I guess the fact that it's acceptable to make both of those statements when talking about movies is what is disturbing me. There's something inconsistent in the discourse.not meaning to be annoying here, just a quibble.
― ryan, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:12 (fifteen years ago) link
i think gaps like that are the basis for any discussion about any art form
― Surmounter, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:13 (fifteen years ago) link
it's not annoying :-)
― Surmounter, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:14 (fifteen years ago) link
gabb its about a dude wanting to but not cheating on his wife after she told him how much she wanted to but didnt cheat on him
right, what i said
― gabbneb, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:15 (fifteen years ago) link
wouldnt you basically evaluate an actors performance the same way youd evaluate its framing or whatever else, ie how well it achieves what you think the movie wants it to?
― deeznuts, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:15 (fifteen years ago) link
oftentimes. what was the director's intention etc? you don't always know that either.
― Surmounter, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:16 (fifteen years ago) link
That's a great point surmounter! (about the gap being necessary for conversation)
I do suppose you have to take into account what the actor is "trying" to do in order to judge the performance, however problematic that may be.
I just also wonder if there could be a different way to approach a performance. Maybe not!
― ryan, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:17 (fifteen years ago) link
By the way, I take back what I said upthread about antonioni six years ago!
― ryan, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:24 (fifteen years ago) link
ryan, i don't know how to talk about it because i'm so baffled by that take on acting. to me the acting is the single most prominent feature in any film. can a bad film be saved by good performances? most definitely. can a film be very good if the acting is bad? most definitely not!
"Well you know that stuff is good because there are usually accepted criteria for what good framing is, namely that they are effective."
there are accepted criteria for what makes acting good and they are as hard to pinpoint as what makes a shot good or bad.
lots of xposts
― jed_, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:25 (fifteen years ago) link
jed,
you're not the only one who's noticed that Laura Branigan/EWS connection. check out the edit of the two someone put together:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
― Pleasant Plains, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:26 (fifteen years ago) link
"can a bad film be saved by good performances? most definitely. can a film be very good if the acting is bad? most definitely not!"
see i disagree w/ this - i dont think id ever watch a film purely for a performance or performances
― deeznuts, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:27 (fifteen years ago) link
PP, you got me!
― jed_, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:29 (fifteen years ago) link
Jed, I guess it's the difference between seeing acting as a "craft" and seeing it, as someone totally uneducated about it like me may be likely to do, as an attempt at "realism" or the production of some unstated intent on the part of the filmmakers.
― ryan, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:29 (fifteen years ago) link
deeznuts, would you watch a film for the cinematography alone?
― jed_, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:32 (fifteen years ago) link
i totally love EWS
― omar little, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:34 (fifteen years ago) link
yeah, but - to be 'clearer', & to flip what you said on its head, i definitely dont think bad acting can kill a good film, but im equally sure good acting cant save a bad one - i guess my prob with your statement is that i see acting as a definite part of the whole, & thus yr opinion inherently doesnt make sense to me: if bad acting kills a good film, its not a good film, & vice versa
it might be true that i value cinematography, or plot, or whatever, more than acting, but at the same i wouldnt say any one of those could in & of itself make a movie good or bad
― deeznuts, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:37 (fifteen years ago) link
ok yr right. i just meant it can make a bad film better or even enjoyable.
― jed_, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:39 (fifteen years ago) link
i think really excellent acting can make a film that is otherwise a trifle totally compelling. i'm not sure how i'd regard something like 'the good thief' if it didn't have such a great cast. but there are a few films in which "bad" acting is beside the point. like ryan said, bresson's pics.
― omar little, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:48 (fifteen years ago) link
deez breakin it out
― Surmounter, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:49 (fifteen years ago) link
so many good directors manipulate bad actors for the sake of their scenarios, though (Joan Crawford, Ali MacGraw, Keanu Reeves, Scarlet Johanson, to name a few).
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:52 (fifteen years ago) link
^^^ this
See, like, in the scene in which Tom Cruise goes back to the hooker's apartment the next day and encounters her roomie, there are a lot of agendas going on there:
-- Tom Cruise thinks he's being Tom Cruise -- "Dr. Bill Harford" also thinks he's being "Tom Cruise," or whatever the equivalent of "Tom Cruise" is in his universe. -- Stanley Kubrick thinks both Tom Cruise and Dr. Bill are being smug jerks with not half the mad ladykilling skillz they think they have. -- Red-haired roomie is all "lol u might have AIDS, Tom Cruise"
Kubrick wins, and both Tom Cruise and Dr. Bill are none the wiser.
― Pancakes Hackman, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 12:53 (fifteen years ago) link
you don't usually go to kubrick for good performances, but this being what it is, ie a psychological drama where not much really 'happens', good acting is required, and, in this case, not forthcoming.
― banriquit, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 13:10 (fifteen years ago) link
^nonsense^
bad actors ... (Joan Crawford, Ali MacGraw, Keanu Reeves, Scarlet Johanson, to name a few)
really, Ali MacGraw stands alone in this group. The others are frequently good movie stars.
― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 13:28 (fifteen years ago) link
jed is so OTM re: "Self Control"
― HI DERE, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 13:33 (fifteen years ago) link
"stars" exist to be manipulated.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 13:47 (fifteen years ago) link
blowin' minds
― banriquit, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 13:50 (fifteen years ago) link
a good performance is when you can tell the actor's committed to something that exists in the world of the film (even if that thing is "getting high and watching tv")
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 14:13 (fifteen years ago) link
Can we talk about "Self Control" some more? Then again there's this thread:
"Self Control" by Laura Branigan
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 14:16 (fifteen years ago) link
Alex in NYC, prophet!
Actually, it looks an awful lot like "Eyes Wide Shut," complete with horny strangers wearing masks. I'm not even joking.-- Alex in NYC (vassifer), Monday, February 28, 2005 1:11 PM
-- Alex in NYC (vassifer), Monday, February 28, 2005 1:11 PM
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 14:19 (fifteen years ago) link
a good performance is when you can tell the actor's committed to something that exists in the world of the film
Extra points when you stop seeing the actor as "the actor" and just buy into the veracity of the character.
― HI DERE, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:14 (fifteen years ago) link
Kubrick was clearly not trying to get naturalistic performances out of his actors. Especially that opening party scene, everything is chopped and screwed. Whether it is effectively dream-like is up to the viewer.
― Eazy, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:18 (fifteen years ago) link
if you men only knew
― Surmounter, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:19 (fifteen years ago) link
See it all, or see NOTHING. Anything less is THEFT.
― cecelia, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:20 (fifteen years ago) link
i love when she's just gotten stoned and can't look at tom cruise's face without cracking up
― Surmounter, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:20 (fifteen years ago) link
Gene Hackman and Vanessa Redgrave to thread.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:21 (fifteen years ago) link
My theory has always been that the baubled lights in every scene (party lights, christmas lights) are little baubles of germs and AIDS and the clap that show the threat of nonmonogamy, so that when they turn off the Christmas lights in their home at the end, they're commiting themselves to a good clean monogamous marriage.
― Eazy, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:22 (fifteen years ago) link
lololol try watching 'wetherby' and not see it as 'vanessa redgrave takes on thatcher'.
― banriquit, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:24 (fifteen years ago) link
whoa eazy that's crazy. i always noticed all those touches of light.
this dress is KILLER
http://img.slate.com/media/32000/32119/Kidman.jpg
― Surmounter, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:25 (fifteen years ago) link
try watching Wetherby without falling asleep.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:25 (fifteen years ago) link
in support of eazy's theory, for a reason i could never until know figure out we were shown eyes wide shut in sex ed as a pro-abstinence film...btw kubrick died of syphilis...
― deeznuts, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:27 (fifteen years ago) link
Well, the theory also makes sense considering that Kubrick started thinking about this movie in the late 80s/early 90s, when the idea was in the air that cheating would kill you.
― Eazy, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:29 (fifteen years ago) link
btw kubrick died of syphilis...
Uh?
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:29 (fifteen years ago) link
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a150/tuesdayweld/eyeswideshut1.jpg
And they really are in most of the sexy scenes in the movie.
― Eazy, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:31 (fifteen years ago) link
good shot
― Surmounter, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:31 (fifteen years ago) link
the good doctor
― Surmounter, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:32 (fifteen years ago) link
http://i31.tinypic.com/2cxeyr6.jpg This shot is the one that gets me
I like the theory about the coloured baubles. They're everywhere: "Don't you want to go where the rainbow ends?" Also, Bill goes to Ziegler's pool room near the end, where he says he's 'just knocking a few balls around' - i.e. Ziegler just messes people up for his own amusement.
― Ismael Klata, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 18:17 (fifteen years ago) link
I just remembered - I've played on that pool table! It's now in a hotel in Birmingham.
― Ismael Klata, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 18:19 (fifteen years ago) link
wow!
― Surmounter, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 18:19 (fifteen years ago) link
eye-balls
― sexyDancer, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 18:20 (fifteen years ago) link
tis the season for this movie
― surm, Tuesday, 13 October 2009 06:32 (fourteen years ago) link