Thoughts on Films/Movies

{{Wasn't really sure where to put this so made up a new topic- a place not to talk about specific films as such but about films as a medium in general, their making, concepts, appeal, whatever.

I was musing on the recent Tarantino/Thurman thing- where he got her against her better judgement to do a stunt that was dangerous and then she got hurt doing it- and was wondering when is the end product or the performance worth what the actor is sometimes put through?
Take Shelley Duvall for example in the Shining, by all accounts she had a horrible time- Kubrick constantly criticized her delivery and performance, and even way more than normal, even by Kubrick standards made her endure retake after retake. She was deliberately called out to set or exterior location shoots having got all into costume, only to be told after making her wait in the cold for a long time that the shot would be delayed and to return to her trailer. Whereupon after letting her get out of costume they would call her back again, sometimes this was more than once in a row.
All of it was to get out of her the performance Kubrick desired- he deliberately treated her poorly and harshly to the point where she suffered hair loss through stress whilst filming.
Yet her performance in the end is utterly believable in its levels of stress as a result- she didn't have so far to go to find what her character was enduring because she was enduring similar abuse from men every day all day at her place of work.
But it sure worked for the film. Her performance is part of the reason its considered a horror masterpiece. But does that justify it?

edit add- just found this brief but gives the general idea Cracked vid on the matter



Or perhaps the Exorcist, where in order to get the right shocked and startled sudden look on his lead actors face the Director fired  a shotgun off right behind him, leaving him with minor, but permanent hearing damage in one ear. He certainly gives the right reaction to the scene in the finished film- but was it worth it?

And these are two small examples of where a director has deliberately made his actors suffer in order to get a particular response and performance from them, it is not it seems that uncommon.

And in our current age where such things could probably ruin a career via social media outrage, are such deliberately 'stressed' yet powerful performances a thing of film passed? And is that a good bad thing? }}}

Peter Jackson wore Miranda Otto out in the scene between Eowyn and the Witch King, saying "exhaustion is temporary, cellulose is forever". But that's a different level.

We have many method actors putting themselves through hell, nobody worries about it because it's their choice. I think if a director discusses it with the actor before hand they could get the same result with less emotional trauma.

I think it's usually called celluloid, but maybe that's the name for it down in New Zealand.

As Laurence Olivier famously said to Dustin Hoffman when they were filming the Marathon Man “My dear boy, why don’t you try acting?”

{{ Ah yes, a great quote, but that's more like the cases Halfy mentioned with method actors- they do that to themselves and choose to suffer for their art- but what about being made to suffer for your art when you dont make the choice, or may not even know its being done to you? Is it still ok for the art? }}}

I guess I would say it is all a matter of degrees, when you work with certain directors, I am sure their methods are quite well known in the industry. Obviously to work through prior consent is the best approach, but perhaps in some situations it is okay to do certain things, within limits, to get an effect? Giving someone permanent hearing damage goes far well and beyond anything that would be acceptable though, probably is distinctly legally iffy too.

And, I guess they could still go for the just acting approach.

{{{ The tricky bit is defining those limits- in the case of Duvall she was deliberately harassed, bullied, criticized and generally treated appealingly on set (her place of work) to the point her hair was coming out from the stress- yet Kubrick is considered a movie genius and getting those performances out of his actors is considered a part of that genius (which is not just allowing for such methods, but actively praising them and even rewarding them with awards).
The popularity and critical acclaim of the film it seems to me overwrites whatever means where used to create it.
- to give another example the famous car chase scene in Bullit- it had appalling safety- only two cops to close of and keep the public out of harms way, when a five year old child nearly ran out in front of the cars they opted for using film extras to try to keep the area safe- hardly good. And the actors, though willing were also put at great risk- the shot where they hurtle down the hills at 100mph was so severe the car was literally shaking itself apart, the actor had almost no control left over it and was being thrown about like a pea in a can and could do little more than hang on and hope.
Yet it is rightly credited as being probably the greatest car chase on film.
Yet given the worst case scenario it could be remembered for killing a five year old and its lead actor!

And yet perhaps without such an approach those sort of on the edge performances might be a lot rarer in film, and many of them are in classic, popular or very famous films, like the Shining or Bullit or the Exorcist. }}

This is skittering close to the fact that a lot of what we know about the human body's response to extreme cold and hypothermia came from Nazi experiments.

There's a lot of grey, but I'd say life-threatening when not with the actor's full consent has crossed the line. Back up from there and see how far you are willing to go.

I think bullying is a step way too far, as is damaging someone's metal and physical health. if however the actor wants to starve himself or go the extra mile for a role, then that's their choice. there is no excuse for bullying. as Blue said, 'try acting.'

I agree Figgs but, its the lure of fame & good money I think that decides a person for them. Ive heard of actors starving to skin & bone for a part & in the next film piling on pounds to be a chunk. I don't think statements like " you wanted to be an actor so...." cuts it. I'm now wondering if the publics demand for convincing & honest accounts are adding to the strain of "I must do this or I must do that " ? Dunno. I'm sure back in the early days of cinema there were many stories of bullying that have gone quietly untold. These days actors can not only shine on the big screen but have a moment of fame in the media when one does a "cry all" story.

Absconding with this thread because I can't find where the following was discussed before.

There's something new in the air.  Henry Cavill as Bond.  Once it hits you, nobody else makes sense.  He was considered before but thought to be too young so they went with Daniel Craig.  The suave dude from Bridgerton is also in good odor among the bookie crowd, but he doesn't have the action hero background.  Cavill could step right into the role.

I find Cavill a bit bland, but I suppose they can't have two ruggedly ugly/handsome dudes in a row. I like Aaron Taylor Johnson if you are going for trad handsomeness. He was charismatic in Bullet Train, he outclassed Brad Pitt anyway.

Ive heard Henry C is to be Highlander in the new reboot ?

Oh he'd be great in Highlander.  But I kinda wish they wouldn't reboot it.  The first set was such schlocky fun I'm afraid they'd slick it up too much and ruin it.

Edit: I think Figgles wants Rory McCann as Bond.

Rory would make a great Kurgan in Highlander. And Cavil would be a great MacLeod, but I doubt if it will be better than the original.

{{ OG Highlander is a great idea done with a sense of fun and energy, and some of the oddest casting choices. Sean Connery, Scottish, as an Egyptian, Clancy Brown, American, as a Russian and Christopher Lambert, French, as a Scotsman.
Though oddly that last one is probably closest to reality for the time period.
Conner doesn't seem to be a peasant but a noble, his cousin is Dougal who seems to be related, if not the son of, the clan Chief, and when they ride into battle Connor rides alongside Dougal and the Chief and they personally vouch to look out for him. So it's very likely he is part of the ruling families. And in that time it was common for sons and relatives of the nobility to be sent to France for education, Scotland and France having a close relationship, the 'Auld Alliance', as it was more fun that way to coordinate annoying England. The French Kings personal bodyguard for centuries was compromised exclusively of Scots Highlanders. So Connor having a mixed Scots/French accent is not actually that out of place as he'd probably have grown up in France for a large part of his youth.
Doubt it was deliberate as a choice on the casting people's part, but it's a nice happenstance that actually works in its favour in giving it a bit of historic authenticity, and they'd probably miss that in a reboot among other things that gives the original its charm.}}

I doubt many people noticed that rather obscure bit of historical authenticity. I think it worked because the actors were willing to take the pulpy concept and script seriously.

{{ Strangely for a film with only a few scenes set in the clan's period, it's surprisingly accurate in a view details. Connor is a Macleod, and that is the actual Macleod castle in the film which to this day contains the Faerie Flag of the Macleods, the Frasers, the clan they fight in the film were indeed the enemy of the Macleods and they did have several battles. The dress, though a little shortbread tin is far, far more authentic to the period than in a film like Braveheart for example which mixes clothing centuries apart. And the pipers lament played when Connor is thought to be dying after the battle is a Macleod lament, they were famous for their pipers (in particularly an offshoot of their clan (called a sect) the Mcrimmons were famed for their generation to generation skills with the pipes, and if that name seems familiar to anyone it's because the Who companion Jamie Mcrimmon from 2nd Doctor era, in another example of paying attention to history in media, was a piper).
The least historic accurate bit is that he then goes to live in Glen Coe, one of the harshest places to live with the notoriously lethal Rannock Moor, but more it was the stronghold of the McDonalds and the Macleods and them had a long blood feud. But I get why they picked it as the mountains of Glen Coe, the Three Sisters, make a spectacular visual backdrop.

Apparently for the clan fight scene they just hired a bunch of locals, who were somewhat over enthusiastic and really went for it. It was utter carnage!}}

That attention to detail probably helped the actors take it seriously. Most of the audience wouldn't know, but the actors would.

Just read the blurb about the film 'Poor Things' with Emma Stone. And I have to say that it looks like a pedos idea of mainstream movie making. The main character has the body of a woman but the mind of a child, and all she does is shag like a bunny through every continent. I made a comment on The Guardian to that effect, and it got deleted. Its perverted and sick.

If it's the preview I've seen it's a very weird art type film. Emma Stone has contorted her persona so much she looks insectoid and definitely not attractive, which is a hard trick for her.

Oh right, there's a trailer.

Speaking of the effects of movies on people, I'm not into cosplay, but hoy crap this woman is good.