Jump to content

Ipickthiswhiterose

Free Account+
  • Content Count

    246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

230 Likes

About Ipickthiswhiterose

  • Rank
    Indie Sensation

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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".
  8. 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.
  9. I mean, that's delightfully smug and all. But I didn't and apparently you didn't read my post properly. Unless by "shit the bed" you thought I meant "Gave Oscar worthy performances in" Helen Mirren - an undoubtedly great actress - was handed an oscar for a biopic performance that wasn't even close to her own personal Top 20 and that she could have frankly given any day of the week. She was, within just a couple of years, found out massively when she tried her hand at horror. Because performing in horror is incredibly hard: much harder than giving a performance in a biopic that if it didn't have a famous person in would have basically been a made for TV movie.
  10. The sentence was just saying it's fun to have a moan. I was mocking myself, really, but since you went on.... Biopic roles aren't lazy. But they operate on a considerably lower level of difficulty, generally, than most other forms of acting role. Again, replication is the simplest thing to ask an actor to engage in. You can generally identify, for instance, very few obviously bad performances in biopics by major names and in the rare cases where they do exist (Gotti, for instance) it is more reflective of the project overall being a mess rather than a bad performance. Horror on the other hand: Helen Mirren (Winchester), DeNiro (Godsend, Hide and Seek) , Nicholson (Wolf), Pacino (Hangman), Heath Ledger (The Order), Ian McKellen (The Keep) and many other great actors have all shit the bed in horror movies. I could do a similar list for comedies (with some of the same actors, TBH). Biopic is a low risk genre. The form of comedy performance that relies on personality only that you refer to is only very niche and no, in those cases doesn't deserve awards. But you're talking more about Adam Sandlers there, while I'm referring to things like McAdams, Christopher Guest's oeuvre, peak Jim Carrey and Steve Martin, Coen brothers films and so on.
  11. The hold that performances in biopics have over acting awards is disgusting. Half of the Best Actor/Actress awards since 2000 have gone to facsimile biopic performances. Thing is, facsimile biopic roles are literally the easiest performances to give. Asking an actor to replicate/copy behaviour is the simplest task they can work with. Horror and Comedy require risk, commitment, creativity and can go horribly wrong. They are the hardest genre to give performances in. Truly great performances in these movies are amazing. For instance, how in the blue hell was Rachel McAdams not even nominated for her utterly iconic performance in Mean Girls? That performance balanced naturalism, archetype, dialogue designed to be quotable, panto villainy with a hint of vulnerability. Yet what won Supporting Actress that year? Ah yes, Cate Blanchett for a performance in a facsimile biopic that nobody remembers and that doesn't come close to even the best dozen performances Cate Blanchett has ever given. Never mind Toni Collette last year....Alex Wolff gives an incredible performance in Hereditary and can't get a nomination but Sam Rockwell doing a 10 minute George Bush impression can. I could rant about this for hours.
  12. The more I think about it the more this film is going to have an upward climb. All the previous 'new' in terms of general audience superheroes had an easy elevator pitch in terms of explaining concept: - Bunch of Ragtag space pirates - Prince of Hidden African country with fancy tech - Female superman with flame hands Even "Best martial artist in the world" is pretty easy to go with too. But the Eternals may need a sentence or two too much explaining. Maybe. But the Marvel brand is just so strong.
  13. Ewan is visibly an absolutely broken man, especially in Attack of the Clones. To spend literally an entire film, an ENTIRE film up to the point his mentor dies without a single identifiable objective is utterly unplayable and soul crushing. And there was no going back after that. He gave up with Phantom Menace as any actor would with that material. McDiarmid is the exception that proves the rule in the prequels. He doesn't care about the awful scrip, leans into it, decides its a ludicrous panto, and just goes for it. It also doesn't hinder him that he has the one and only decent duologue in the whole trilogy, and is the only character who has a consistent and defined objective (as his was the only one that was inherently predetermined) in the whole series of films. But no, other than McDiarmid, there isn't a single other competent performance in the prequels.
  14. Just questioning that Midsommar number. Seems impossibly high. Is that a typo or is there some kind of reporting correction there? I'd love it if it was right of course.
×
×
  • 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.