Yuku free message boards

I watched these movies back to back yesterday. In The Raven, Lugosi's performance is eccentric and over the top...a complete madman. In the Invisible Ray, it's a very understated performance, very restrained. He plays the part of the straight doctor very well. Lugosi gets some slack for his performace in the Raven, but when you put these two performances together I think it really shows his range as an actor i think.

But is comparing/contrasting a hammy performance by an actor with a relatively restrained one any way to judge his range? Actors invariably they modulate their performances according to the dictates of the script or to the specifications of a director. Lugosi's Dr. Benet is restrained in that he isn't pitching his performance to the balcony as he was in THE RAVEN (I would guess with director Lew Landers egging him on.) Otherwise, it was a fairly melodramatic performance with more than a fair share of exaggerated line readings. Not quite over-the-top but not offering much in the way of subtlety either.

If you want to test range, you have to look at the entire body of an actor's work, taking into account his ability to play comedy and drama, contemporary and classic, the entire breadth of his characterizations. Sometimes, particularly in Hollywood, range isn't the most important thing in the world. I love Humphrey Bogart but I don't see any great range there either although he did stretch his acting muscles on occasion with uneven results. Kirk Douglas, an actor I enjoy a good deal less, ran the gamut of parts from LUST TO LIFE to CHAMPION but to me he was always Kirk Douglas in different costumes.

There are times when Lugosi's basic skills are just not in evidence. His performance in POSTAL INSPECTOR is remarkable in his inability to handle standard colloquial dialogue and to simply blend in with his fellow actors.