Here's a piece worth reading about acting. Interestingly, I noted at the end it was written by David Thompson, whose self-indulgent, digressive, frequently nasty, and in all but one instance subpar work I am otherwise familiar with from 'The New Republic' (his latest contribution there asserted that because Michelle Pfeiffer appears, to him, to no longer have fun on the screen--and was no longer sparklingly attractive--she could no longer honestly be called 'Michelle,' but should have to opt instead for something muddier like 'Maud'--like I say, don't read his work, elsewhere):
But this one is worth reading, notwithstanding some serious deficiencies in the research (Damon was thoroughly 'method' in his performance in '...Ripley,' and his pretenses within the role were never something the audience couldn't see through in a moment, and so are quite unremarkable--the Damon section of the article is a weak link, really) and the writer's understanding of his subject (i.e. the various schools of Stanislavski-based acting, and what they advocated, and what 'the Method' is/was). With all that in mind, it's a very useful article anyway--legitimately points up a few excesses and deficiencies of method actors in comparison to, say, Olivier.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574571821619515590.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle
Re: Olivier, it occurs to me to respond, here, to one of the commenters on the WSJ site, who claimed, possibly at least partly correctly, that actors of the Jimmy Stewart / Cary Grant era (i.e. not Stanislavski-influenced) could not effectively communicate using your full 'instrument,' (i.e. the body--and my words, not theirs) the same way a modern method performer can.To that, it's easy to respond: go back and watch some Lawrence Olivier movies. I suggest just the opening scene or two of his version of Hamlet.
No comments:
Post a Comment