ADVERTISMENTS:
call us:
206-350-1082
support killoggs!
|
 |
| |  |
 |
|
 |
|
 jake 
|
Ironic absence of what the title denotes
1. Maybe it's ie on a mac, but there was a horrible character limit on the title, and it forced me to forego a longer and probably less eloquent version.
2. Who puts three commentary tracks on a DVD for a film that didn't last a month at the box office? The Writer, the Director, and the cast?
I figured I would enjoy Confidence., at least for the chemistry between the leads, Ed Burns and Dustin Hoffman.
They get awful cute, awful fast.
But still, I was a third of the way in thinking, "They want me to watch this four times?"
And then right up to the last shot, the movie was great--it's a very close retelling of the sting, but with a little more Mamet, and a little less panache. The only false note is excessive kissing in the back seat of a car when meaningful glances would do much better. The deleted scene reel, however, is a trip. Three different versions of Dustin Hoffman evaluating a row of strippers, snapping fingers in their eyes and saying "Who loves me?"
3. Rachel Weisszzzzssss.
I'm totally off of Julia Stiles now, thank you.
4. It's not like I have an 8 hour day of driving tomorrow, so why not stay up until 2:30?
5. I saw a feather from my down comforter that was stuck to my nightshirt, just pointing off to the side, and I burst out laughing. [ posted by jake at 11/09/2004 05:31:11 AM ] [ trackback ]
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Threaded Responses [ bottom ]
 | josh [email] said at 10:17 AM 11-09-2004:
1. Way to fuck up your images, Jake.
2. That movie blew. |
 | rick [email] said at 10:21 AM 11-09-2004:
"Confidence" was not that good but I would not say it "blew." |
 | jake [email] said at 12:06 PM 11-09-2004:
 DAMMIT JOSHUA!!!
1. Why can't you ever say something supportive like "Hey man, ie on a mac has a default image format that doesn't work with killoggs, you gotta watch that!"
2. Confidence was great on the small screen, with pause and rewind...I don't think I would have liked it in the theater. No filmic quality, but a good story well told with very cute moments.
3. DAMMIT JOSHUA WHY CAN'T I MAKE A SINGLE LATE NIGHT POST WITHOUT WAKING UP TO A FIRST RESPONSE THAT MAKES ME CRY!!??? |
|
| jake [email] said at 12:29 PM 11-09-2004:
And to take nothing away from the arguments about aging artists down below, but I'm still ready to go to the mattress about how much fun Confidence is on DVD, right here.
Just put your hand on my chest and feel my heart. |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:31 PM 11-09-2004:
I only saw it in the theater, so I dunno. Maybe it's a good rental. |
|
| jake [email] said at 12:39 PM 11-09-2004:
My gosh that's a weak weak come back.
Way to acknowledge other perspectives, mr. webmaster.
YOU'RE STILL A FUCKING DICK AND MADE ME CRY!!! |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:50 PM 11-09-2004:
It's not my fault you are a huge wuss. |
|
| jake [email] said at 12:51 PM 11-09-2004:
Actually it is.
You created Killoggs, where my weepy side has room to roam. |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:50 PM 11-09-2004:
PS I wasn't coming back, I was trying to make you feel better in my own grudging way. |
 | myriam [email] said at 12:58 PM 11-09-2004:
josh = curmudgeon with a soft spot |
|
| josh [email] said at 1:30 PM 11-09-2004:
I'm the crotchety old man from countless movies who reveals his gentle heart when he has to adopt a precocious orphan/long lost grandkid/baby squirrel.
You are my baby squirrel, Jake. |
|
| jake [email] said at 1:34 PM 11-09-2004:
That wasn't a gentle heart you revealed to me, you crotchless old man. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 1:37 PM 11-09-2004:
you are, in fact, jack nicholson. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 12:59 PM 11-09-2004:
1. the only thing worse than IE on windows is IE ON MAC. WHY THE HECK ARE YOU USING IT?!?!?!?!
it was a bad program when it was originally created for ANOTHER OPERATING SYSTEM! do you think it's gonna get better when they port it to the competition?!?!?1 |
|
| jake [email] said at 1:08 PM 11-09-2004:
HOLY SHIT CRAZY LADY!
BACK AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD, THE SLIDE RULE, AND THE PLANK WITH A NAIL THROUGH THE END!
My home computer is a refurbished old school orange clamshell ibook, the kind from Legally Blonde that looks like an oversized make-up compact. I just haven't gotten around to downloading firefox. |
|
| jake [email] said at 1:17 PM 11-09-2004:
Myriam I don't really think you're crazy. Us ?mark heads gotta stick together. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 1:21 PM 11-09-2004:
actually just as a warning firefox is sucking for me on the mac. it crashes about 7 or 8 times a day and sometimes, for hours, randomly doesn't let me log in to killoggs, etc. also it is supa-slow. you should use safari! |
|
| jake [email] said at 1:23 PM 11-09-2004:
Actually I remembered you saying that and have been waiting to do the research...I should probably find the old netscape hidden on that thing, anyway... |
|
| myriam [email] said at 1:30 PM 11-09-2004:
safari safari safari safari
also you just missed an education deal on a new ibook that would have given you a brand new ipod for $70... but in any case the new ibooks go for less than a thousand, especially with your education discount.... just sayin. |
|
| jake [email] said at 1:35 PM 11-09-2004:
SONUVA@@#$!!
Yeah I never look for that stuff. I've got a couple of other big purchases before I can lay down money on a computer...but if you see that again, lemme know? |
|
| myriam [email] said at 1:39 PM 11-09-2004:
sorry. it was a back-to-school release in aug/sept timed to coincide with the "new" ipod release. since i have apple news piped directly into my brain i would be happy to parrot it out to you as it comes in. |
|
| josh [email] said at 2:09 PM 11-09-2004:
i read that as you saying you could get an iBook for $70 and I was like... DUDE I'D DO THAT! |
 | courtney [email] said at 1:29 PM 11-09-2004:
word, man you gotta use the Safari. |
 | julie [email] said at 10:35 AM 11-09-2004:
I thought Confidence was a spectacular waste of talented actors. I went to see it thinking that with a cast like that, it couldn't be bad. Whoops.
Not even motherfucking Luis Guzman could save that stinker.
As far as Dustin Hoffman goes... he proved himself in what, 1968? After Rain Man, he just started phoning it in. |
 | woody [email] said at 10:46 AM 11-09-2004:
Agree, agree, agree. When I watched Runaway Jury recently, I kept thinking "I have seen these Hackman and Hoffman characters so many times now!"
Is this what people really want from guys like this? These days, it is hard to predict good movies based on the cast, but I wouldn't hesitate to watch Willam H. Macy or Benicio Del Toro or Philip Seymour Hoffman in just about anything. I know they will be good. I guess most people don't think that way.
Oddly, I don't have the same complaints about Jack Nicholson, maybe because he plays the same characters but with more believability? With the exception of Schmidt, I think all his characters have been versions of the astronaut in Terms of Endearment. |
|
| rick [email] said at 10:48 AM 11-09-2004:
What about the two characters he played in "Mars Attacks?" |
|
| woody [email] said at 10:53 AM 11-09-2004:
Fair enough, I was really thinking about dramatic roles though. |
|
| josh [email] said at 10:56 AM 11-09-2004:
how many people have the same passion for their job after 40 years as they did when they were just starting out?
how many people are willing, able, or interested in risk-taking and innovation after 40 years in a job? |
|
| julie [email] said at 11:08 AM 11-09-2004:
This argument doesn't make sense. After all, most people's jobs are the same old shit, day after day. Acting literally requires you to be different people. I mean, yeah, you're sitting in the make-up trailer day after day, but that kind of situational monotony shouldn't affect your acting skills. Or your creativity. If it does, you should just become a model instead. (Did you hear that, Ashton Kutcher?)
Some actors, it turns out, only have two or three "characters" in them. I think Brad Pitt and George Clooney are both in this category. They suck at accents, they never manage to stop doing their little facial tics or chin-tosses... They can't act. But they're hot, and charming, and that gets them places.
Harry Shearer and Hank Azaria both voice like two dozen characters on the Simpsons. Yeardley Smith does one. Harry and Hank will never lack for work. Yeardley will.
(By the way, some of you are thinking that 12 Monkeys or Snatch disproves my Brad Pitt theory. I disagree. He can act "crazy" but he still can't act. Listen to Brad or George say the word "walking" sometime. Walkeeen. That's the quintessestial Hollywood accent. "Ing" becomes "een." Walkeen. Shoppeen. Talkeen. Any actor who can't even recognize that he does this will never be good at accents.) |
 | meredith [email] said at 11:29 AM 11-09-2004:
Acting does require you to take on different personas, but they are all somehow a version of yourself. I think the type of actors who are generally playing the same characters all the time do it for one of the following reasons:
1. They played that character once, it was their big break and no one wants to see them as anything else.
2. They really don't have that diverse of a personality.
3. They are afraid to delve into the darker/lighter sides of themselves and bring out what's there.
As far as accents go, it's like being able to play an intstrument by ear, some people can just do it, some people can't. |
|
| josh [email] said at 11:40 AM 11-09-2004:
Agreement! |
|
| josh [email] said at 11:36 AM 11-09-2004:
Brad Pitt is a decent actor. I would say that Tyler Durden is a lot different than his character in Seven, which is a lot different from his character in Kalifornia, which is a lot different than him playing himself in Ocean's Eleven, which is different from his characters in Snatch or 12 Monkeys. In most of these movies he holds himself differently from role to role, has different speech patterns and body language.
It doesn't always work, and when it doesn't it's still not amazing but it puts him above most marquee actors (George Clooney definitely included - I've only see him not play George Clooney once) as one who actually gives it a try.
Re: Hackman and Hoffman:
The thing is, each movie is different... but it's the same job. Graphic Designers have different projects, too, but how many famous designers (or artists) reinvent themselves at age 60? It's rare. Instead, they refine their style over years to something that is second nature, something they are comfortable with. I'm sure it's similar with someone like Hoffman or Hackman. They end up with 2-3 different types of characters they can play in their sleep, and that's fine. Your point about the Simpsons voice actors is kind of telling - if Hoffman and Hackman had to worry about being out of work, yeah, maybe they would be hungry and more willing to go out on a limb. But they are at the comfortable, secure stages of their careers, with plenty of money and awards already accrued. It's easy to see why they would play it safe.
Hoffman and Hackman both could act very different from role to role when they were younger. But that was 40 years ago and I doubt they really care that much anymore, plus they have a lifetime of tricks and signature moves built up, I'm sure... Habits are hard to break and it's easy to rely on instincts built up over decades instead of trying to tread new ground.
Hackman has gone on record saying that to him acting is purely a job at this point and he enjoys spending time on his ranch way more... but people keep offerring him millions to stand around and talk, so he keeps doing it.
PS you don't have to be good at accents to be a good actor. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 11:38 AM 11-09-2004:
most architects suddenly reach their great flowering at age 60.
i don't know why or whatever but i'm just throwing that out there. after 40 years of striving it suddenly seems to click, and often in a new direction. frank gehry is the most obvious that comes to mind but there are literally dozens of others. |
|
| josh [email] said at 11:43 AM 11-09-2004:
isn't that a field where you don't really get a shot to design buildings that are big time until you are in your 40s? i've always heard it's a field where you really have to do it for decades before anyone gives you a shot.
most actors get big in their late 20s/early 30s. Hoffman did, hackman as well... |
|
| myriam [email] said at 11:47 AM 11-09-2004:
yes, and no. most architects don't become *famous* until they have done multiple, multiple buildings; I'd say it's the same way with movie stars, or at least it used to be until the media in the country blossomed.
you get to do buildings starting about mid-to-late 20s, if you are decently talented, but it takes a while to become famous for it. i think a good illustration of my point is frank gehry, because you are probably familiar with his earlier work; he did become "famous" (as famous as a young architect can be) early on, but his style was basically pasting found objects together; highly deconstructivist. now in his 60s he has hit upon his legacy, the curved titanium form, and is really flowering in that. but he was a noted architect on even an international level before he even touched those curvy forms. |
|
| josh [email] said at 11:59 AM 11-09-2004:
I'd say it's the same way with movie stars, or at least it used to be until the media in the country blossomed.
Hoffman became famous because of the Graduate, which was his second movie. He was 29 or 30.
In films, all it takes is one hit to be hugely famous, and to ramp you to the top tiers of the business. In architecture, I'd imagine it's a slower process, but I don't know much about architecture. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 11:43 AM 11-09-2004:
i guess my point is, if you care enough to keep striving, then you care enough to keep doing a good job, and even a new good job.
and i think you see the same thing often in artists as well.
the difference is that there are WAY more famous actors than there are artists, architects, and graphic designers. so we are exposed to many, many more actors, and it is more obvious to us that most of them lack true talent AND such a love of their art that they continually strive for the best. but i wouldn't say it's necessarily rare to find that. it just seems that way since there are so many bad ones throwing the numbers off.
a glut of the market, if you will. |
|
| josh [email] said at 11:54 AM 11-09-2004:
I went to art school. I read about artists for 6 years. I can't think of many that radically changed their style at the end of their career. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 12:09 PM 11-09-2004:
pollock and picasso come to mind... but i'll have to check. i thought most of the modern "greats", beginning with van gogh, reached their peak after they'd been working away at it for awhile, messing around with different things. it doesn't seem right that acting should be allowed to be the exception, and actors should be forgiven for a slow slide downward into retirement.
unless, frankly, they are not very creative or motivated people, as i pointed out above. |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:20 PM 11-09-2004:
Pollack's end of career work is generally considered to be an artistic failure, and he also died at like 42. He achieved his greatest fame and was the most artistically successful in the eyes of the public in his late 30s.
Picasso, yes, I would agree he was a consummate artist and pretty much always innovated. But then again he is also considered to be the greatest artist of the 20th century by most art historians, too... The fact that he always changed is probably part of why he is so revered.
it doesn't seem right that acting should be allowed to be the exception, and actors should be forgiven for a slow slide downward into retirement.
I think most creative people peak mid-career. As I said before. Some earlier than others, some later, sure. But on average, mid-career.
Fields like architecture might be an exception, I don't know anything about architecture. |
|
| jake [email] said at 12:27 PM 11-09-2004:
I would like to call a bullshit:
You said "radically changed" not "had a successful radical change." I mean, jesus, let's start with Lennon. |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:33 PM 11-09-2004:
I don't mean it wasn't successful monetarily, I mean the art world considers his later works to be unsuccesful artistically. He felt so too, from what I have read. Then he drank himself to death. |
|
| jake [email] said at 12:45 PM 11-09-2004:
The artistic success of his later work is also irrelevant. He DID make a radical change at the end of his career. Now you could say he and John Lennon are exceptions because their careers were cut short, but that would be ON point, and you seem to prefer OFF.
Also Marsden Hartley. |
|
| josh [email] said at 1:31 PM 11-09-2004:
It wasn't a radical chnage though. It was deriviative and water down versions of what he was doing before action painting. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 12:11 PM 11-09-2004:
"From 1938 to 1942 he worked for the Federal Art Project. By the mid 1940s he was painting in a completely abstract manner, and the `drip and splash' style for which he is best known emerged with some abruptness in 1947."
"De Kooning said, "He broke the ice", an enigmatic phrase suggesting that Pollock showed what art could become with his 1947 drip paintings."
"It was not until 1947 that Pollock began his "action" paintings, influenced by Surrealist ideas of "psychic automatism" (direct expression of the unconscious)." |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:23 PM 11-09-2004:
1947, when he was 35. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 1:00 PM 11-09-2004:
yeah, he had been painting on an entirely different track for 20 years. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 1:27 PM 11-09-2004:
i dunno, at a quick glance it looks like all of van gogh's best work was completed in the last year of his life (even if he, too, died "young" compared to our times)... i just don't think that talented, motivated artists climax mid-lifetime. anyone who cares about waht they do is going to continually strive to get better, and if this is in a creative field, chances are that they will continually strive for greater and greater creativity (like, changing of styles, or trying a new thing, etc.) also i would think that, based on your own assertion above, if these artists really get to a point mid-career that they find themselves in a rut or tired of what they are doing, then if they care about what they do, that would become even more impetus for them to change it up and try something new and push themselves in a new and more creative or challenging direction.
my point is that only BAD artists or artists who don't care about waht they do give up and slowly slide downwards after achieveing mid-career glory. if they cared they would keep on going right to the end. you see that with architects because there are so few that make it to media coverage that the bad ones are automatically weeded out. you should see that with actors too--except that the media excuses them from reaching beyond their middle years, just as you are doing. |
|
| rick [email] said at 1:29 PM 11-09-2004:
Given that a lot of architecture is admired by the public for its aesthetic qualities, I do not think that it is safe to say that bad architects are automatically weeded out before they get famous. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 1:34 PM 11-09-2004:
??
i don't understand this? it doesn't seem to follow logically to me. please explain?
for the record i was using "bad" to denote "artists who do not care what they do"... from josh above: "Hackman has gone on record saying that to him acting is purely a job at this point and he enjoys spending time on his ranch way more"... this to me denotes an artist who does not really care about his artistry; to him it is a job. this is what i meant by "bad." i was not using that as an aesthetic judgment. you'll note that i am using frank gehry as an example of "good" in this case. (*cough*). |
|
| josh [email] said at 2:08 PM 11-09-2004:
If your arguement is that Hackman is no longer an artist, I would tend to agree. I think he would agree for most of his roles. Anthony Hopkins has also gone on record saying he doesn't feel like he is doing art any more, just makin' money. |
|
| rick [email] said at 2:25 PM 11-09-2004:
Alright, now then that may be the problem as I almost never look at motivation when judging someone's output (although I give them extra points if their motivation is "to make things better for the Rick").My whole point is that just because someone has become famous and rich off art, architecture, music, or really anything, does not mean they are necessarily "good" at what they do. Otherwise, Thomas Kincaid would be our greatest living artist, Jewel, our greatest living poet, and so on and so forth. |
|
| josh [email] said at 1:49 PM 11-09-2004:
Well, first off think it's ridiulous to say someone is a bad artist if they don't radically change their styles/whatever as they age.
I'm not excusing them from anything because it's not my place to excuse them, nor do I know how I would go about doing it?
This whole thing started because I said I can't think of very many people in any creative field whose output at 60 is as vibrant as their output at 30, so people shouldn't expect that a senior citizen's work be at the same level as their work when they were in their prime.
So far, ommiting architects, which I know nothing about, the only example I've seen of someone whose work was generally considered to be on the same level in their twilight years as when they were young and fresh is Picasso - arguably the greatest artist of the 20th century.
I'm sure there are other examples, but really, life's weights and other factors (including the fact that creative things have more impact when they are new to an audience... so that if you are doing work that is still as technically good at age 60, but it's similar to your older work it will be percieved as lesser since it's not "new") seem like they would tend to work against a creative person trying to stay on top of their particular game for a long stretch of time. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 2:20 PM 11-09-2004:
i think i could safely say that we agree that true artists don't start sucking it up at some random age in their life.
i think we should hold true artists to a high standard of creative output their entire lives. i don't want anyone to ever excuse me of starting to treat architecture like just a way to make money... i would shoot myself; it would undermine my personhood, frankly.
if i stopped caring and just tossed off structures without thought, simply because it got easy, i would cease to be a good architect. i believe the same goes for all artists, actors included. i cannot excuse dustin hoffman for slacking off simply because he already "made it"; in my mind that undermines the acting he did in his earlier years. |
|
| josh [email] said at 2:33 PM 11-09-2004:
Then I guess you feel that the majority of creative non-architects become bad at what they do in later years?
Again, as I stated before, the list of creative people doing work as vibrant, fresh and important at 60 as they were as 30 is small. Again, partially this is because you are judged on what came before you and even if you are performing at the same level, you may be seen as under-performing because things that are new are usually given bonus points. But I'm sure there are other factors - the fact that your less able to physically keep up and be active must play a role. This may be lessened in Architecture since it seems that is almost entirely an intellectual process. Of course, I could be wrong - I don't know much about Architecture. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 2:52 PM 11-09-2004:
Then I guess you feel that the majority of creative non-architects become bad at what they do in later years?
no, my point is that if they start to suck in their later years then they just weren't good in the first place. because obviously they didn't care. |
|
| josh [email] said at 3:01 PM 11-09-2004:
no, my point is that if they start to suck in their later years then they just weren't good in the first place. because obviously they didn't care.
That's such a retarded statement I don't even need to retort it. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 2:22 PM 11-09-2004:
This whole thing started because I said I can't think of very many people in any creative field whose output at 60 is as vibrant as their output at 30, so people shouldn't expect that a senior citizen's work be at the same level as their work when they were in their prime.
I think this is because mediocre actors are allowed to make it big in our universe. The true artists do continue to produce good work through the ages.
tend to work against a creative person trying to stay on top of their particular game for a long stretch of time.
i agree with this.
i guess i am more picky or something. |
|
| josh [email] said at 2:38 PM 11-09-2004:
I think this is because mediocre actors are allowed to make it big in our universe. The true artists do continue to produce good work through the ages.
I would argue that "mediocrity" is allowed to be successful in all fields. Because the average person really likes _________ artist that sells a lot of prints at the mall, but is reviled by the art world.
The actors you are talking about are probably just the equivilant of that. |
|
| jake [email] said at 2:43 PM 11-09-2004:
Equivalents
Not at ALL. The markets for paintings and movies are hugely different. Succussful mall painter = good entrepeneur.
Successful star vehicle actor = Pop star camera gold. |
|
| jake [email] said at 2:44 PM 11-09-2004:
See now I'm just trying to annoy Kara. |
|
| josh [email] said at 1:35 PM 11-09-2004:
josh: "how many people have the same passion for their job after 40 years as they did when they were just starting out?
how many people are willing, able, or interested in risk-taking and innovation after 40 years in a job?"
20 years is not 40 years, and he was not a professional artist for much of that 20 years. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 2:12 PM 11-09-2004:
how many people are willing, able, or interested in risk-taking and innovation after 40 years in a job?"
answer: those that care about what they do. those to whom their art is their life. it's not that rare. |
|
| josh [email] said at 3:05 PM 11-09-2004:
Name ones.
You've named 1 non-architect who was willing, interested AND able to take risks and innovate their field after 40 active years in it.
By able I mean someone who was successfully able to innovate, not someone who said they wanted to do important work, but didn't have the talent, drive or ability to do it.
Okay, let's make a list:
1. Picasso |
|
| jake [email] said at 12:21 PM 11-09-2004:
You are the worst kind of critic. |
|
| jake [email] said at 12:38 PM 11-09-2004:
I went to art school! and I hang out with artists! I've studied them and written papers and stuff!
Anybody that says they went to art school for 6 years but won't say "As an artist," clearly has some hang-ups. |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:42 PM 11-09-2004:
Huh? I don't even understand what you are talking about.
Myriam said we all couldn't think of many famous artists to compare to famous actors because Americans aren't exposed to art much.
I replied that I went to Art School, where I studied Art History, so I knew about a lot of artists.
I am not an artist, so why would I say "As an Artist"? I went to art school, yes. I am an artist, no. |
|
| jake [email] said at 12:24 PM 11-09-2004:
Threadcheck: this was directed at Joshua. |
|
| jake [email] said at 12:46 PM 11-09-2004:
Which he clearly figured out with no trouble, although figuring out that I'm taking his piss seems to be taking more time. |
|
| julie [email] said at 12:01 PM 11-09-2004:
Well put, Myriam. I'm in agreement with all of this. |
|
| julie [email] said at 11:56 AM 11-09-2004:
PS you don't have to be good at accents to be a good actor
I disagree, but let me explain why. Accents, physical stance, the way you walk, the way you gesture, your manner of speaking... all of these things are the tools of an actor. A good actor ought to be able to control ALL of them when called upon to do so. I've taken acting seminars where we had to invent five entirely different walks, and we were graded on them. If we lapsed back into our "own" walk or shook our hair or rolled our eyes the way we "normally" do, we got a failing grade. I just wish that more actors would try harder to escape their real-life personas.
Meryl Streep does this one gesture in every single movie she's ever been in: she expresses shock or grief by putting both hands, palms in, side by side, to her mouth and covering her mouth and nose. Every single movie she's in. Did it work for the character at the time? Sure. But it's not innovative. She does have the accents down, tho. ;-) |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:02 PM 11-09-2004:
I still don't see how faking an accent is a requirement for good acting.
Body langauge, yes. Intonation, sure. But being able to do a great Flemish accent? No.
Now, I think you should avoid doing movies where you are playing foreign characters if you know you can't do the accents, however... |
|
| julie [email] said at 12:15 PM 11-09-2004:
But it's all part of the deal! Your voice is one of your greatest tools as an actor. If you can't change it, you're basically handicapped in the industry. And maybe "handicapped" only means "Julie will watch your movies and despise you for your lack of talent and self-awareness" ..but hey, that should be enough. |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:26 PM 11-09-2004:
Again, I said you should be able to change it, but I don't see why you should have to be able to flawlessly imitate a Japanese accent any more than I don't see why a painter should have to be able to paint photo-realistically.
If I said "If you can't paint a painting so precisely that I can't tell it's not a photograph, you aren't a good painter" would you agree? |
|
| julie [email] said at 12:35 PM 11-09-2004:
Acting and painting cannot be compared.
Actors need to be fluent and adept in more than one "style," if you will. Artists don't. I can't have a conversation based on painters vs. actors, it's not a logical comparison. |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:43 PM 11-09-2004:
So actors aren't artists? |
|
| julie [email] said at 12:50 PM 11-09-2004:
Just stop it. How can you continue this asshattish line of reasoning!?!?
The window washer on the outside of my office building is a fucking artist. The sandwich makers at Subway are artists. A lip-synching teen pop star is an artist. Michael Jordan is an artist. Charles Manson is an artist. |
|
| jake [email] said at 12:54 PM 11-09-2004:
The Window washer is an Urban Beautification Artist.
The Sandwich Makers are Bread and Meat and Fixings Artists.
That lip smacking lip syncher is a Pop Artist.
Michael Jordan is a Jump Artist.
Charles Manson is a Social Critic.
Joshua is a Bullshit Artist. |
|
| julie [email] said at 1:11 PM 11-09-2004:
Charles Manson is a Murder Artist. |
|
| jake [email] said at 1:20 PM 11-09-2004:
Really I think the murders were a commercially unsuccessful but career making divergence from his ouevre of civic analysis through insane proselytizing and the brainwashing of hapless volunteers.
Sort of a loss leader, if you will. |
|
| josh [email] said at 1:49 PM 11-09-2004:
Julie : Actors need to be fluent and adept in more than one "style," if you will. Artists don't. |
|
| julie [email] said at 3:29 PM 11-09-2004:
Why are you quoting me back at myself? These sentences actually reinforce my arguments for all of the above examples. |
art said at 3:34 PM 11-09-2004:
Josh is trying to spark outrage amongst Artists re: your statement |
|
| julie [email] said at 3:44 PM 11-09-2004:
Well, no one ever called up Rembrandt and asked him to make a splatter painting. But people have called up Jim Carrey and asked him to stop clowning around and play a serious romantic lead. So that's my explanation of why I said that. I don't care if I piss off artists. I'll stab you right through your palette and paint-smeared smock. |
art said at 3:55 PM 11-09-2004:
I'll stab you right through your palette and paint-smeared smock
I love the Women of Killoggs. They're so... docile |
|
| josh [email] said at 3:38 PM 11-09-2004:
I'm just clarifying : If you feel that acting isn't any more of an artistic endevour than window washing, then I have no frame of reference to continue this discussion from. |
|
| meredith [email] said at 12:53 PM 11-09-2004:
Acting and Painting can be compared, but Josh is off.
Not all theatre is realism, just as not all painting is realism. There are many stylized theatrical styles just as there are impressionistic and pointalistic painting methods.
The point is, do what you're good at. There are some comedic styles that would benefit from an actor doing an incredibly stylized and steriotypical version of an accent whereas some require a realistic portrayal. |
|
| josh [email] said at 1:51 PM 11-09-2004:
Not all theatre is realism, just as not all painting is realism. There are many stylized theatrical styles just as there are impressionistic and pointalistic painting methods.
This is exactly what I was getting at.
All I'm saying is that I think it's silly to put arbitrary limits on what it takes to be a great actor/artist/whatever. Because I'm sure there is someone out there that will prove you wrong as soon as you set such limits. |
|
| julie [email] said at 12:23 PM 11-09-2004:
Um, "faking an accent"?
So, is acting "faking a character?"
Look, I already said it: check out Ben Kingsley in those movies I mentioned and tell me that his accent was "faked" and not important to the acting job. |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:35 PM 11-09-2004:
So, is acting "faking a character?"
Yes. The trick is making the audience not realize it's fake. Or, if they do, making them enjoy the trick so much that they don't care. |
|
| meredith [email] said at 12:40 PM 11-09-2004:
Josh I disagree with you hear. Fake acting is the worst kind. The guy playing my husband right now is the biggest fakey on the planet and I can't stand it. |
|
| meredith [email] said at 12:43 PM 11-09-2004:
HERE. I disagree with you HERE. |
|
| josh [email] said at 1:52 PM 11-09-2004:
So you think that George C Scott actually WAS Patton?
Unless your answer is yes, then acting is faking. |
|
| jake [email] said at 2:07 PM 11-09-2004:
Pfffft. Bullshit.
Acting is embodying/creating/owning a role--it's the opposite of faking. |
|
| meredith [email] said at 2:46 PM 11-09-2004:
Josh, acting is not that black and white. No, you are not EXACTLY your character, but you embody them. Or they embody you. It's a facet of yourself that you lend to the character the writer has created.
I played Cecily in Earnest at LSU, I could play that same character again now and it would be completely different. Not because I wasn't as good then, but because I am different now, the cast would be different now, the director would be different.
A 'faker' is basically like an imitator. Like someone who paints a picture of the Mona Lisa but did not PAINT the Mona Lisa. |
|
| josh [email] said at 2:58 PM 11-09-2004:
When I say fake I don't mean "imitate" (as in doing an impression), I mean "not real".
Unless you really ARE your character, and the lines you are saying are really real and not from a script, it's not real. If it's not real, it's fake. Make believe. An illusion. The magic of the stage. Whatever you want to call it. |
|
| meredith [email] said at 3:00 PM 11-09-2004:
I'd encourage you to use a word other than 'fake'. It has a negative connotation for a type of acting within the acting world. |
|
| josh [email] said at 3:10 PM 11-09-2004:
okay, point accepted... "make believe" will be my reference of choice unless I can think of something better. |
 | brandonA [email] said at 3:57 PM 11-09-2004:
I don't like 'make believe' either.
The problem is that make believe and/or fakery is only one dimension of acting. You have to factor in the artistic interpretation and emotional resonance of a role too.
What I mean is that an effective actor (effective by my definition) studies a character and creates (or borrows from) the real person's life, but the emotional interpretation is a) real and b) not exactly borrowed from the real person. Some fraction of an actor's work is 100% real(0% make believe), as it's coming directly from his/her self/psyche.
Labeling it 'make believe' only is analogous to calling a landscape painting the 'fake' of the real thing. |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:20 PM 11-09-2004:
i'm not purely talking about characters that are based on real people. even if you are creating a character this is 100% invented, you are still pretending to be that character while you are on stage/in front of the camera. maybe "pretend" is a better word than "make believe".
anyway, when you are acting you are trying to make the audience feel your character is genuine and alive and NOT YOU, the actor, just playing a role for giggles or whatever. (or perhaps you are trying to remind the audience that you are simply playing a character, in some sort of postmodern sly wink)
that's make believe/fake/whatever you want to call it.
it's not real. it's artifice. whatever you want to call it. we're just discussing semantics now, anyway. |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:39 PM 11-09-2004:
Ben Kingsley used his own accent in Death And The Maiden and I can tell you from that movie alone he is a amazingly talented and captivating actor.
It's all in the eye of the beholder, anyway, but I think Jake nailed it with his comment on the difference between mechanics and art. Art in general isn't a science. There are no rules to what makes good art (of any kind). You don't have to use EVERY tool in the toolbox. Not all great musicians knew how to read music, not all great actors can do accents, not all great painters can paint realistically, etc... |
|
| jake [email] said at 1:13 PM 11-09-2004:
But actually I made a point of saying you can be "pretty good" without all the tools, not "great." The analogy for an actor who doesn't have enough voice control to do even a halfway decent accent is not a musician who can't read sheet music, but a musician who can only work within two octaves.
Even though the fucker wouldn't know an octave from an ocelot. |
|
| josh [email] said at 2:06 PM 11-09-2004:
I just feel that greatest is not always constrained by technical limitations, and that sometimes greatness is not even quantifiable. |
Bryan [ url ]
said at 2:56 PM 11-09-2004:
If you're not reading Famtracker.com, you're not even in the game. |
|
| |
