Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Jun 23, 2008 3:34:32 GMT
Are you trying to say that her performance didn't feel spontaneous, that you could see the wheels turning in her head or something like that? Edit: Or it doesn't feel genuine, that it all feels planned out and thought about before doing it? I think I will go with your second option. It feels like the scenes have been practiced/rehearsed well and she would act them out with total disregard for the camera.... Could you explain "with total disregard for the camera?" I rewatched it, and Marinca's (the blonde one) performance doesn't feel inorganic or rehearsed in the slightest. "Position" here means the actor blocking, or "position" as in her character's situation in the story? |
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jun 23, 2008 22:29:02 GMT
Could you explain "with total disregard for the camera?" I rewatched it, and Marinca's (the blonde one) performance doesn't feel inorganic or rehearsed in the slightest. Assume that you are being interviewed and I let you know before hand what the questions are. Assume that you prepare answers for all those questions and readily answer in the interview, without taking your time to think about it. Though there is nothing wrong in seeing a person give clear answers without fumbling with thoughts, it is less satisfying than if it were really spontaneous. That is the sort of feeling I got. ofcourse I am not saying that my example can be applied literally to this case. I have it downloaded, so I'll probably watch it again, but the theme is a little strong for my friends and I rarely re-watch movies alone unless they affect me really lot. I usually reserve re-watches with my friends and the first watching for when I am alone. "Position" here means the actor blocking, or "position" as in her character's situation in the story? I meant circumstances. What is actor blocking? |
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Jun 23, 2008 23:04:49 GMT
Assume that you are being interviewed and I let you know before hand what the questions are. Assume that you prepare answers for all those questions and readily answer in the interview, without taking your time to think about it. Though there is nothing wrong in seeing a person give clear answers without fumbling with thoughts, it is less satisfying than if it were really spontaneous. That is the sort of feeling I got. ofcourse I am not saying that my example can be applied literally to this case. That can go for a majority of performances in which the character is in a tense situation. I've never let it bother me. Personally, when really worked up, I do mispronounce stuff, saying the wrong words, etc. I've seen lots of people exploding in anger or confused in a tense situation and speak without making a mistake. My sister is like that. Incredible oratorical skills when flustered or angry. Also, maybe Marinca's nuanced delivery is masked by the subtitle factor. Subtitles don't always write out/specify stutters, pauses, etc. Also, you and I may not here her fumble because we don't know the language; thus, we can't pick up on that kind of stuff. Actor blocking is a redundant phrase, but I used it because I know people use blocking to refer to other things. "Blocking" is a term used for the actor movemements - where and when they go downstage left, upstage right, etc. It also refers to body position, like, Antonioni's blocking has characters with their backs to the camera. Or, characters can literally block another and move to reveal something or someone. Stuff like that. The choreography of bodies, if you will. |
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Jun 23, 2008 23:08:05 GMT
On actors/characters fumbling for thoughts, for terrible examples, you can look to Andrew Bujalski's low-budget Funny Ha Ha and Mutual Appreciation.
|
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jun 24, 2008 2:23:21 GMT
One of the scenes that is really fresh in my memory is the dinner scene at the boyfriend's house, when she is attempting to reach her girlfriend. Very tense moments.
|
|
Capo
Administrator 
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jun 24, 2008 12:29:50 GMT
On actors/characters fumbling for thoughts, for terrible examples, you can look to Andrew Bujalski's low-budget Funny Ha Ha and Mutual Appreciation. "Mumble-core" is the genre, isn't it? Have you seen these? Any good? |
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Nov 4, 2008 15:27:53 GMT
"Mumble-core" is the genre, isn't it? Have you seen these? Any good? I saw a film from this sub-genre recently at a local film festival called "Quiet City". I thought it was a masterpiece. Randomly inserted and well framed shots of what appears to be an abandoned New York City, put between scenes of "regular people" going through a weekend. It reminded me a little of "Lost in Translation". I can see how that description could turn a lot of people off, but I thought it was brilliant. I really want to see "Old Joy". |
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Nov 30, 2008 4:46:39 GMT
On actors/characters fumbling for thoughts, for terrible examples, you can look to Andrew Bujalski's low-budget Funny Ha Ha and Mutual Appreciation. "Mumble-core" is the genre, isn't it? Have you seen these? Any good? Not a genre, but it was a term coined by Bujalski's sound recordist, I think, which Bujalski used in an interview that became the name to a movement that isn't a movement. It refers to only a few filmmakers whose films critics lump together because they're low budget, improvisational or quasi-improvisational, star non-professional actors, and contain navel-gazing twentysomethings. From what I've seen, no, I don't think they're good. Aesthetically, Katz's Quiet City isn't Mumblecore to me, but it is by association (e.g., Katz is credited as a collaborator on Swanberg's dreadful Hannah Takes the Stairs) which doesn't mean much to me. Quiet City is at times a good film. |
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Nov 30, 2008 5:36:26 GMT
Would Pasolini's movies come under that genre? Like Il Decameron or Edipo Re?
|
|
