Why does the “pure” acting of the movies not seem unnatural to the audience, who, after all, are accustomed in real life to people whose expression is more or less indistinct? Most people’s perception in these matters is not very sharp. They are not in the habit of observing closely the play of features of their fellow men ― either in real life or at the movies. They are (A) disappointed / satisfied with grasping the meaning of what they see. Thus, they often take in the overemphasized expression of film actors more easily than any that is too naturalistic. And as far as lovers of art are concerned, they do not look at the movies for imitations of nature but for art. They know that (B) artistic / real representation is always explaining, refining, and making clear the object depicted. Things that in real life are imperfectly realized, merely hinted at, and entangled with other things appear in a work of art complete, entire, and (C) free / inseparable from irrelevant matters. This is also true of acting in film.
* entangle: 얽히게 하다