|
Post by velocity on Oct 4, 2004 23:32:57 GMT -5
Okay, here is to open free exchange. Let's see if it's words or truely followed.
1. I thought P. Collection was same-o, same-o syndrome and not half as much fun as Semi-Detached which danced to a different drummer. I like to mix up the formula and found Semi-Detached refreshing and P. Collection lacking in the same. I am sure the actors love a departure. It will help keep them awake during their stressful 14 hr days
2. I agree personal insults are not enjoyable. What Vincent does, or wears outside of his Goren suit is speculation at best. He is worth more than being picked apart by speculation.
3. I love his longer hair and am so happy the butchers who groomed him during Season 3 have been deep-sixed. He can looked well groomed for the character and still retain some of those great curls nature gave him. I love it and enjoy it. I am not a stubble person on anybody, I prefer clean shaven any time. I do however, know that was a choice of Vincent's when forming his Goren, so I totally accept his creation on his terms.
I respect the talent of this gifted actor and give him a lot of credit developing a fictional character that promps such tough critique. We ponder on boards endlessly about a person constructed out of the imagination of Vincent D'Onofrio. His creation, is his call that is my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 5, 2004 1:39:54 GMT -5
Sirenna,
I’m not sure how much we actually differ.
I agree that the actual scenes, dialogue or interview excerpts are good bases for discussing the series and other work by the actors and writers.
I agree, and D’Onofrio has said as much in interviews, that the movies he’s been in have not always turned out well. I suppose we may disagree on how much of that he should have been able to tell at the time that he got involved in the project. I think there are so many elements that can shift during the production process that it can sometimes be difficult to predict.
When you talk about going over his mistakes, I’m not sure we would agree on what they were, point for point – but I do agree he’s made some. Heck, he decided to portray a chronic meth user as being overweight – something that is virtually impossible, physiologically speaking.
I agree that the qualities he brings to the job have a tremendous impact on his work. However, the description that, “...he tries to make the character behave the way he, himself would, were he in that situation...” is only one part of how he describes his process. If you leave it at that it sounds like those actors who only ever portray themselves in different settings.
For one thing, “...in that situation...” in his case means the situation of having had that character’s experiences from infancy. And then he does something he calls layering on the choices. That, I think, is the philosopher’s stone that turns his acting into gold.
In each of us, our personality, our character, is shaped largely by the interplay of our experiences with the choices we make in response to those experiences. Each choice we make affects us, and the effects of those choices build over time.
D’Onofrio is able to get inside the experience of having lived such a different life, and made such different choices along the way, that he can portray someone very different from himself with such depth that the underlying, subconscious levels of expression, tone of voice and body language all reflect the character’s experience.
So Carl Stargher, describing his baptism and the brutal abuse he received from his father, is completely convincing – I know, because I’ve been with victims of such brutal physical abuse in support groups, when they’ve told their stories. And he’s convincing because of the qualities that D’Onofrio brings to his acting. But Stargher is not just “D’Onofrio in a different situation.”<br>
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 5, 2004 1:48:57 GMT -5
Trisha,
Something Sirenna said in her post, about D’Onofrio not seeing himself as a hero, and something I found myself writing about in my reply to her made me take another look at our disagreement.
I still disagree with your premise, but I apologize for reacting so emotionally to the tone of your posts. I realize now that I got so defensive because there is a way that I see D’Onofrio as a kind of hero, and it involves some of the very qualities of his acting that you seemed to be denying, so I over-reacted.
The quality of integrity that D’Onofrio brings to his acting is such that he did something I’ve never known of any other actor to do. He did his best to deliberately walk into hell, to find a way to really understand what it feels like to be a severely abused child. And he did a better job, not only than any actor I’ve ever seen, but than any therapist I’ve ever encountered who was not severely abused.
By immersing himself in the experiences of such victims, he subjected himself to something called vicarious traumatization – with nightmares, intrusive mental images, etc. – something that only rescue workers and therapists who deal with trauma victims usually experience. And he did it deliberately, in order to find the truth inside a role that most people would have portrayed as a two-dimensional monster.
To me, that was the act of a hero – to put himself through that in order to tell the truth about something most people try to hide, or turn away from. In that scene beside Carl’s first victim, D’Onofrio has said he didn’t work with specific lines from a script, he just riffed on it. I believe it. “Everybody just looked at me. Nobody helped me.” That’s the voice of all chronically abused children. He put himself through that process so he could really portray the experience of that kind of inner pain, so he could speak our truth.
So yeah, he’s a bit of a hero for me, and when I feel that some of the qualities he brings to his acting are being dismissed, I can get a bit hot. My reactions were probably even more intense because of the subject matter of The Posthumous Collection, and my sense that the depth of his portrayal of Goren’s reactions in this ep comes from that process he went through for The Cell. But that’s an explanation, because I think you deserve one. It’s not meant as an excuse. I over-reacted to your posts, and I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Oct 5, 2004 6:51:28 GMT -5
Sirenna: no, I was not talking about the parents & the concentration camps - I got that. Now by LOCIfan's description of the other photographer, the reference to Nazi doesn't bug me. Without knowing that - it just seemed too sensational & thrown in. Ah, Observer, I'm glad you mention you overreacted - it seemed to me no thing at all ...it is as you fundamentally disagreeing with me on our takes of Goren's backstory & how detailed things are really planned. Mr. D'Onofrio really may be rather slobbish when is kicking his feet up at home (I haven't come across such rumors) but so what? That was an observation that if this rumor was true, hope he puts up boundaries - he has spoken of boundaries before, so I didn't think that was out of line. now to the Van Dyke ...... sure we have seen with that before .... but are you going to assume that on all his time off he prefers and grows it like that .... That is just as speculative as the slob aspect - perhaps he was recovering from a cold & WAS a slob one day ..... So I caution the sweeping conclusions which I myself have been guilty of. Don't be so sore Observer, you are not fighting to stay here, no "owners" on this board are trolling for reasons to kick anyone out - so relax and give us more of your observations & don't feel a need to defend yourself - I personally will only attack your ideas ;D as you well know, you are well liked.
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Oct 5, 2004 9:15:54 GMT -5
Observer, no need to apologize I know that your negative feelings were directed at my opinion and not at me personally. I understand what you mean, and I don't want to be gossipy, either. I just do see a relevance if the rumor is true. There are times when I get busy or depressed and my house gets a little messy, and I look like crap- but I *know* that I can't bring it to work with me or I'll get fired. Goren has to know that to. It's one thing to go to work with a days growth, but that's as far as his superiors would let him push it, and they wouldn't let him do it every day. You, me, and Sirenna all agree that D'Onofrio uses his own personal insights into the characters he plays, and sometimes he is quite wrong. Often he is very right, though. In this instance, no matter how many fans may like it, he's wrong. It's distractingly unreal and as he is still pushing it, and in the case of Semi-Detached, pushing it further, I'm becoming increasingly annoyed that no one has stepped in and said, "You know, Vince, I understand the level of realism you are trying to bring to this character, but besides being tired, anxious, or suffering from insomnia because of his pathological need to literally work through his issues, he also HAS to be aware that he can be reprimanded for showing up for work looking like that. I don't feel censored, and I don't think it was anyone's intention to censor, so let's just drop that. As for the Nazi film, I think that Heltman knew that what made his work so interesting was his connection to his parents, and his anger that they were victimized with millions of others. He praised their strength to survive, but at the same time he was angry that the Jews as a whole has not stood up to the Nazis in the beginning. This was reflected in his work as he used women as objects of strength as well as beauty. Being part of the business for so long had worn him down. He needed to reconnect with his admiration for survival in the face of overwhelming adversity. The struggle for strength and grace in the face of death appealed to him for this. He used the Nazi film to reconnect to his anger with the Jews who allowed themselves to be victimized instead of fighting back. Using the film they created during their enslavement was very symbolic, and I think it added much to Heltman's character. It made me appreciate his artistry much more.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 5, 2004 10:05:27 GMT -5
...so relax and give us more of your observations & don't feel a need to defend yourself - I personally will only attack your ideas ;D as you well know, you are well liked. Thanks, Metella. Now, back to our regularly scheduled disagreement... I didn’t know a thing about the photographer this guy apparently was partly based on, but for me the film made perfect sense. This guy was trying to work through his issues around his parents “allowing” themselves to be victimized. As part of that attempt he uses film made by victims of the same regime that victimized his parents. What could make more psychological sense? But my main disagreement with your earlier post is about Goren’s reaction to the sister’s “bad nurse” story. I don’t think he’s giving her a stare – for one thing, his eyes drop after a moment, which is not typical if he’s giving someone the “you are loathsome” stare. And in that first moment, before he looks down, his expression is neither a hard stare, nor a flat, expressionless stare. That first moment, before he looks down, looks to me like his ‘freeze’ reaction. When Goren gets hit with something he’s really not ready for, especially if it hits a nerve, he has a momentary freeze reaction – his expression locks in place for an instant. This has the adaptive function of keeping him from showing a vulnerable reaction; but if you’re alert to it, it’s a definite tell. You can see examples in Badge, when the suspect hits him with the “you’re not that frugal” bit; in Mad Hops, when the coach does his “problem with authority figures” bit; and even in Consumed, when he registers what’s in the wine bottle. That one didn’t hit a nerve so much as take him absolutely off-guard and require a complete reprocessing of the data to come up with a new plan of action. In the scene with the sister, Goren is not thrown by the description of the serious scalding by an adult caretaker – which is, on most objective levels, a more horrific act. But when she describes the beatings, he freezes, then looks down, and in the next shot on him he still seems to be reacting, though he’s already back in action, going through the photos. So I’m not only disagreeing, I’m raising the horrid specter of Goren’s childhood. I know you won’t be pleased, but I just call ‘em like I see ‘em. There’s been speculation on the boards for quite a while about whether Goren’s mom’s schizophrenia caused her to be physically abusive, or ‘merely’ traumatically frightening and unpredictable. The people I’ve known and/or talked to who had schizophrenic parents all experienced physical abuse – but that’s still a pretty small sample, so I wasn’t ready to make any assumptions. But a number of Goren’s reactions, in various situations, have caused me more and more to suspect that there was physical abuse involved. This scene strongly suggests to me that there was. Goren’s affect, later, when he tells the suspect, “You know, you can repress the memory of abuse all you want, but it always finds a way to express itself,” also seems to reinforce that impression – especially the way he looks down and his voice drops when he says, “...but it always finds a way to express itself.” That sounds to me like self-awareness, the knowledge that he is being affected on some level. Of course, I could be wrong. And I’m fully prepared for fireworks – though I’m not sure anyone could be fully prepared for a purple Metella with green fireworks coming from... well, wherever they’re coming from... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 5, 2004 10:13:58 GMT -5
Trisha, thanks for your response. And thanks for clarifying why you react so strongly to Goren’s stubble. That has always puzzled me; but, like you, I can get quite irritated by things that I know are, as you say, distractingly unreal, so I have a much better understanding now of your reaction.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Oct 5, 2004 11:14:30 GMT -5
Okay, here is to open free exchange. Let's see if it's words or truely followed. 1. I thought P. Collection was same-o, same-o syndrome and not half as much fun as Semi-Detached which danced to a different drummer. I like to mix up the formula and found Semi-Detached refreshing and P. Collection lacking in the same. I am sure the actors love a departure. It will help keep them awake during their stressful 14 hr days. I respect the talent of this gifted actor and give him a lot of credit developing a fictional character that promps such tough critique. We ponder on boards endlessly about a person constructed out of the imagination of Vincent D'Onofrio. His creation, is his call that is my opinion. Count me in the camp that enjoys seeing things mixed up. I loved seeing Goren outside his comfort zone and hope we'll get to see more of that -- in non-Nicole Wallace episodes -- as the season progresses. On the other hand, I also enjoy a straight out, familiar LOCI episode. All in all, I'm happy with what we've seen this season. However, as an erstwhile writer, I have to take issue with the comment that the character of Goren was/is "constructed out of the imagination of Vincent D'Onofrio". Let's not forget that the character of Goren came from the creative minds of the writers who first imagined him, Dick Wolf and Rene Balcer. And that Goren continues to be created and imagined by the writers who work on the series. I'm a great fan of D'Onofrio's, and believe he does a wonderful job of embodying and interpretting the character, but to say he created Goren solely from his imagination is giving him too much credit and giving the writers none at all. So, here's a shout out to all the terrific LOCI writers! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 5, 2004 11:15:25 GMT -5
Hi, Velocity, Well, I liked The Posthumous Collection. It wasn’t as much of a change-up as Semi-Detached, and as Metella said, the plot was fairly direct. Still, I thought it was well done, and it didn’t seem “same-o, same-o” to me. Otherwise I pretty much agree with you. I liked your comment that, “He can look well groomed for the character and still retain some of those great curls nature gave him” LOCIfan, thanks for picking up on that! I meant to go back and say pretty much the same thing (though I might not have thought to include Wolf) -- Goren is very much a collaborative creation.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Oct 5, 2004 11:45:24 GMT -5
Deep discussion. Courteous. I like very much!
My two bits--I'd suspect Goren would also have some serious control issues. Even if his mother didn't physically abuse him, I'm sure the unpredictable nature of her illness left its mark. He attempts in his work to find meaning in chaos. This could turn Goren into a dangerous, controlling character. And I believe he struggles with that, as well as other darker sides to his character.
What saves him---indeed, makes him a heroic character--is his self awareness. He knows and acknowledges his darker side, and attempts to deal with it. He's human, so he doesn't always succeed.
He's also not a machine--he's very bright, and he works very hard. I like the point about his moments of thought--I agree there's a distinct behavior there. It's one of the many things I like about D'Onofrio's performance--he consistently demonstrates, in fairly consistent behaviors, how Goren's brain functions. (That's not to take away from the writers' and Balcer's contributions, but this strikes me as something D'Onofrio has contributed). It's difficult to demonstrate how someone thinks, and I think D'Onofrio does a terrific job.
Patcat
|
|
jaquetta
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 171
|
Post by jaquetta on Oct 5, 2004 14:39:15 GMT -5
I like Patcat's analysis of Goren's control issues. In the unstable world that he would have grown up in, I also would imagine that little Bobby would do everything he could to contain his world in some sort of orderly fashion. It would lead to a dark side that Goren as an adult would be aware of, and uses to his advantage. So far.
Sadly, I have no deep insights of my own to add, I just thought 'eww, mean!' at the sisters offhand recital of torments of Spence's childhood and a big yawn for another "ripped from the headlines" - or more accurately, "borrowed celebrity personality" character.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Oct 5, 2004 16:07:27 GMT -5
Sadly, I have no deep insights of my own to add, I just thought 'eww, mean!' at the sisters offhand recital of torments of Spence's childhood and a big yawn for another "ripped from the headlines" - or more accurately, "borrowed celebrity personality" character. Do elaborate, jaquetta! Was it just this last episode that made you yawn due to the "borrowed celebrity personality" character, or are you getting sick of the conceit? Because in Semi-Detached, the shock-jock was an amalgam of celebrities like Howard Stern/Imus and mostly Spaulding Gray. Helmut Newton was obviously the inspiration for Heltman, although he's hardly a celebrity that's been done to death on television (at least not the shows I watch). But beyond that, it seems that most of the episodes have ripped from the headlines characteristics. How was Posthumous Collection different for you?
|
|
jaquetta
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 171
|
Post by jaquetta on Oct 5, 2004 18:24:29 GMT -5
It wasn't all that different. L&O (the entire 'brand') seems to love those ripped from the headlines stories and I find them dull and lazy. The 24 hour news tends to harp the stories into a mind numbing frenzy and then to get a thinly fictionalized version just drives me nuts. Occasionally, sure. It's kind of fun to twist the stories any way you want, but all the freaking time? Surely the writers can come up with something.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Oct 5, 2004 19:04:11 GMT -5
Saying let’s drop the subject when the subject is censorship is like a red flag to a bull or perhaps a high cliff to a lemming. (There is irony and humour in your comment, Trisha. That's all I'm saying. ) I talked about implicit pressure, not censorship in my post to Observer but 'censorship' was in several of the replies to my post. You, me and Observer are often more in agreement that not and especailly so on the importance of open expression. I, too, don’t feel like I’m being censored by anyone here. But LOCI fan made a crucial point when she said it only exists if someone has the power to stop the expression. I, respectfully, but absolutely don’t agree with this. I can’t pinpoint it or quantify it, but I certainly feel this pressure which stifles free expression. In cyberspace, I actually feel freer than anywhere else to express myself. It's the times we live in, I guess. I know Vincent, Jeanne Garofulo, Joquaim Phoenix, the Dixie Chicks all responded to this same ephemorous pressure by being politically active recently. I also think Rene feels it, which is why he uses so many 'ripped from the headlines' stories. Art is a indirect, so somehow 'easier' way of talking openly about sensitive issues. Thanks for the heads up, Nicky. I’m glad Terry is working on another LO but, with two 14-hour day schedules on sets across town, I bet he and his wife still barely get time to see each other. Observer, the vulnerability to which you alluded in Vincent’s work is the hardest part of acting but it’s an actor’s greatest gift to his audience. It takes great courage to do it and strength to come through the experience. Vulnerability, strength and courage are traits both you and Vincent have in abundance. I’m always moved by your honesty and swayed by your insights. What did Eames say? Something like 'who knew fashion photography was more than just short skirts and stilettos? That Helmut dude was DEEP, man. I learn something new from everyone here with every new episode and I have enjoyed reading everyone’s comments on this episode very much.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Oct 5, 2004 20:05:34 GMT -5
I talked about implicit pressure, not censorship in my post to Observer but 'censorship' was in several of the replies to my post. You, me and Observer are often more in agreement that not and especailly so on the importance of open expression. I, too, don’t feel like I’m being censored by anyone here. But LOCI fan made a crucial point when she said it only exists if someone has the power to stop the expression. I, respectfully, but absolutely don’t agree with this. I can’t pinpoint it or quantify it, but I certainly feel this pressure which stifles free expression. Sirenna, Perhaps this is splitting hairs, but in your initial post, you talked about what is acceptable "freedom of speech". That is a legal term of art which invokes the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Constitution and curtailment of it only violates the First Amendment when the government acts to prevent political speech. Although you may disagree with that definition, it is the legal one when dealing with the issue of "freedom of speech". Additionally, freedom of speech, even as a First Amendment right is not now, nor has it ever been, absolute. I.e. commercial speech is widely curtailed (Colgate cannot advertise a toothpaste that will make people fall in love with you, unless it's true and incitement to riot is a form of speech that may be curtailed). In fact, even political speech may be limited by time, place and manner restrictions, but is subject to a higher standard of review than other forms of speech. While I understand that you may not have had such a limited definition in mind when you used the words "freedom of speech", it is a loaded phrase and does carry with it the implication of censorship. Because, when the Constitutionally granted "freedom of speech" is limited, that's what it's called. Freedom of expression is something different. Not the same term of art, and therefore, subject to different standards of both review and discussion. As I said earlier, in an open discussion or debate, the mere fact that an individual's expressed opinion is actively contested is NOT an indication of a limitation on free speech or free expression, it is simply a reaction to it. I think I have some idea of what you're getting at, though. I think, initially, you were referring to the fact that if someone had posted that Vince looked great with long hair or no shave, that such a comment would've been well-received by the board, whereas the comment that his appearance was shabby was critical of him and therefore likely to be contested. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Again, I would say that when an individual posts a message on a board such as this, he/she must be prepared to have the content of that post disputed. Either on grounds of opinion, or fact. If an individual is intimidated against posting a certain opinion due to the likely (or feared) response from others, that has everything to do with the individual who's intimidated and is not a function of what that individual is free to express. The mere fact that one is free to express one's opinions doesn't mean doing so will be easy or without repercussions. You mention the fact that "Vincent, Jeanne Garofulo, Joquaim Phoenix, the Dixie Chicks all responded to this same ephemorous pressure by being politically active recently." While I'm familiar with the Dixie Chicks example you cited, I don't know of the others. But I will say that the Dixie Chicks buckled because their freedom of speech was having commercial rammifications in the sense that certain, privately held, radio stations were refusing to play their music. While I agree with what they said initially, the fact that they caved in to commercial pressure has nothing to do with freedom of speech or freedom of expression. It has to do with the Dixie Chicks' fortitude to deal with the consequences of it, as well as the fact that there was an organized opposition in place ready and able to counter the Dixie Chicks' free expression with a commercial backlash. But let's not forget that freedom of expression and dealing with the consequences of freedom of expression are not the same thing. That said, I must add that this board has always been, in my experience, extremely welcoming of diverse expressions of opinion.
|
|