|
Post by Metella on Apr 25, 2006 11:04:29 GMT -5
Yes, this was my take on it also. Janethyland - when you watch it let us know if you still feel the same. Since you didn't see it, I think it may be more "in your face" than you expect.
much more than a nod to fans - it took out a billboard and connected all the dots.
|
|
|
Post by mimi1802 on Apr 25, 2006 11:49:04 GMT -5
I have to gently disagree with you Janet,
I do not have any acting training, but it seems to me that if an actor empty oneself to let the character take all the place it becomes "acting" which is the opposite of Method Acting.
I strongly believe an actor NEVER forgets himself when acting. In the episode the strongest line was given by the murderer himself: "the only true feelings are your own" and I believe that to be true. No matter how immerse you are in the character if the actor doesn't let room for himself...it becomes fake.
A good actor, for me, is one that have understood the character psyche in a way that each action, reaction, word, movement etc. is dealt in a way that you don't see the actor forcing the action, reaction, word, movement. This implies an internalization of the character, but also a natural, personal response by the actor. Which in some way can explain why, in most of his films, Mr. D'Onofrio uses similar mannerisms, I believe they're his own mannerisms.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Apr 25, 2006 12:53:07 GMT -5
LOCIfan,you mean its a sort of merry go round with all these actors?I see you are a Holmes freak.We are coming in from different ends...nice that the programme can hold us together! It was something of a merry-go-round! I'm not actually a huge Holmes fan, but for some reason just know that bit of trivia. But, if you should ever have any Holmes questions, there are several here.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Apr 25, 2006 13:00:58 GMT -5
Janet: it takes an intrepid soul to comment on an episode without having seen it but you did good! I'm enjoying reading this discussion. Locifan/techguy/SarahIvy: You experiencing disorientation with "the flip/flop" in and out of this story must mirror what the method actors (the sane ones) go through preparing, doing and then leaving a role behind. It says a lot about Vincent's self confidence and knowledge about himself as a man that he can do it so well and so readily. He is the characters he inhabits in the method acting sense of the word and yet he always stays true to himself. As Mimi pointed out, his mannerisms are his own. He is invisible from one role to another and his characters speak loud but, at the same time, the essence of who Vincent is, is recognizable in them all. This is not the case with most other actors. Tom Cruise, for instance, is the only recognizable thing in any of his movies; larger than life than even Ethan Hunt and I don't think that is simply because of his fame and stature in the industry. It's because he lacks the depth needed to jump into the abyss and the fortitude to drag himself back out when it's all over. Harsh criticism but I think it's true. It takes courage to become Carl Stahger the way Vincent did when it would have been just as easy to prepare the role another route. It also makes me think that for the regular Joe actor superficiality is not a character flaw after all but a survival mechanism.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Apr 25, 2006 13:01:44 GMT -5
Goreamesfan,what is METAMOMENT? I dont understand the word. And thanks,Spankypup for the 1984 refernce in Stress Position...I havent seen it. I described this episode as very meta, and can take a shot at explaining. It's a term that refers to something that is self-referential. For example, the play-within-a-play in Hamlet is meta-theatrical. The old Dick Van Dyke show, a television series about a television series is meta, etc... The effect is always a bit distancing, because the audience can never forget that they're not just watching a play, but a play inside of a play. But it can be used to great effect (as in Hamlet, where the purpose of the little meta play is not simply to entertain, but to allow Hamlet to determine whether or not his uncle murdered his father). There were lots of meta-moments for me in Vacancy. But for me, the distancing and distraction it created were too much. It didn't enhance the story for me, but instead kicked me out of it entirely. I'll be interested to read your thoughts on the episode once you've seen it.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Apr 25, 2006 13:08:35 GMT -5
Sirenna, you've hit the nail right on the head. I agree that it must be not only disorienting, but very difficult. And that, like you said, distinguishes very skilled actors from movie stars. Tom Cruise is a great example. He's such a huge presence that it overwhelms any character he's portraying. Same with Julia Roberts. She's just so much larger than life, that the characters are always, first and foremost, Julia Roberts. And that can be entertaining too. But it's very different than watching someone like VDO or Judy Davis inhabit a character -- regardless of the process they use to get there.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Apr 25, 2006 13:22:10 GMT -5
Maybe hes damned if he overacts( Season 1) and damned if he underacts (season 4). I quite like the variety! Bear with me here but I keep envisioning a marvel comic book adaptation made into a Summer BlockBuster! of two alter egos who inevitably battle to the death (conveniently starting in the movies last 20 minutes and ending with ten minutes left for the wrap up and light hearted final scene.) Mild-mannered Tom Cruise, so warped by fame and ego that a bad newspaper review triggers a metabolic change, turning him into RegularJoeActor, arch enemy of SuperActor! played by Vincent, of course, who never asked for his powers but uses them only for good. Long story short, I think it's a cop out when an actor says success/previous roles/etc limits the characters they can play. Actually no, not them. They see themselves the way the audience sees them playing the roles they have played and believe the audience's interpretation of their roles as being of themselves. It's the mirror gone extreme. These actors, (Peter Brooks, a British director, would have called them 'deadly' actors) have decided to see themselves the way their audience sees the roles they were guilty of acting and then act, or not act, accordingly. If you see what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by madger on Apr 25, 2006 14:02:46 GMT -5
Good one Sirenna. The problem is good character actors make you forget they're actors, therefore making it hard to remember them as people. VDO has been around for 20 years, but how many of us noticed him as an actor before LOCI? I personally didn't really notice him until MIB, and then only after I read something about his work in the movie, to this day hubbie calls him "Ehgard".
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Apr 25, 2006 14:19:07 GMT -5
I'm one of those Holmes fans (jumps up and down).
H-m-m...I didn't find the references to Method Acting disturbing, but a darkly funny commentary, one that I suspect only die hard fans of LOCI would get.
Actors don't fare well on LOCI, do they? But then again, I guess few professions do.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Apr 25, 2006 18:48:00 GMT -5
You're right, Patcat, actors have taken a beating on CI!!
And, I agree that this episode was one where, if I didn't know anything about VDO other than what I see onscreen, I probably wouldn't have noticed anything askew. Definitely a case of TMI for me with this one.
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Apr 25, 2006 20:58:26 GMT -5
And, I agree that this episode was one where, if I didn't know anything about VDO other than what I see onscreen, I probably wouldn't have noticed anything askew. Definitely a case of TMI for me with this one. I think us die-hard CI/VDO fans are simply distracted by our own in depth knowledge of him and the show. I'm betting the causual viewers and non-VDO fans are clueless. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Apr 25, 2006 20:59:05 GMT -5
Actors don't fare well on LOCI, do they? But then again, I guess few professions do. Patcat Add doctors to that list.
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Apr 25, 2006 21:01:04 GMT -5
I strongly believe an actor NEVER forgets himself when acting. Didn't Vincent once say if you pretend to be the character, if you try to become the character, that it is faking?
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Apr 25, 2006 22:42:46 GMT -5
The actor vacates his own skin to occupy the vacant skin of another. As Lilee/ Sirenna say, it’s more than Method acting, because there are non-Method actors who do it, like Anthony Hopkins whom you mention, his Nixon being a good example. Just to clarify, Janet, I'm in the camp that thinks Vincent never subsumes. I think he lets his characters in temporarily but always that essence of who he is is retained. Whether he does it purposely to put his stamp on what he does or whether he is just so sure of who he is that it won't be denied, no matter what role he plays, is debatable.
|
|
|
Post by mimi1802 on Apr 26, 2006 8:35:28 GMT -5
Didn't Vincent once say if you pretend to be the character, if you try to become the character, that it is faking? He's entitle to his opinion! Whatever works for him. Gerard Depardieu once said that he doesn't even bother to learn his lines and have played numerous scenes with his script "scotchtaped" on the other actor's forehead. Yet Depardieu is considered one of the best French actor. Like I said, whatever works for him! The most important thing, I believe, for an artist is his/her freedom. Thus, artists are never bounded by their words. What seems true today might feel false the next day. Not subjected oneself to enslavement doesn't prevent you from taking responsibility for your views, but it gives you the liberty to experience life and maybe change your mind. D'Onofrio might have said that then...maybe he doesn't feel like that today, or maybe he does! It makes sense that he would think that. How the actor's get to the essence of the character is his own problem and journey. For me it's the end result that counts; the rest is just work...their work! Well Miss Sirenna..." subsume" hey! I like that! Big fat liar you don't need no writing session with Balcer. I think that the actor in the episode couldn't let go of that character because once he entered the "serial killer's" world a whole chapter of his life unfolded. The more he became the killer; the more he understood himself. Everything that seemed out of his reach, out of his knowledge resurfaced, bounding him in a sick way to the character.
|
|