Actors chewing the scenery too much?

Maybe Robert Stack seems so cool and perfect in the role of Ness because his performance is somewhat no-frills, especially compared to the scenery-chewing guest stars...? Just a thought. I am new to this show which is currently airing weeknights on ME-TV. The first episode I watched two nights ago was 'The Mexican Stake-out' but it's the episode I watched last night, 'The Artichoke King' that prompts me to start this thread.

I thought Jack Weston and Al Ruscio were competing to see who could inhale the most scenery in record time. The scene where they meet up and Ruscio's character spells out his terms (blackmail) and Weston over-reacts (that is putting it nicely) was way over-the-top. It definitely reminded me of the Batman television series where the bad guys have to be really bad.

What I really think is going on here is that many of the guest stars are coming from a method acting frame of mind and the performances need to have some sort of edge or emotional gimmick to them. It is as if they are trying to incorporate all kinds of technique (weird ticks)-- these actors seem to be pulling out all the stops in their eagerness to impress the director, wow the audience and become the next Brando or something. Of course, quite a few of them went on to have long careers so they obviously did something right (Weston worked regularly through the late 1980s, and Ruscio who died in 2013 worked consistently until 2011). Nobody is denying their talent and the zest they bring to these villainous roles in 'The Untouchables' TV program-- but I think it becomes rather predictable to watch them try to show off the latest tricks they've learned from the Richard Widmark School of Acting (as in Widmark's crazed nutjob from the 1947 film noir KISS OF DEATH).

Just once I wish there was more subtle shading in these performances. What we get instead are hammy actors and cardboard portrayals of men who were probably not that way in real life. I know, most of the show is fictional, but they are supposed to be drawing upon the actual lives of these gangsters. So the characterizations should have some basis in reality.

There was also another thread about gay subtext-- and I definitely have seen that in both episodes I have watched so far. It's not that I am looking for it. It's just there. Martin Landau's hitman in the Mexican episode seems to dissolve ever so delicately when another man touches him during a showdown, and his character's interest in the guy played by Vince Edwards seems a little bit too intense to be straight. In 'The Artichoke King' episode, we have this battle of the egos between Weston and Ruscio, and you would think they are not only fighting over territory and money, but over an absent buddy in an off-screen threesome. Perhaps they're trying to throw in shades of homoeroticism and other elements of Greek tragedy to suggest a more complex psychologically dynamic performance. Brando and Widmark did it in some of their performances-- and these amateur Brandos and amateur Widmarks may think this is what they should do so as to appear they are giving an entertaining performance.

Again, when you look at the way the guest stars are interpreting their parts, it is easy to see how Stack comes across so zen, because quite frankly his Ness is very much underplayed and wise by comparison.

I wonder if I will still feel this way as I continue to watch more episodes of the series...?