Computerized programs can imitate human movements almost perfectly because they are constructed on point by point anatomical features. Once the plotting is done then the animation can imitate any human movement, or any animal movement, etc. This is the basis, I think, of much of the theatrical action in today's film.
wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Tom McCormack <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, June 12, 2012 10:46:12 AM Subject: Re: No Subject On Jun 11, 2012, at 10:02 PM, caldwell-brobeck wrote: > It sort of brings to mind though another question I think about at > times - so much of young people's lives is now spent watching either > actors or computerized animation, where natural gesture has been > replaced with the artificial, and real interaction no longer exists. > How does that affect their interpretation of gesture in real life (or > traditional art)? I leave its impact on "traditional art" to the expert practitioners and teachers. But in theater, movies and tv it has always been baneful. Strange exception: For me, the most successful (at moments) thing Elizabeth Taylor ever did was in CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF when she was playing a woman so personally resourceless that when she was undergoing genuine distress they only way she could find to express it was by imitating the histrionic wailing in bad movies. At those moments, Taylor nailed her character. Imitating like that often appears in real life, too. When I was eleven or so, I was on my bicycle every day. One hot summer day, another kid and I intentionally headed off the road and down a dirt path with some big rocks in it. I lost it, and ended up on my back amidst the dust and a few stones. Nothing was broken, but I'd taken a good rattle, and I wanted people to know it. The other kid came and bent over me, the sun behind his head. I looked up and cried, "Water! Water!" Just like they did in the movies.
