Well done.
As you quoted I did say within my post, "As her innocence had not been convincingly conveyed to me her actions in the court room were absurd". This makes it clear that I had issue with the plot because of being unable to suspend disbelief due to her bad acting. As with most works of fiction it is necessary to emotionally invest in the trials and tribulations of the characters to care about the outcome. I could not do this as I found Bjork's acting so questionable. It is extremely obtuse of you to misinterpret my post as you did.
I am also perplexed as to why you found my description of Bjork's acting as "contrived and twee", so funny? I'm not sure what you criticism is as it is not clarified. Either you disagree or you are implying that this was incorrect grammatically which is not the case. Interesting sense of humour you have.
Your assumption that my criticism of this film was motivated by being "a crazy person" suffering from "Bjork hatred" is laughable. How very melodramatic of you. I didn't say anything personal about Bjork and I have no negative feelings towards her. In fact I have enjoyed her music and unique personality since her early days in the Sugar Cubes. My only issue is that I was not convinced by her as an actor and the plot of this film was unbelievable.
May I suggest that you introduce some humility to your posting style. There really is no need to be offensive just because you liked a film that others did not.
reply
share