| |
|
the fact that it isn't respected as much as it should be
I don’t see how you’re getting that impression from any of the threads in this forum, methodman. I see a lot of respect for people who do interesting work as actors and communicate something to the audience. You seemed exasperated in your initial post by the appreciation some of us have for the performance Nicholson gave. I posted in another thread in this very forum, about About Schmidt specifically, some time ago some fulsome and detailed praise for the film and for Jack’s part in it. I gave a briefer account above of why I feel it was worthy of an Oscar, in my opinion, but I have no opinion of the other performances nominated. I did, also, express my respect for the work Michael Caine has done through the years, and that his artistry was deserving of this honour, in my opinion.
I’m not sure what you’re irritated about here. I have great respect for actors who can entertain me, move me, give me fresh insights into something through their skill. I would have thought my praise for Nicholson showed that and my words about Michael Caine. I have worked with actors in training and development events, admired their skill and found that a useful method sometimes for challenging and changing attitudes. I see actors enjoying the rewards with which a respectful public garlands them and I see the cult of the performer become almost a new religion in modern disjointed society, so intrinsic is acting to our lives, so ancient are its roots.
You seem to be saying that I must study how actors learn their skills before I am entitled to an opinion. My opinion can only ever represent how much the work of any actor has affected me. To what extent it is an educated opinion is determined by my knowledge and experience of many things, acting classes not among them. Surely you’re not suggesting that a great performance inevitably requires that we pore over Stanislavski first? Marlon Brando seemed to manage to inhabit the skin of Stanley Kowalski for me, when first I saw that performance, long before I’d heard of “The Method” iirc. Rothko didn’t paint the Seagram murals just for art students to appreciate. Shakespeare didn’t write for literature students. They used their skill to communicate with all of us.
On the other hand, I think you were the one who suggested Nicholson needed to brush up his “sense memory” by reading some chapters of Uta Hagen and said that he had just been “playing himself” in the part. Alexander Payne and Louis Begley seemed more impressed with the job he did in the film of Begley’s book, even although Schmidt in the film is significantly different in many ways from Schmidt in the book.
I’m sorry if the quotation marks offended you. I meant no disrespect. You use the word “craft” to describe what you do. Fair enough. I have only ever heard actors do so. I have no quarrel with your terminology except that it has connotations of teenage American witches in my mind. I don’t see that as implying that I don’t or can’t understand how hard it is to do what you do. In this, as in every other human endeavour, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. What you call it seems very secondary, as long as you do it effectively. We disagree obviously about how effectively Nicholson practises his “craft”. |
|
|
