|
Post by tjara on Jan 15, 2009 16:43:15 GMT -5
Maybe that's why I'm put off by it. I don't know. I just did'nt like it, maybe because he didn't elaborate enough (what will be better in the book, I don't know?). I don't doubt it's false. Sometimes it's also how you say something, not what you say... I don't know...
|
|
|
Post by outerbankschick on Jan 15, 2009 18:49:06 GMT -5
I don't think being honest about your experiences with someone is unfair at all. If the man was just trying to write a nasty tell-all that deliberately set out to put people he worked with in the worst light possible, I would feel differently. But that's not what Mr. Harris is doing. He's simply writing about what he experienced. For myself, I'm interested in getting the lowdown on what happened with Andrew McCarthy. I've never heard the entire story.
When it comes right down to it, we're all just human beings. Vincent is a man and he's not perfect. (Which is a good thing because perfect people scare me!) I'll take the bad with the good because that forms the whole picture. And it's interesting to see how he has changed. As someone said upthread, Harris worked on S1-S4, so many of these incidents he writes about are years old.
|
|
|
Post by deathroe on Jan 15, 2009 19:35:09 GMT -5
I must respectfully disagree that we are getting the true story from any one insider on the series. The true story is what omniscience might see. What we are getting, by contrast, is direct reporting, but it is still another interpretation. From a great source--it's a fantastic article, yes--but it's still an interpretation.
I propose this: let's say I am in the same room as Mr. D'Onofrio. He tells me exactly what happened during a certain phase of his marriage. Patently, even if this comes from the horse's mouth (and what a horse!), it is still an interpretation. Anything that you ever hear about someone else from any source, even the source itself, is an interpretation which one then interprets further.
I find it interesting how, on these boards--and I am not singling anyone out--many will be more suspicious of a given character's motives than they are of internet or other hearsay or even third-party reporting about the actors themselves. If Frank Goren (say) gives us a detail of Bobby's life, even though Frank is being presented to us as a devious character, it is likely that he is giving us that detail to develop the character of Bobby and the plot. To show us actual things that are happening. If a real person gives us a real story about a real actor, not only is it an interpretation (see above), but it is also necessarily nuanced by the presenter's perspective.
|
|
|
Post by maherjunkie on Jan 15, 2009 22:59:50 GMT -5
I don't think being honest about your experiences with someone is unfair at all. If the man was just trying to write a nasty tell-all that deliberately set out to put people he worked with in the worst light possible, I would feel differently. But that's not what Mr. Harris is doing. He's simply writing about what he experienced. For myself, I'm interested in getting the lowdown on what happened with Andrew McCarthy. I've never heard the entire story. Yes, it seems if A McC didn't want to be told what to do that is reasonable but the crew seems to favor V.
|
|
|
Post by caitlen on Jan 15, 2009 23:35:40 GMT -5
QUOTE:When I posted the rumors regarding VDO's marital indiscretions, which also have been "around on the net for years," you were quick to criticize. Well there is only one very malicious place on the net, that had some very sick comments about V`s private life, thus was shut down legally Any other besides local gossip on forums by said fan`s, don`t count, as they were probably getting it from there, that is another book though ;D
|
|
|
Post by dragonsback on Jan 16, 2009 7:19:32 GMT -5
I must respectfully disagree that we are getting the true story from any one insider on the series. The true story is what omniscience might see. What we are getting, by contrast, is direct reporting, but it is still another interpretation. From a great source--it's a fantastic article, yes--but it's still an interpretation. I propose this: let's say I am in the same room as Mr. D'Onofrio. He tells me exactly what happened during a certain phase of his marriage. Patently, even if this comes from the horse's mouth (and what a horse!), it is still an interpretation. Anything that you ever hear about someone else from any source, even the source itself, is an interpretation which one then interprets further. I find it interesting how, on these boards--and I am not singling anyone out--many will be more suspicious of a given character's motives than they are of internet or other hearsay or even third-party reporting about the actors themselves. If Frank Goren (say) gives us a detail of Bobby's life, even though Frank is being presented to us as a devious character, it is likely that he is giving us that detail to develop the character of Bobby and the plot. To show us actual things that are happening. If a real person gives us a real story about a real actor, not only is it an interpretation (see above), but it is also necessarily nuanced by the presenter's perspective. Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell the blood of a Deconstructionist-um. (sorry, DRoe, rhyming can be such a trick). If I follow your elegant argument, then you are applying Jacques Barthes theory to this stand-in's story. Heavy. Language is an obstacle to meaning, and the filter of Self distorts information. Okay, I buy it, but isn't this stand-in person a witness? One of many on the LOCI set? We all agree that the Hindenburg crashed, that the Twin Towers crumbled. Each witness may have a singular perspective, but collective memory must share some facts. I recall that Kathryn Erbe said something to the effect that VDO drove her crazy sometimes. She's pretty reliable. I hate to be so vague, but haven't we heard other eyewitness reports of VDO's intense approach, bossy and directive? Perhaps the crew can confirm events - the facts - that the stand-in describes. It would be loopy to write as the stand-in does, if every other person around him would gainsay him Most of all, are the things the stand-in 'reveals' so awful? Nooooo. He sticks with the work, with the set of LOCI. I take what he says to be honest - interpretive, maybe, but I would say more "It's all in the lighting" Why should we discard his testimony? Plenty of other eyewitnesses on the set to say if he is an abject liar and sensationalist. He doesn't seem to live in fear of contradiction. Again, though, I can't understand why there is such a reflexive angst-ridden response - yeah or nay - to the stand-in's memory lane. Where's the slander?
|
|
|
Post by tjara on Jan 16, 2009 7:59:41 GMT -5
Oh jeez, what did I start. Once again - I'm not so much doubting what Harris says - most of it has been around before the Harris interwiew and VDO has even admitted to some of his "faults" himself. I'm not troubled by that, it's not even that uncommon behavior I think. I instantly had to think about David James Elliot, who's been credited with similar behavior throughout the whole time JAG was on TV. And I'm sure if I dug into it, I would find many more examples... I just felt that some comments were out of line (and not related to CI either), but I'm hoping he'll elaborate more in the book. Some things he dropped to get his book sold, I guess (Not only about VDO, but in other respects, too). Maybe it was the "tell-all" attitude that I didn't like, but that was an impression I got from the interview. As I stated above - sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it. But in the end I can just say that - for whatever reason - his comments didn't sit well with me. That might be because of who I am or because of my education or whatever. I boils down to a gut feeling in the end - more to my interpretation of what Harris said. Which I why I will get out of this thread. If others didn't get that feeling from the interview, I guess I'll just have to accept that and I'm not doing it in vain. It's just different, because we all are
|
|
|
Post by caitlen on Jan 16, 2009 8:11:29 GMT -5
Oh jeez, what did I start. Once again - I'm not so much doubting what Harris says - most of it has been around before the Harris interwiew and VDO has even admitted to some of his "faults" himself. I'm not troubled by that, it's not even that uncommon behavior I think. I instantly had to think about David James Elliot, who's been credited with similar behavior throughout the whole time JAG was on TV. And I'm sure if I dug into it, I would find many more examples... I just felt that some comments were out of line (and not related to CI either), but I'm hoping he'll elaborate more in the book. Some things he dropped to get his book sold, I guess (Not only about VDO, but in other respects, too). Maybe it was the "tell-all" attitude that I didn't like, but that was an impression I got from the interview. As I stated above - sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it. But in the end I can just say that - for whatever reason - his comments didn't sit well with me. That might be because of who I am or because of my education or whatever. I boils down to a gut feeling in the end - more to my interpretation of what Harris said. Which I why I will get out of this thread. If others didn't get that feeling from the interview, I guess I'll just have to accept that and I'm not doing it in vain. It's just different, because we all are You didnt start anything, you gave your opinion on the interview, i want to read the book. Im sure it will have a mixed balance of his time with everybody on set, not just V. Remember, V fan`s usually only want to read about V, not other things, so the interview excerpt was probably written up that way. When the book comes out, it will be a good topic to regroup on to find out what all got from it
|
|
|
Post by dragonsback on Jan 16, 2009 8:30:25 GMT -5
But in the end I can just say that - for whatever reason - his comments didn't sit well with me. That might be because of who I am or because of my education or whatever. I boils down to a gut feeling in the end - more to my interpretation of what Harris said. ) Well, yes, that seems to about finish your comments in this thread, as you said, tjrara. Your personal history, your 'gut feeling' is past discussion. Or makes it a closed-ended one. There's no dialogue possible with vague and purely reactive sentiments. Which is okay, but you are such an interesting voice, I had rather hoped you would expand on your reflexive ill feeling (about nasturtiums lightly tossed at VDO, not an object of your desire
|
|
|
Post by dragonsback on Jan 16, 2009 8:44:26 GMT -5
I don`t see anything wrong with being honest, ( do you want lies and fantasies??) the things Mr Harris said per say, have been around the on the net for years. Hmmm....this comment of yours is a surprise. When I posted the rumors regarding VDO's marital indiscretions, which also have been "around on the net for years," you were quick to criticize. . I have to say that I too was surprised.
|
|
|
Post by caitlen on Jan 16, 2009 10:22:09 GMT -5
This is a very surprising thread ;D
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Jan 16, 2009 11:03:22 GMT -5
Tjara--Please don't censor yourself.
It's a difficult line between discussing how an actor's personal life fits in with his or her work and gossip (I was about to write malicious gossip, but gossip is almost always malicious, isn't it?) I'm not sure where it is.
My two bits--I wish Mr. D'Onofrio was a saint. I wish EVERYONE was a saint. But they aren't, and he isn't. Even a cursory look at his past reveals that he's not been perfect in his private life. But, in the end, his private life is his private life, to be his and his family's. All he owes us is a good job.
Because I think he does a good job--even if his choices are unusual, they're deeply felt--I'd like him to have a good life. He seems to have that now, and I hope that's true.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by dragonsback on Jan 16, 2009 11:28:18 GMT -5
And I say he's doing a bad job. He was a great actor, and now he isn't. He has no work worth mentioning.
And if he has a good life, show me . To a great actor, acting is the life , not siring children. Unless he's moved to Kansas. The rest is mush-bucket and ordinary, and anyone's game. I do not wish an ordinary life for D'Onofrio..
|
|
|
Post by annabelleleigh on Jan 16, 2009 12:01:54 GMT -5
Actually, my take is that VDO was much worst than portrayed in this article, and that Ron Harris was being as kind as possible...." Brava, DJ. Is this not the obvious truth? Whether VDO has had an epiphany since Harris left or is continuing to shamble down the road to career destruction, none of us truly knows. (Although I do have my own opinion on that.) However Ron Harris's intent is clear. He hasn't exploited his position as ex-stand-in for VDO. This is no "tell all" book -- which (possibly) it could have been. Harris is writing about his own life and experiences in show business, of which VDO was part. He has every right to do so (and perhaps profit from it.) That he chose to be "as kind as possible" to VDO is evidence of the man's good character. AL P.S. Stripped down, this appears to be yet another board argument that springs from the acute discomfort some fans feel when their fantasies of VDO are challenged. Oh how I long for new episodes when we can focus more on substance.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Jan 16, 2009 12:52:20 GMT -5
Much easier to have fantasies about Bobby Goren(g).
Patcat
|
|