|
Post by kawaiidragonfoe821 on Apr 26, 2006 10:19:14 GMT -5
& thats why i'm not an actor, I find it tiring just being myself LOL
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Apr 26, 2006 16:54:43 GMT -5
Great info on the Metawhatsit.........it must be the same as what is called Alienation Effect over here...theres a german word for it...Ver(something or other,I forget Well, yes and no. Alienation effect, or Verfremdungs-effekt, was one of Brecht's innovations as part of his "epic theatre". He believed theatre should appeal to both the emotions and the reason, and one way in which he sought to engage the viewer's reason was by using anti-illusive devices in order to "make the familiar strange". He never wanted the audience to forget that they were watching actors on a stage immitating human interaction. Some of the anti-illusive devices he commonly used were stand-alone, loosely connected scenes, having an actor break character and address the audience directly at crucial points in the story, the use of seemingly incongruous musical interludes in the middle of or between scenes, flooding the stage with intense white light for no apparent reason, leaving in full view of the audience the entire "backstage" of the theatre. Meta is not quite the same. Though the distancing effect may be similar, it is not what defines meta. Meta is self-reflexive. A play within a play is meta-theatrical, a film within a film is meta-cinematic, etc... A television series about serial killers which presents an episode about a method actor who, while studying to perform the role of a serial killer becomes one himself and is investigated and caught by a detective played by a method actor is meta-six-ways-to-sunday!! What defines meta is the self-reflexiveness, not the alienation effect. p.s. Can you tell I was a theatre major as an undergraduate?! And my mother said I'd never use it!!
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Apr 27, 2006 20:40:53 GMT -5
Great stuff.....Im going to print this out.It refreshed my memory.In the last ten years Ive been concentrating on Painting so i lose touch!!! But what is the origins of Meta=theatrical.......I never met it in my own studies.Is it an American term,or universal? Who first used it? These are great questions, janethyland, but I'm afraid I'm not sure of the answers. The technique obviously goes way, way back, but the term, I think started springing up in the 1980's as a way of discussing meta-narratives in post-modern novels. Beyond that, I don't know...
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Apr 27, 2006 20:44:06 GMT -5
I still think that moment between Goren and the actor might be a crucial moment of irony between Balcer and VDO,each playing off the other!!Ill let you know when i see it!!!!How arrogant of me to say all this and not even to have seen it!!! I think you may be right about this, and that's what I found self-indulgent and off-putting, especially since it pulled me so far out of the story. I want illusion when I'm watching CI, and don't want to see the little man behind the curtain! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Apr 28, 2006 7:23:23 GMT -5
Well; LOCI Fan and Janethyland sounds like an old discussion between Observer and myself! and I tell you, CI has stayed central for both of us over all these seasons. I also don't want to see behind the curtain - doesn't mean I don't like to think etc .... but I want it to be its own reality. Observer, I still remember one time when she was evaluating how a shoulder was shrugged and the meaning behind it and the intention of the actor. My eyes glazed over but the show still works just fine for both of us.
|
|
|
Post by mimi1802 on Apr 28, 2006 9:35:34 GMT -5
Maybe Meta should have its own thread!
Janet "Meta-thinking" is not a concept that applies solely to theatre. All academic subjects use Meta-thinking. So yes it is a universal concept.
Meta expresses everything at the same time (what you think about the subject, what surrounds the subject, what goes beyond the subject, your relation with the subject). It's a superior level of abstraction...I guess. Shoveling clouds in its purest form. Ah well!
For example, the concept of "structuralism" present in all social studies pretends that everything works obviously as a structure (sociology, family, language, psychology etc) therefore each element of that structure is solely defined by its contrasting and equivalent relations. Two levels of structure are identified one is ideal: it's the abstract form of the structure (accepted in its tacit form and usully subconscious) and the other is real: it's its visible manifestation. Big names: Ferdinand de Saussure (in linguistics); Claude Lévy-Strauss (in anthropology); Jacques Lacan (in psychology) and Pierre Bourdieu (in sociology...no wait I think he's a post-structuralist)
For theatre and acting I would guess that Stanislavsky would be one of Meta-thinker. Anyway, you can go to any university and search classes that go by the name of Concepts in [insert academic subject] or Theories in [insert academic subject] and I'm pretty sure you're in Meta-land!
Ok now I have a headache!
|
|
|
Post by kawaiidragonfoe821 on Apr 29, 2006 8:03:55 GMT -5
Indeed it is, Janet & I'm sad to say that's why it's not doing too well in the ratings these days. I'm almost convinced that its not the show's fault, people just don't seem to want to use their grey matter anymore when watching TV .
|
|
|
Post by filmnoir5 on Apr 30, 2006 17:54:48 GMT -5
Indeed it is, Janet & I'm sad to say that's why it's not doing too well in the ratings these days. I'm almost convinced that its not the show's fault, people just don't seem to want to use their grey matter anymore when watching TV . I wonder if one of the reasons the show holds up in the summer reruns has to do with the fact that people can watch L&O:CI and pay closer attention to the show without so many new episodes of so many other shows on Sunday night to keep up with. I also wonder if summer viewers are able to watch the show again and enjoy the character interaction or the story depending on what they did not focus on in the first viewing. I liked this episode but not as well as Wrongful Life. I have always liked the way that CI takes us in to the occupations or hobbies of the perpetrators or victims. It is very rare for me not to learn something from each episode.
|
|
|
Post by sarahlee on Jul 24, 2006 19:37:33 GMT -5
I very much enjoy watching CI re-runs. I cannot think of the last series that I could watch again and again and not learn or see something new. One of my recent insights is that Goren is not as unstable as I first thought. He has teetered on the edge of sanity, but he stepped back. This epi was chilling and poignant, and one of my favourites.
|
|
|
Post by filmnoir5 on Sept 6, 2006 6:57:20 GMT -5
Who is the actor who plays Tim Rainey? Does anyone know his work? Is he well known or am i just being naive here? Desmond Harrington. He has done a few movies like Wrong Turn. He has worked for Wolf before in the short lived TV series "Dragnet" which was produced by Wolf. He was also in a miniseries called Taken that appeared on SCI FI.
|
|
|
Post by deathroe on Jul 5, 2008 20:58:59 GMT -5
I've reread this thread because the episode's on right now on USA, and I find I have many of the same reactions that I did 2-3 years ago. I don't find the method acting angle intrusive. However, I find the whole Eames "hi, I don't like drunks" thing as intrusive as I did then, and I'm wondering if anyone else felt that. I felt like the story Eames/Erbe told was too long and didn't fit in neatly as a back story the way all those oblique references to the detectives' back story did earlier on.
And then of course, later on, we find out that she drinks martinis and used to tend bar, so that seems like kind of an inconsistency. I never really bought Eames tending bar, at least not the one we see now. She comes across as introverted.
That said--and I don't know if they intended this or not--the Eames' "triggered memory" works in parallel with the perp's, and that is kind of a nice touch.
|
|
|
Post by outerbankschick on Jul 5, 2008 21:50:58 GMT -5
I've reread this thread because the episode's on right now on USA, and I find I have many of the same reactions that I did 2-3 years ago. I don't find the method acting angle intrusive. However, I find the whole Eames "hi, I don't like drunks" thing as intrusive as I did then, and I'm wondering if anyone else felt that. I felt like the story Eames/Erbe told was too long and didn't fit in neatly as a back story the way all those oblique references to the detectives' back story did earlier on. And then of course, later on, we find out that she drinks martinis and used to tend bar, so that seems like kind of an inconsistency. I never really bought Eames tending bar, at least not the one we see now. She comes across as introverted. That said--and I don't know if they intended this or not--the Eames' "triggered memory" works in parallel with the perp's, and that is kind of a nice touch. The first time I saw "Vacancy" I was completely clueless about VDO being a method actor so the references didn't strike me the way they did some who knew that. I thought it was very interesting, all of those boxes Rainey had. I didn't know what method acting was until this epi. I thought the way the story of Alex's aunt came out was a little too neat, too. I would have liked to see her a bit more emotional about it. She needed more shock in her expression, and her tone. And can someone help me. . .what the heck does "rocky mountain hard" mean? That Megan was "frigid"? That she was "hard" as in "rude" or was it a slam because the guy also suspected she was a lesbian? I tried Googling the expression and all I got was a bunch of blogs about mountain biking! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by deathroe on Jul 5, 2008 22:35:19 GMT -5
I always took it as that Megan was "frigid," or an "ice queen." Not an expression I'd use.
As to the drunk aunt thing, I'm not always comfortable with these post facto attempts at characterizing Eames. I'm not sure they do justice to how strong Erbe's characterization was to begin with.
|
|
eva
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 86
|
Post by eva on Jul 6, 2008 3:21:32 GMT -5
Oh yes, the aunt. I never liked they way she was put in. Backstories are good but this one was almost poorly written into the episode. "Oh, my aunt! Of course, she was an alcoholic. I forgot, but now that they mentioned it..." So Eames was triggered and pushed the girl (forgot the name). That's okay. She's only human- well, a fictional character, but still . But it never crosses her mind that she got emotional because of her aunt? And her partner- a genius and a very, very empathetic person doesn't pick up the subject after he saw his partner- his friend I assume- got carried away like this? A stranger senses more than him? It came so out of the blue. I least that's how I felt. And it just didn't work for me.
|
|
|
Post by deathroe on Jul 6, 2008 3:26:43 GMT -5
Mind you, the later episodes have seemed to document that Goren gets a little bewildered where Eames is concerned ... PS: Eames is fictional? Aw, darn.
|
|