Do You Like Movies That Explore Things You Wouldn't, But Think About?

Tools    





My Darth Star is in for a service
Well, I wouldn't f**k a chick in her eye socket but I watch it in film often enough. Curious what it feels like though.
I suppose it depends how deep that eye socket is.



Method bull**** is largely bull****. Kurt Russell rustled more than a few jimmies a few years back when he said that acting isn't as hard as everyone makes it out to me -- You memorize your lines and you hit your marks.
Kurt Russell seems like a very nice man, but to bring him into a conversation about a great actor like Daniel Day Lewis seems rather absurd to me.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
Do You Like Movies That Explore Things You Wouldn't, But Think About?
Going out.
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.



Kurt Russell seems like a very nice man, but to bring him into a conversation about a great actor like Daniel Day Lewis seems rather absurd to me.

Russell has been acting since he was 12 and he is now 69, so I'd wager he knows a thing or two about acting and actors. And Russell is no slouch in the acing department.



Lewis is a great actor, but he's also a bit "off" - out there in method land. Like I said, I would tolerate his B.S., because he is who is, but I put no particular stock in the idea that method acting is the secret sauce. There are also, after all, great actors who are not method actors.



If you're collapsing, sending coworkers dead rats, starving yourself to near death, etc., you've gone a bit beyond acting into try-hard nonsense.



the samoan lawyer's Avatar
Unregistered User
Well, I wouldn't f**k a chick in her eye socket but I watch it in film often enough. Curious what it feels like though.

The most Cricket thing Ive ever heard
__________________
Too weird to live, and too rare to die.



Russell has been acting since he was 12 and he is now 69...
Longevity has nothing to do with one’s acting skills, but I’m gonna leave it at that.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.



Longevity has nothing to do with one’s acting skills,
It does. It is just not a slam-dunk relation. If one is still getting work after decades, that is a sign (defeasible) that one's work is good enough to deserve more work. Also, with more experience, generally speaking, comes greater competence. So again, this has something to do with it.
Finally, even if we were to agree that Kurt Russell is not a competent actor (something I do not concede), it is nevertheless true that in observing and participating in a craft or art over the course of one's lifetime, one does learn something about the nature of that craft, even if one does not become particularly skilled. So, the "skills" question isn't even relevant. The question is whether Russell is competent to make the claim (he is).



Method bull**** is largely bull****. Kurt Russell rustled more than a few jimmies a few years back when he said that acting isn't as hard as everyone makes it out to me -- You memorize your lines and you hit your marks.

This mostly seems like Russell is just uninterested or unaware of all of the things acting can be. I've got no issues with Russell. I like him. He understands the notion of acting as being truly 'present' on screen. He's good at being charismatic and he can seemingly do this on command. But some roles thankfully require more than this to succeed.


Generally, those that subscribe to the idea of method acting, see their profession as being more of understanding a character through behavior and backstory. Small nuances in their craft allow them to reveal hidden quirks and details about the character they are playing. Where they came from, what they are thinking, how they are feeling. They understand the character as something more than what just lives on screen, and something that is more than just them. It's understandable why "The Process" is seemed so integral to many actors. It puts them in their skin, entirely. And, no, it's not just about hitting marks and reading lines. That's reductive sillniness.



Now does this excuse bad behavior while they are in 'character'? Nah. I'm not into that if they are causing distress or harm to the people they work with. But if they are just acting odd, or eccentric, or being just a little annoying, let them go for it. Method acting is not anymore bull**** than any other technique an artist uses to hone their craft. And considering the good performances that have been credited to it, let them have it.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Some actors have a job because of who they know.. Friends and/or relatives in the business, and many other reasons that are probably political, so I'll leave them all out..



And vice-versa.... I just look at each performance. If you have a great writer, the chances of a good performance increase, just like they do with a great director. Sometimes, it's casting - who you are with, the chemistry between the leading man and woman.



This mostly seems like Russell is just uninterested or unaware of all of the things acting can be.
IIRC he said this off hand in a casual interview. This was not him "inside the actor's studio". I think this was more of a deflationary pin prick (with a wink) than a devastating critique. Also, I think the moment was self-deprecating-as he was asked about the magic of his own process.

And, no, it's not just about hitting marks and reading lines.
What matters, in terms of the product, is what appears on the screen. What is on the screen is a flickering image accompanied by sound, nothing more. It is the illusion of a living moment.

Frankly, a sophisticated animatronic robot or CGI invention could, in principle, do anything that the most emotional, immersed, committed actor could. There is no need for actual substance to create an illusion. Indeed, all this method bull**** is largely another illusion being sold to leverage the main illusion, a way to get audiences to "buy" the reality of what they know to be fiction--"But if it was really real for the actor, then maybe, somehow, there is a transcendent portal into that space, blah, blah."

At bottom, it is behavior captured on camera. If an actor can create a character by simply "acting" rather than suffering in the skin of their character, their performance is just as good. There is no magical secret sauce, no holy ghost of "the real" that accompanies any performance. The performance is either good or it isn't, regardless of the approach.

That's reductive sillniness.
It's a corrective to a situation. To keep it between the lines on the highway you have to steer both to the left and the right. When method actors threaten to drag the craft into a romanticism of nearly starving to death to get Oscars and acting provocatively weird on set, it's a deserved corrective. Nothing in excess.

Do your job. Put it on the screen. Use what works, but don't be a creep and don't damage your health trying to out-Deniro Deniro or out-Bale Bale. And don't give yourself PTSD just to sell yourself as a battle scarred soldier. The new cult of flagellants deserves to be deflated every so often with the sound of a little flatulence.



Victim of The Night

Do your job. Put it on the screen. Use what works, but don't be a creep and don't damage your health trying to out-Deniro Deniro or out-Bale Bale. And don't give yourself PTSD just to sell yourself as a battle scarred soldier. The new cult of flagellants deserves to be deflated every so often with the sound of a little flatulence.
Funny thing is, DeNiro did all that and still always just acted like DeNiro.



Also, I think the moment was self-deprecating-as he was asked about the magic of his own process.
I've got not problem with this, since he is referring to his own work. What works for him works for him. And it has. But I don't see why we need to extend it to be the standard of how others in the same profession should approach their work. It's almost like different artists aim for different things and might go about them differently

What matters, in terms of product, is what appears on the screen. What is on the screen is a flickering image accompanied by sound, nothing more. It is the illusion of a living moment.
Sure. That's all it is, at least if you want to get way too technical about it. But does this mean artists have to approach it as if everyone must agree that acting is the kind of flippant irrelevancy you're trying to portray it as? You are on a movie forum acting like something being an illusion makes it dismissable in some way. Kinda weird.


And back to that 'different people think different things' thing I mentioned above. Even if they are just illusions at the end of the day, some people like to approach and portray these illusions in different ways for different purposes. Some believe there is some kind of emotional of spiritual or cultural currency to their work. Unlike Russell, some might view what they do as more important than 'remembering lines and hitting marks'. And thank god for that. It's nice to have a world where people can believe in things. Not everything is 'product'. And if that's how you view things (not saying you do) but if that's the spiel you're selling, I'm not buying.


Frankly, a sophisticated animatronic robot or CGI invention could, in principle, do anything that the most emotional, immersed, committed actor could. There is no need for actual substance to create an illusion.
In theory, I guess it's true that maybe this is something robots or CGI could one day do. But even if so, it's almost like you are willfully overlooking the fact that someone who creates that CGI would also have to be deep observers of and particpants in human behavior to program it into their animation. They too would have to find a way to get a special angle on this. Giving something that is just an illusion the depth of reality required to bring insight into the human condition, evoke empathy, and convince us what we are watching matters even if it isn't real, takes considerably more talent than you seem willing to give credit for. It doesn't matter if you're an actor or animator. You still have to learn it from somewhere. Like (one tried and tested option) The Method.





If an actor can create a character by simply "acting" rather than suffering in the skin of their character, their performance is just as good
Sure. Never said differently. I'm only arguing that others have different processes that get them to the point where they can find their best performance. And method acting, pretty much without any question, has ultimately broadened the palette of behaviors that actors can use on screen. Even non-method actors are free to crib the fruits of their labors if they like. Fair game.



When actors threaten to....act provocatively weird on set, it's a deserved corrective. Nothing in excess.
Aha! We have found the root of our issue here. Excess is nothing to be ashamed of. It should be as rightfully celebrated as much as those who find success through moderation. Why limit the scope of human expression in either our art or the manner in which our art is created? Seems a rather oppressive thing to do, in the name of just not being 'weird'.


And, hey, what's wrong with being weird?


Do your job. Put it on the screen. Use what works,
They do. They do. They do.


The new cult of flagellants deserves to be deflated every so often with the sound of a little flatulence.
I've got zero issue with deflating everything. There isn't a sacred cow in art that doesn't deserve the occassional slap down to earth. I don't want to treat them like Gods. But I also don't want to police the process which those who create create with. If The Method is what brought us the age of all those iconic performances in the 70's, regardless of what we may think of it from a distance, who cares when those are the results. You know, those results (product) that have ended up on screen time and time again. Let's do as you say, and judge it by that



Funny thing is, DeNiro did all that and still always just acted like DeNiro.
How much resemblance is there really between the characters he plays in Taxi Driver, Mean Street, Hey Mom, New York New York, Cape Fear, King of Comedy and Deer Hunter? Sure, there is overlap, but they are all equally distinct characters, with their own physical language.



But does this mean artists have to...
I don't think either one of us is arguing that one must use any method. We would be straw-manning each other if we went down this path.

My objection is to

1. Self-harm (physical and psychological)
2. Making life uneasy for other actors who are using their own process
3. Norming this a the "model" to be a "great" actor for new actors to follow (because this perpetuates #1 and #2).

If the method is the norm ("this is the way!"), then new actors basically get pushed into what is often try-hard excess (my regards to Mr. Leto).

And thank god for that. It's nice to have a world where people can believe in things.
Belief in the power of the oracle means that some young Delphian girls have to inhale noxious fumes and mumble for our sense of mystery.
It's great to believe in Santa Claus, but I don't think that actors should be normed into unnecessary and excessive preparation to merely tell a story.

Not everything is 'product'.
Not product in the sense of mere "commodity." Artworks have a surplus value over and above box office numbers. But, at the end of the day, the product is either or good or it isn't. A film is either good or it isn't. What matters is the product (the artistic product). To focus on the process so as to evaluate the product is to fall into the genetic fallacy (e.g., My God, how he suffered for this role! He went to the hospital. What an actor!).

I'm only arguing that others have different processes that get them to the point where they can find their best performance.
There are, in my experience, two approaches to performance, and I have worked with performers who have exemplified both. One approach is mechanical (basically treating the text as sheet music) and involves the attempt to play notes objectively. The other approach is internal, to be moved from the inside so that, in effect, you get the performance naturally. With regard to the latter, I have noticed that the muse is inconsistent and sometimes excessive. The mechanical approach is more consistent, but tends to lack the power. The best performers do a bit of both, having the capacity to channel an inner sentiment precisely while "playing the notes" -- being both on the inside and the outside at the same time.

In my opinion, in popular circles and popular media, the cult of the inner has gained a little too much prominence. Nothing is sexy about working hard to hit your marks and memorize your lines, but(!!!) to BECOME Hannibal Lector is amaze-balls. We're suckers for romanticism which is why I think that there is a natural tendency to overemphasize the former over the latter.

My suspicion, although I admit I may be wrong, is that a good many method adherents could have given just as strong a performance on screen without going to crazy-town.



Victim of The Night
How much resemblance is there really between the characters he plays in Taxi Driver, Mean Street, Hey Mom, New York New York, Cape Fear, King of Comedy and Deer Hunter? Sure, there is overlap, but they are all equally distinct characters, with their own physical language.
I've honestly never seen DeNiro not be DeNiro. He was as DeNiro in Awakenings as he was in Casino. I kept waiting for him to come out of his coma and whack a guy. He was even DeNiro as Frankenstein's Monster. He played different characters but he played DeNiro playing those characters to me. Travis Bickle and Jack Byrnes (from Meet The Parents) are the same person just living in a different life (to me).