| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| randall |
Posted - 11/20/2013 : 22:54:45
quote:
I think we're all agreed on Kubrick's greatness. He has two in my Top 100 and three more in my next 100, so they're all what I call 'great'. The other six (from THE KILLING up to EYES WIDE SHUT) I've scored 8/10 (which I call 'pretty damn good', not quite 'great').
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by randa14
And you "never had a problem" with Patrick Magee in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and BARRY LYNDON?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Magee was OTT in CLOCKWORK ORANGE (I see no problem there, most characters in that movie were OTT, they were 'characters' rather than 'people'). It was such a long time ago I saw BARRY LYNDON (probably 30 years) that I don't recall him in that at all.
I think it's time to de-hijack the GRAVITY thread and talk seriously about my favorite director.
Yes, Magee literally hyperventilates for Kubrick in CLOCKWORK. This is clowning. Stanley Kubrick, my favorite director of all time, has trouble with actors. There, I said it. It was mitigated late in his life [he allowed R. Lee Ermey to be the force of nature he already was], but it's still there.
I can't believe I'm starting this thread on a down note, but I just needed to get it out from under GRAVITY. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| randall |
Posted - 11/24/2013 : 13:28:15
Naw, mate. There is such a thing as 10/10. But there's no such thing as perfect. 
P.S.: Regarding renting and stuff, this time capsule from the 80s:
http://tomdup.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/blockbuster-1985-2013/ |
| Sean |
Posted - 11/24/2013 : 04:50:56
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
P.S.: If 2001 is "perfect," then how does Dr. Floyd's tapioca-colored food slide back down in his straw, in "zero gravity"?
 Guess I missed that bit. But don't worry, I sure as hell won't miss it next time I watch it!  Perhaps I'll have to downgrade it to 9/10?
Another reason to netflix the BD version sooner rather than later. Time for another look...
|
| randall |
Posted - 11/24/2013 : 02:20:53
P.S.: If 2001 is "perfect," then how does Dr. Floyd's tapioca-colored food slide back down in his straw, in "zero gravity"? |
| randall |
Posted - 11/23/2013 : 00:39:32
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
I watched the first :40 just last night, to hear that divine "spacey" welcome-in music again and to let the goddam space phallus penetrate the space vagina. Then, when William Sylvester hit the screen, I realized it was very late and I shut it off.
I have the DVD (but not the BD), I guess I'll have to have a look for that one at some stage, curious about that spacey music.
It's sort of a soft cascading electronic wave that moves closer and farther away; Ligeti for dummies. Anyhow, it is still a primal connection to my first teenaged view of 2001, and it can still make the hairs on the back of my neck rise in anticipation whenever I hear it.
On reflection, I think it must be a quote from "Atmospheres," which I'd never heard before because I hadn't yet seen the last reel. If I'm right, the same piece delivers a frisson as an overture against black that it can't replicate against the mind-blowing stargate. Interesting. |
| randall |
Posted - 11/22/2013 : 09:36:07
I've felt comfortable expressing my opinions on movies for decades now, because I believe that nearly all criticism boils down to the answer to this simple question: how did it affect me? [The rest answers, how will it affect others?]
The tension between actor and director -- and, in many wonderful cases, the commonality of purpose of both artists despite their shared struggle -- exists in other performing arts as well. What's the difference between a bull and an orchestra? On a bull, the horns are up front and the asshole's in the rear! |
| Sean |
Posted - 11/22/2013 : 04:18:59
quote:
Originally posted by 14Babe
Sorry, chaps, but regarding acting ... you're just both wrong.
I'm unsure what you're referring to here. If a gastronome in a restaurant thinks the food is delicious, then it is delicious irrespective of whether or not he has ever set foot in a kitchen, and irrespective of the chef / sous-chef conflict that may exist in the kitchen.
I've seen about 3000 movies which qualifies me to have a strong opinion as to whether the acting I'm seeing on the screen hits the spot or not (even though I've never seen a movie set). And I say that Kubrick's actors hit the spot (while I'm quite prepared to concede that others may wish some of his actors did things differently). And it's irrelevant to me whether his actors felt their style was cramped or whether or not they thought they could have done a better job by doing things differently. What I see and hear is the only thing I care about when movie-watching. |
| Sean |
Posted - 11/22/2013 : 01:08:05
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
I watched the first :40 just last night, to hear that divine "spacey" welcome-in music again and to let the goddam space phallus penetrate the space vagina. Then, when William Sylvester hit the screen, I realized it was very late and I shut it off.
I have the DVD (but not the BD), I guess I'll have to have a look for that one at some stage, curious about that spacey music. |
| randall |
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 23:13:10
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
One of the good things about these kinds of discussions is they force me to think about a movie in a different way. I'm in no hurry to re-watch A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but if I do I'll have a more critical look at the acting, in particular Magee. But you know what? I'm guessing I'll think it was just perfect. I'll be watching 2001 before then, it's been a while.
I watched the first :40 just last night, to hear that divine "spacey" welcome-in music again and to let the goddam space phallus penetrate the space vagina. Then, when William Sylvester hit the screen, I realized it was very late and I shut it off. |
| Sean |
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 22:18:24
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
Magee achieves OTTness in that low-angle hyperventilation shot and never lets it go: in the following spaghetti-dinner scene, in the pool-table shot where he's listening to Alex's agony at hearing the Ninth, for the rest of the movie. You can play angry, even monomaniacally vengeful, without playing crazy. There are other cartoonish performances in CLOCKWORK [Michael Bates, Aubrey Morris], but this one's off the scale, even the one stretched by this particular movie.
One of the good things about these kinds of discussions is they force me to think about a movie in a different way. I'm in no hurry to re-watch A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but if I do I'll have a more critical look at the acting, in particular Magee. But you know what? I'm guessing I'll think it was just perfect. I'll be watching 2001 before then, it's been a while.quote:
By the way, I can believe that Sofia Coppola story. It's happened before. For example, Donald Sutherland and Elliott Gould unsuccessfully tried to get Robert Altman fired off M*A*S*H because they didn't understand what he was doing: wild sound and all, etc. When they saw the finished picture, they Got It, and have publicly admitted they were wrong.
That's good to hear that the Best Man won in this case, as was the case for LIT (OK, Best Woman!) I can imagine that sometimes actors need to trust the person on the outside of the set looking in. |
| Sean |
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 22:03:03
quote:
Originally posted by 14Babe
I'd never question your process as an astro-physicist - or whatever it is you work at - but your comments seem to imply a conviction that actors don't have a creative role in the process of turning a play or film script or story-board to something an audience can relate to. I could be wrong - and that wasn't your implication.
Correct, you're wrong and that wasn't my implication. I'll just paste my comment from my previous post which you may want to re-read:-
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
I don't doubt that there are numerous occasions when an actor adds something of their own to a role to make a scene/movie even better than what the director imagined.
Hopefully that's cleared that one up. There are countless examples of movies where actors are given virtual free-reign to 'create' their own character and perhaps ad-lib heavily, to the great benefit of the final product.
quote:
Originally posted by 14Babe
I believe the Hitchcock story is semi-apocryphal - and may even have come from one of the two Hitch flicks from last year.
Not apocryphal, and I saw it about a decade ago (I believe it was on DVD extras). The actress herself demonstrated Hitch's manipulation of her face from a smug grin position (which she was then required to 'drop' when her co-star spoke a line). If I have the time/inclination I'll hunt for it. Watching that was one of those "Holy shit, this guy is a total control freak, and that's why his movies are so good" moments.
quote:
I don't share your admiration of Sofia Coppola whose films seem quite jejune conceits to me and whose vision seems grounded neither in an arresting intellect nor an expert enough understanding of cinema technique.
LOST IN TRANSLATION is in my Top 10 Movies Of All Time list. It's one of the very few I can re-watch and re-watch. I understand that there are those who 'don't get it', they're tuned in on the wrong frequency (which could be because they don't know how to tune in, or simply are not interested in tuning in). The argument between those who love it and those who don't is always much the same: "It's shallow, boring, vacuous, simple, pointless" (choose an adjective or two... or three) vs. "Sorry, but you missed it, it was profound and unique and a subtle directorial triumph that few would dare aim at, it hit that target that few even knew existed prior to this movie, and the actors on set were not even aware of where the target was until they watched it on completion." By the way, Bill Murray rates this his favourite movie in which he has appeared.quote:
The very best actors take most of the above into the development of both their art and their craft. If a director tells or heaven-forfend shows an actor what to do - it only proves a weakness of a director.
Either that or the strength of the director. Perhaps the director has a vision and won't let the fact that the actor fails to understand the vision from stopping him achieving the desired result.quote:
It's like a conductor teaching the first violinist how to play.
I've played in orchestras, and believe me, the conductor sometimes does need to tell the first violinist how to play. If the conductor understands the piece being played better than the first violinist then (s)he will require direction. Of course it won't be "straighten your fingers" or the like, it'll be "hold that high note" or "softly softly". It's the conductor's job to understand the piece as a whole and give the audience what (s)he thinks is best. I know that our best performances came when the conductor was a fussy bastard (some would say control freak).
quote:
If you engage really good actors, you trust them. You engage with them. You realize they might have something to offer that you never even thought of. Or not. But you respect that possibility.
I completely agree.quote:
The point is that an actor's creative role is to make an audience believe they are watching a fully-dimensional real human being in the context of a fictional scenario. S/he must become the personification of words on paper, or a character derived from improvisation, as overseen -- possibly -- by a director.
I agree that usually this is the case. But sometimes it isn't. How about a future dystopia where the humanity has been bred/poisoned out of people and the 'humans' have become automatons? In this case it would be the director's job to remove signs of humanity from the actors that perhaps they can't help showing. To a much lesser extent, this is what I believe Kubrick probably wanted from his actors in 2001. Too many cooks can sometimes spoil the broth.quote:
It's an extremely complex process and an audience only gets to see a moment of a choice - or I should say of an amalgamation of choices. Not always the director's either.
Yep.
All I care about is the end result, and I don't care how they get it. Kubrick gave me what I wanted from his movies, and any problem I may have had with his movies wasn't the acting performances. Sometimes the star of a movie is the movie itself. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 19:00:00
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
I don't like. And yes, I appreciate the fact that [most good] actors don't like being "spoon-fed," or asked for mimicry instead of interpretation. Neither do good authors or good violinists. But there is such a thing as direction, just as there's such a thing as editing, such a thing as conducting. That's very nice about your non-directed theater troupe, but I have to take your word regarding the end result; you can also publish an unedited book or play a symphony without a conductor [assuming there's a concertmaster to start you off]. I leave it to you to judge the result.
What exactly have Sean or I said about acting that's "wrong"? Your description of what acting is was very lovely, but are you saying that only an actor can understand? By that logic, you'd better quit commenting on cinematography or makeup design -- or screenwriting, for that matter. I truly do not get what you're trying to say and would appreciate some help.
I know how you hate being challenged. I promise I'll try to explain more better when I have a bit more time. Not tonight, Josephine.
|
| randall |
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 18:25:43
I don't like. And yes, I appreciate the fact that [most good] actors don't like being "spoon-fed," or asked for mimicry instead of interpretation. Neither do good authors or good violinists. But there is such a thing as direction, just as there's such a thing as editing, such a thing as conducting. That's very nice about your non-directed theater troupe, but I have to take your word regarding the end result; you can also publish an unedited book or play a symphony without a conductor [assuming there's a concertmaster to start you off]. I leave it to you to judge the result.
What exactly have Sean or I said about acting that's "wrong"? Your description of what acting is was very lovely, but are you saying that only an actor can understand? By that logic, you'd better quit commenting on cinematography or makeup design -- or screenwriting, for that matter. I truly do not get what you're trying to say and would appreciate some help. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 16:13:21
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
I know what acting is, Baffy. I've both acted (stage and tv) and directed (stage), and I understand the dynamic between script and performance.
You're still wrong! 
No, seriously, I'm just not convinced you really do get the process based on the comments you've made. To be fair, most directors, and many actors don't either.
If you like, gimme a precis of your prep and process for - oh, any recorded role you're most proud of.
|
| randall |
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 15:31:32
I know what acting is, Baffy. I've both acted (stage and tv) and directed (stage), and I understand the dynamic between script and performance. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/21/2013 : 14:59:23
Sorry, chaps, but regarding acting ... you're just both wrong.
|
|
|
