Jump to content

Ipickthiswhiterose

Free Account+
  • Content Count

    253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

241 Likes

About Ipickthiswhiterose

  • Rank
    Indie Sensation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I can't help sometimes but note the selectivity of outrages. I remember for years the query was over female directors not being nonimated for major awards .... Yet last year when one could very legitimately argue that the majority of nominees for best director should have been women purely on merit (Chloe Zhao for The Rider, Lynne Ramsay for You Were Never Really Here, Debra Granik for Leave No Trace, Desiree Akhavan for The Miseducation of Cameron Post, Tamara Jenkins for Private Life) there wasn't a peep because there were more trendy nominations and big names to be had. Ramsay and Zhao should have been there as an absolute mimimum. Its really selective the way the narrative gets spun, in multiple directions.
  2. It's astonishing how little people realised how powerful the Joker IP inherently was. An absolutely panned film with an absolutely panned version of the character still made an absolute fortune sold on the back of nothing but the Joker, hot topic imagery, and Margot Robbie's bum. A nice and perfectly decent acting performance has been held up by countless people as OMFGBESTPERFORMANCEEVER for a decade just because it was playing this character. It's been an amazing achievement, but, seriously, the character was already batting 3 for 3 in insane box office.
  3. Joker? I don't get how Joker fits into the same category as KO and Hustlers. To the wrong people (and those wrong people are exactly the ones making the decisions) Joker tells a story that you can just slap an IP on anything and you can increased the BO by over 10x.
  4. UK Cinema full for Frozen yesterday, seemingly looking super popular. Full of families. Would doubt much in the way of drop-off here from the first given how rarely my rather regional cinema is packed and the responses to the film. Cats trailer got a great reception, going to go huuuuuuge here, but that's to be expected given the market. Also say Le Mans/Ford v Ferrari and unexpectedly loved it, hope the legs are going to be big for it, and that it doesn't have to put up with the far inferior Midway for blokey-bloke market. Seems like it might be in a tangle with that in the US, which is a shame since despite decent numbers there's a hefty budget on that bad boy for an original non-blockbuster movie.
  5. I can't go with this. Walk the Line, The Master, You Were Never Really Here and Gladiator are not even close to each other. Really don't get how you pull "similar range" out of Phoenix's oevre. DiCaprio maybe, but not Phoenix.
  6. Why am I changing the goal posts? Did you ever say Stanislavski started the Method? No. Did I? No. So why act like I'd agreed to something? I know in pretty considerable detail the curriculum from the Drama Centre. I literally have friends who trained there. It uses Stanislavski because literally everywhere that teaches naturalism does. It doesn't teach and has never tought Method Acting unless your definition of "Method Acting" just means "Stanlislavskian acting" and thus "naturalism". Again, Emotion memory PREVENTS the actor from drawing from multiple sources and approaches. That is exactly why it doesn't work. Ultimately though we seem to not exactly disagree anyway, we just interpret the word "Method" in different ways. I maintain the term is too associated with Strasberg not to mean emotion memory focused acting. If you don't and just used the term to mean Stanislavski, then we weren't really disagreeing the first place. I'd just use the terms Stanislavski 'system' as the catch-all where you use 'method'. Which I suppose is just semantics.
  7. Method Acting doesn't start with Stanislavski. If you define Stanislavski as "Method Acting" then the term is interchangeable with "naturalistic acting" - nobody who learns naturalistic acting doesn't use him as a platform as far as I'm aware so it would render the term useless. Stanislavski has two branches: method acting and method of physical actions. He himself shifted from the former to the latter of the course of his life, moving away from the magic 'if'/emotional memory formats that is the basis of "The Method" and towards psychophyscial approaches of the type taught at The Actor's Centre. The former supposes that one can use emotion and objectival thought to generate behaviour. This is what Strasberg taught. This is what 'Method' Acting was popularised as and is still taught as a viable method - thankfully to a lesser degree nowadays - in the US. The latter supposes to use behaviour and objectival thought to generate emotion, as a means to generate larger scale behaviour. This is what Adler tought, and is what is taught in the UK. And those actors all studied under Stella Adler as well.
  8. Drama Centre uses psychophysical techniques. They work with LMA, tempo rhythm and physical centres and have for a long time. LeCoq is infused throughout their entire first year. It isn't "method" in the least. Simply looking at the Wiki page will tell you that the whole philosophy there is based on active analysis. There is not a single Drama School in the UK that employs or teaches method acting. Not one. I didn't make any claim about when the Method was popular in the states. I just named a few actors who erroneously are associated with being 'Method' when in fact they were mostly drawing from Adler - who isn't Method and is only vaguely associated as so because she also taught at the actor's studio - and from Michael Chekhov. "Not one way or school of method" - True. But there is defined terms of what "method" is. Using emotion and objectival work to generate behaviour is "method", contrasted with psychophysical performance/method of physical actions/active analysis which is using behaviour and objectival work to generate emotion. Method acting is inextricably linked with Lee Strasberg, whose methods did/have done considerable damage to the quality of US acting in spite of Adler, Meisner and the other actual greats of US acting training. Some people like DDL have made a version of method work for them. Very, very rare and - as with DDL's case - usually a home-brewed version of it following training in another area. Room With a View is a naturalistic very light comedy. Not broad or gestic. Same skill set. And as for absolutes about acting being ridiculous - I agree! That's why Strasbergian Method acting is so bad. It is an all-encompassing approach to characterisation based on vague approximation and narcissism.
  9. Method is garbage. It got good press from a handful of performers, most of whom didn't really even use it (Nicholson, DeNiro, Hoffman) and it only really works for an absolute smattering of people who are remarkable intuitive performers as it is. And only if they never do anything other than naturalism. See what happened to Day-Lewis' performance when he did a musical? His performances are excellent but they have a limited window - no comedy, no horror, nothing self-aware and nothing gestic. Pure naturalistic drama. Oh, and while he generally uses a form of method, his training wasn't. There are many American actors who are outstanding. Best performance I ever saw in my life was by an American - M Emmett Walsh. And there are plenty who were and are trained properly. But the switch and change of culture away from method has been incredibly slow. If it hadn't you'd have a heck of a lot more Willem Defoes. And more Willem Defoes would be a rather splendid thing.
  10. She went to Guildhall. She will use standard British active analysis/method of physical actions techniques. No British actor uses method. Or would ever. Indeed Daniel D-L is pretty much the only non-American to use a version of method. The US clinging on to that outdated garbage is the main reason so many non-Americans dominate Hollywood.
  11. Lily James played Nina in the Seagull at the Southwark Playhouse, played Desdemona opposite Clarke Peters at the Crucible Sheffield and was in Rufus Norris' version of Vernon God Little at the Young Vic. Her choice of movies aside, I don't think James has all that much to prove on the thespian side of things.
  12. Am I missing something about OATIH? Seems like a finish of $120m or so isn't necessarily that great for a movie with a budget of $90m that is probably going to be pretty US-heavy (Both of Tarantino's other bigger hits of Inglorious and Django would indicate an int of around $200ish if it hits....and compared to those two films this one needs to really lean on its star power to get past some pretty considerable LA/US-Culture-centrism). Am I wrong? I'm happy to be wrong. I haven't seen the movie and don't have an opinion one way or another about it. But at best this seems to be "Makes its money and does fine" rather than "Hit".
  13. Ah cool. Sorry, it's my British turn of phrase. Yeah I was pointing out that there are lots of all-time great actors who have been awful in horror films, meaning that the genuinely great performances are true gems. Essentially, when it comes to facsimile biopics, there is no risk for major stars. There is no "Robert DeNiro in Godsend" equivalent. The chances of them being bad is non-existent because they simply aren't that difficult.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.