Actors/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions

 

 

* [[Chuck Norris/Headscratchers|Chuck Norris]]

* [[Morgan Freeman/Headscratchers|Morgan Freeman]]

* [[Charlie Sheen/Headscratchers|Charlie Sheen]]

* [[Spike Spencer/Headscratchers|Spike Spencer]]

 

 

** I get what you're saying, and this is a true sore point for me w/Pacino, but [[Meet the Parents]] was pretty darned good and [[Insomnia]] wasn't too half bad.

** Man, I know what you mean. I see Leslie Nielson in Seltzerberger movies and I throw up a little bit. Not quite on the same tier as your other examples, but still...damn.

** Two words: [[Ham and Cheese]].

* Why is it people seem to think Actors don't do any "real" work. That acting is something that A) is something that anybody can do and B) requires less effort than most other jobs. These stereotypes are a load of rubbish and need to be dispensed with. Actors who are worth their salt spend endless hours studying techniques and doing research for roles, devote time to character study and the necessary memorisation of lines (for shows with lines). Not to mention the fact that work days for an actor can be incredibly long and tiring, for certain roles on TV or film you may be needed on set pretty much all day, early morning (7am or earlier) to late evening (whenever), if you're in a complex costume or makeup then even longer (some makeup or prosthetics for more SF shows can take upwards of 4/5 hours to apply and slightly less to remove). And on stage you may be expected to give the same performance with the same level of energy, twice a day for a period of months on end! It's seriously hard work and deserves more respect than it gets.

** It's probably also a backlash against the [[Typecasting|Type Cast]] actors who seem to be playing themselves / the same character all the time, which looks even lazier and easier. Plus people probably ''think'' that they're good actors, from the few times they've ever gotten a chance to do it.

** It's possibly also backlash against the ginormous salaries celebrity actors tend to have. After all, those are the kinds of actors people see in movies the most and hear about the most in gossipping media.

** It's probably because of the whole "out of sight, out of mind", thing. We the public see an actor on the stage or screen doing their "actual" job for two, three hours at a time. The other 99% of the time, they're on TV talk shows, in the news, on the covers of magazines, and in the tabloids where we learn about them partying, dating supermodels (or other actors), and we resent that the rest of us peons can't have that glamourous life of constant fun.

*** Except it's ''not'' a glamorous life of constant fun. Actors who can do their job often suffer from what this troper terms an "emotional hangover" - aka feeling the aftershocks of their character's emotions - for hours or days after finishing a role - and let's not even get into a months-long shooting schedule or eight-shows-a-week play run. Not to mention they get to live in a fishbowl and are held to standards that would make a priest reach for alcohol.

**** And without the guy at the lab who develops the negative, there's no film to show! One can play this game endlessly. Everybody's important.

** The actor being the be all and end all bugs me on the viewing end. If a movie is bad, it's because of the star. Ignoring the final script could be crap and the director could have phoned it in. Yes, the actor could be made of wood, but it is not a one man show. There is a 3 minute list at the end of the movie that shows everyone who is at fault.

** Most actors are A, pretty, and B, pretty eloquent. This may or may not be the case for editors, writers, etc. They're just easier and more entertaining to watch.

** Film is a hugely collaborative medium, far more so than any (only opera comes close), so it's foolhardy to elect any one participant as the "most important factor." This is even true of the director, whom the studios often treat as a wholly substitutable functionary of the process of filmmaking. There is this need on the part of many people to exalt the director into a figure of absolute authorship, but this is based on a false analogy with literature (and even literary authors are less "authors" than people generally think, as any editor can tell you) and ignores much about how filmmaking actually works (barring, perhaps, certain traditions of amateur and avant-garde filmmaking).

** Let me suggest, too, that you are confusing "actors" and "stars." Nobody thinks actors are that important, but -- within Hollywood and other mainstream cinemas worldwide -- the star is indeed extremely important much of the time. Stars are known quantities with built-in box office appeal. For a slightly offbeat project, the presence of a star is often the only thing that will convince a studio to finance it. Attach a star and a screenplay must be tailored to his or her screen image (to a way of thinking, this fact does indeed cement the star as the single most important element of the system). Let's face it: it's the stars' world. We're merely living in it.

** Although such vitriol against the specific actor you speak of is irrational and intolerable, MOST actors have very short-lived, shallow, or even STAGED relationships lasting three years at the most and a few months on average. Such relationships truly bother the fans of the actors involved. It's as though the true purpose of marriage--the sacred union of two people's lives--is worthless in the eyes of the actors involved. Yes, divorce happens in real life. Yes, a lot of the time it's a good idea. But if you've been married seven times in four years, half of them to the same person, then you obviously do not view marriage with the sobriety you ought to. And that PISSES PEOPLE OFF.

*** But why is it anybody's business what they do with their lives? I can understand if it was their friend talking to them, but most of these people don't even personally know these actors.

** Well, most of them probably are being sincere. It's just that they have about 20,000 other interviews to get to and it's a lot easier to vomit up a stock line that more-or-less expresses your feelings than it is to come up with new, original, and insightful things to say every time you make a new movie.

** I think it's partly due to giving their fans what they want to hear and good marketing. It may not be entirely sincere, but it's better than hearing the person say, "I didn't care for it, but I think it turned out okay."

** I always get a kick out of the actors who show zero appreciation to the folks that pay the 11 bucks to go see the flicks.

** I sort of see it as a [[Coconut Effect]]; when I get excited it's not always obvious on the outside. Surely they could act more excited than they do if they wanted to, being that their jobs are acting, but they might ironically feel "phony" in doing so.

*** Dare away, hon, because some people value happiness over money and I'm one of them. If having that five million dollars meant living out the rest of my life in terror of gaining weight, aging or not being beautiful and losing my earning power because of those things, it just wouldn't be worth it to me. I'd rather work in an average job making an average salary and be able to eat a decent meal or not spend every moment of my free time exercising. But obviously everyone's priorities are different.

**** It's not the rest of your life though, is it? A film takes, on average, 6 months to shoot. Watching your weight for 6 months in exchange for millions of dollars? You'd never have to do another if it was too much trouble. Or you could be [[Hollywood Pudgy]] and flawed and do voicework or direct or produce or simply do independent films. So many choices that Joe Blow just doesn't have. The whining reminds me of a quote from a Friends episode:

***** That's the thing, though. It's not just for that six months. The self-denial is ongoing because after the movie is done shooting there's promotion, photo shoots, public appearances and things like that. When there's nothing to promote, that spartan lifestyle has to be maintained so that they can have the same look for the next meeting with a producer who could easily deny them work because they weigh more than the 20-year-old former model that wants to break into acting. And then there's the paparazzi photos that end up on gossip blogs where the bloggers and their commenters absolutely savage them if they have even a hint of cellulite or a few wrinkles. Having to live like that temporarily in order to win a huge payoff might be doable, but having to live like that day in and day out with no end in sight just wouldn't be worth it to me. But then again, the women who do this probably have enough money that if they said "fuck it" and quit tomorrow, they would still have enough money to live out their remaining years in luxury, so it's baffling why they keep it up. Like you said, if they age out of the ideal or gain weight they can still work if they really love it, they just wouldn't be the exalted MOVIE STARS. I guess I just can't wrap my head around the idea that someone is willing to punish themselves so they can be famous, win an Oscar, etc.

**** It's not even like that, though. It's not like someone says, "You're perfect for the part. Lose x pounds and keep it off and you have the part." Many of these people adopt a lifestyle early on and keep with it, fanatically driven by their goals. And, if they do make it and get a good role in a film or on TV, they're still looking for the next thing.

** Because there are a lot of them? Seems like the more actors there are, the higher the chances of finding look-alikes.

** To what "these days" are you referring? Bridges and Russell have been working since the 70s. Never mind the fact that in the 50s, Paul Newman and Marlon Brando looked somewhat similar... this is not a new phenomenon.

** Probably b/c for every talented one, there's another one that sucks, and gets a lot of attention. Also, I think a part of it is that it ends up being overexposure (not speaking of Laurie). If the actor is not on your tv/movie screen, they want to be on your iPod, your bookshelf, your closet, and your perfume rack. I do think people are easier on those who go from musician->successful actor->back to musician again.

*** Big fat word to the first sentence of this paragraph. The people running music companies and deciding who gets a record deal and who doesn't share the blame for thinking that notoriety is all it takes to sell albums. Really, you can tell the music industry has hit rock bottom when even Real Housewives are cutting albums these days. Sure, the albums are god awful and don't sell enough copies to cover the recording and promotion expenses, but the news that making an ass of yourself in front of millions is not a substitute for real musical talent hasn't made its way up to the executive suites of music companies. They're still stuck in 2008 and think that hey, Paris Hilton had a moderate hit, so let's pass out contracts to every obnoxious famewhore with musical pretentions and see if lightning will strike twice. However this is balanced out by folks like the aforementioned Hugh Laurie as well as Scarlett Johannssen, who are legitimately talented musical performers and even Gavin Rossdale, who has proven to be a somewhat decent actor and David Bowie, who is REALLY good.

 

{{reflist}}

__NOTOC__