|
Busta Chimes.wav posted:How much credit should we give to directors for bringing a certain performance out of an actor? Even when not going to extremes, like Roman Polanski asking Mia Farrow to walk through traffic in Rosemary's Baby, direction has a large influence on how an actor plays a part. Is it even possible to separate the two? It depends wholly on the film, which an actor is only ever a part of. Even the most bare, stripped down films show this, such as Swimming to Cambodia, where Spalding Gray sits behind a desk and talks for ninety minutes - there's still editing, and lighting, and a soundtrack that influences our perception. You can even contrast that to the relative visual spectacle that is Gray's Anatomy, where Soderbergh carts the mouthy neurotic around a variety of kooky sets and washes him with wild colors. Gray is Gray in both films but the films around him are wildly different, which is something that should always be taken into account. It's the Kuleshov effect, really. You look at Adam Sandler in an Adam Sandler film and you look at Adam Sandler in Punch-Drunk Love and he seems totally different, but he isn't, really, it's just that the context's shifted. Anderson very carefully wrote a film around the pre-existing Sandler character and cast it in a totally new light. It's like how if you put a baroque candelabra on a baroque table, you'll have one thing (one thing), but if you put that same candelabra on a boulder, you have something totally different, and possibly new and interesting. The candelabra is the same but you're being made to look at it differently. A director can do the same with an actor. So no, I don't think it's possible to separate the two, because they always inform each other.
|
# ¿ Jun 9, 2014 21:24 |
|
|
# ¿ May 21, 2024 06:52 |
|
Zesty Mordant posted:Good and bad acting can be determined solely on the actor's ability to pretend the empty paper cup they are holding actually is filled with coffee. Actors: Basically Just Mimes That Talk
|
# ¿ Jun 10, 2014 06:03 |