Now that Michelle Obama and Ann Romney have both made their case for why Americans should vote for their husbands, pundits are comparing the two on their messages, deliveries, even their wardrobes. But how would Obama and Romney's speeches fare as theatre? One of our commenters called on his background as a stage director to compare the performances. 

Romney's performance left Fel Cruz uninspired. He writes:

When an actor is given a line reading, the performance rings hollow; the combination of body language and expression doesn't match the veracity of how a believable expression is delivered. Such was Ann Romney's speech at the RNC last week; it was a very long line read. It didn't feel like she was fully committed to the words ... She may very well have believed the content of her speech, but whoever coached her obfuscated any real sincerity and the total effect was disingenuous.

But Cruz thinks Obama nailed her part: 

Body language, eye movements, and delivery all combined to make the speech sincere - or appear to be sincere. Either she's a very good actor with a knowledge of acting that allows her to subtly create the illusion of genuineness or she actually believed the content of her speech. Either way it was more effective in connecting to her audience.

Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at dwagner at theatlantic dot com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
David Wagner