|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 2, 2019 0:32:15 GMT
Well, best let the poster answer, because it is a subjective take. There are many factors to put into play, if it is deemed one of the best American performances ever. To make a random embellished statement, it would have to be backed up, especially considering the myriad of great American performances. I am just stating what I would mean if I were to casually say something like that. I would basically just be saying that it is one of my favorite performances. You have to remember that most people aren't film scholars who understand how to properly break down a movie or every aspect of a movie, not even the Academy. And even when you do have people who are extremely intelligent in studying film, there will still be disagreements. Yes, I understand your point, but I am not basing the performance on just entertainment\enjoyment factor. That is fun, but also superficial. I am challenging this aspect, so as to look deeper, because to my mind, it isn't really what it is cracked up to be and I don't care to make it out to be something that it isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 2, 2019 0:36:26 GMT
Re-watched this the other day. Haven't seen for ages and this was the first time on dvd. I have read the book, twice I think and I enjoyed the film and have the several other times I viewed. Bates won an Oscar for her psychotic performance here. The thing is though, and as much as I like Bates as an actress, I don't think she was Oscar worthy here for a performance of a crazy person, that I didn't exactly find convincing. It comes across as more parody\caricature with a winking nod to the audience, rather than real dimensional woman who has serious psychological issues and was very dangerous. I wasn't getting much of a hint of her psychosis bubbling underneath her calmer exterior and she just transitioned to random snapping and yelling, like she was just having a hissy fit tantrum that had no layers or nuance behind her disorder, whatever it was. Glenn Close was so much more convincing in Fatal Attraction - 87' and was more worthy of an Oscar, which I believed she should have won at the time and still do. I have seen Bates better and while she wasn't playing a crazy person, she gave it her all in King's Dolores Claiborne 5yrs later and her performance contained all the layers and nuances that her Annie Wilkes could have benefited from. This is what makes the Oscars bogus. It is nothing more than an opinion of a popularity contest. I find sports championships are a hell of a lot more well earned since that takes a lot more harder work and dedication than it does to "win" an Oscar. Actors do work hard, but sports are about competition and egoism is very much a big factor. If actors are performing with the intention of winning awards in faux competitions, then they are doing it for the wrong reasons.
There are times though when I believe there are very worthy winners, but as moviemouth has just commented, even the Academy don't often know either. Somethings can be clear cut though when it comes to a more academic\scholarly evaluation of a performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2019 0:38:52 GMT
I don't know how that could be calculated. One person could break it down and find fault and another person could break it down and find it even more brilliant than before. It is like when 2 equally intelligent people watch the same movie and one finds the movie great and the other doesn't. How can you ever determine who is correct or if there even in such a thing when it comes to most movies? It can't be absolute, but there is also the actors technique and natural ability to convince the audience and make the character a real and believable person that is convincing.
Bates failed largely in giving her Annie Wilkes some subtle insight and sympathetic factor. Close was able to do this in FA. It was more of a showy on the facade performance and if it was to be evaluated, compared to other similar roles, compared to her other performances, I really don't see her Annie coming out a winner here.
Enjoy the performance and movie for what you get out of it, because I am not quibbling it isn't an excellent turn for Bates, but there is nothing brilliant about it. You do realize that is not in any way a factual statement, right? How do you know the director wanted her to convey subtle insight? How do you know other people aren't seeing something you aren't or are seeing it in a different way than you? This is a very common thing that happens when it comes to random people talking about movies. You seem to be assuming that everyone should see, understand and feel a movie in the same way but that just isn't possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 2, 2019 0:47:59 GMT
It can't be absolute, but there is also the actors technique and natural ability to convince the audience and make the character a real and believable person that is convincing.
Bates failed largely in giving her Annie Wilkes some subtle insight and sympathetic factor. Close was able to do this in FA. It was more of a showy on the facade performance and if it was to be evaluated, compared to other similar roles, compared to her other performances, I really don't see her Annie coming out a winner here.
Enjoy the performance and movie for what you get out of it, because I am not quibbling it isn't an excellent turn for Bates, but there is nothing brilliant about it. You do realize that is not in any way a factual statement, right? How do you know the director wanted her to convey subtle insight? How do you know other people aren't seeing something you aren't or are seeing it in a different way than you? This is a very common thing that happens when it comes to random people talking about movies. You seem to be assuming that everyone should see, understand and feel a movie in the same way but that just isn't possible. No, it is a subjective statement and born out of my personal opinion, but I do not judge her performance as brilliant here for various reasons as commented. There is no right or wrong, but there is also rational and insightful perception that may hint or get at some truth. I am not assuming or pretending anything either.
By starting this thread—and I just stated my own personal opinion—I am potentially challenging what many may see as brilliant, and if they, or you, care to give more insight into this, please be my guest.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2019 0:49:41 GMT
I am just stating what I would mean if I were to casually say something like that. I would basically just be saying that it is one of my favorite performances. You have to remember that most people aren't film scholars who understand how to properly break down a movie or every aspect of a movie, not even the Academy. And even when you do have people who are extremely intelligent in studying film, there will still be disagreements. Yes, I understand your point, but I am not basing the performance on just entertainment\enjoyment factor. That is fun, but also superficial. I am challenging this aspect, so as to look deeper, because to my mind, it isn't really what it is cracked up to be and I don't care to make it out to be something that it isn't. Neither am I. I am basing it on how effective I find it. How much impact it has on me as a single viewer. Me basing something on just me being entertained by a performance is like Keanu Reeves in Speed or something like that. I mean you love Psycho II, right? Most people don't. Doesn't it come down to the fact that you are perhaps just seeing something in the film that most people are unable to? Isn't it possible that you just are unable to see the greatness in Kathy Bates's performance that others do see?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2019 0:53:31 GMT
You do realize that is not in any way a factual statement, right? How do you know the director wanted her to convey subtle insight? How do you know other people aren't seeing something you aren't or are seeing it in a different way than you? This is a very common thing that happens when it comes to random people talking about movies. You seem to be assuming that everyone should see, understand and feel a movie in the same way but that just isn't possible. No, it is a subjective statement and born out of my personal opinion, but I do not judge her performance as brilliant here for various reasons as commented. There is no right or wrong, but there is also rational and insightful perception that may hint or get at some truth. I am not assuming or pretending anything either.
By starting this thread—and I just stated my own personal opinion—I am potentially challenging what many may see as brilliant, and if they, or you, care to give more insight into this, please be my guest.
Why do you care so much? I have no reason to try and convince you because I don't care whether you love the performance or not, nor do I have the proper tools or patience to do it. You need to find people who know how to study acting in order to have the discussion you are looking for. I hope you find what you are looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 2, 2019 1:01:51 GMT
Yes, I understand your point, but I am not basing the performance on just entertainment\enjoyment factor. That is fun, but also superficial. I am challenging this aspect, so as to look deeper, because to my mind, it isn't really what it is cracked up to be and I don't care to make it out to be something that it isn't. Neither am I. I am basing it on how effective I find it. How much impact it has on me as a single viewer. Me basing something on just me being entertained by a performance is like Keanu Reeves in Speed or something like that. I mean you love Psycho II, right? Most people don't. Doesn't it come down to the fact that you are perhaps just seeing something in the film that most people are unable to? Isn't it possible that you just are unable to see the greatness in Kathy Bates's performance that others do see? Well, I could say the reverse to you. Isn't is possible that you are unable to see the "lack of greatness" in Kathy Bates's performance that others can recognize? Over exaggerated superlatives do fail me with Bates's performance here.
You are acting like because of my opinion on her in Misery, compared to how you feel about it, that I shouldn't be offering my opinion or take, because you don't want to hear anything other than what you already feel you know about it. I don't mind listening to your comments, but I am not going to take them on board, anymore than you have to take mine.
It is a pointless exercise if we are just repeating the disagreeances over the quality of her performance and for the different reasons we hold. It is after all subjective, but I can only trust my own instinct not anyone else's unless they offer me something that connects.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 2, 2019 1:04:59 GMT
No, it is a subjective statement and born out of my personal opinion, but I do not judge her performance as brilliant here for various reasons as commented. There is no right or wrong, but there is also rational and insightful perception that may hint or get at some truth. I am not assuming or pretending anything either.
By starting this thread—and I just stated my own personal opinion—I am potentially challenging what many may see as brilliant, and if they, or you, care to give more insight into this, please be my guest.
Why do you care so much? I have no reason to try and convince you because I don't care whether you love the performance or not, nor do I have the proper tools or patience to do it. You need to find people who know how to study acting in order to have the discussion you are looking for. I hope you find what you are looking for. movieman, it is a discussion thread on film general and it will attract all sorts of angles and opinions. If your buttons get pushed regarding something your read, you own that. If you don't care for my opinion, you don't have to comment anymore, over and above what we have already discussed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 2, 2019 1:13:19 GMT
I thought she was brilliant. Okay, maybe the outbursts from her can be a little OTT but it works within the context of the movie. Stephen King’s stories are usually surreal even if they are meant to be grounded in reality. Yes, Reiner was perhaps going for a more heightened approach to make the tense and somewhat claustrophobic setting and theme more palatable, but I also feel he may have made a few missteps, or made a bit of an err in judgement in his direction approach. There is also the script to contend with as well as written and it is still quite clever.
I would have just liked to have seen a more real Annie Wilkes and Bates doesn't exactly get under my skin here when watching it, other than she is just acted crazy, who pulled faces at times and had extreme temperament issues, which made her just come across as moody.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2019 1:13:30 GMT
Neither am I. I am basing it on how effective I find it. How much impact it has on me as a single viewer. Me basing something on just me being entertained by a performance is like Keanu Reeves in Speed or something like that. I mean you love Psycho II, right? Most people don't. Doesn't it come down to the fact that you are perhaps just seeing something in the film that most people are unable to? Isn't it possible that you just are unable to see the greatness in Kathy Bates's performance that others do see? Well, I could say the reverse to you. Isn't is possible that you are unable to see the "lack of greatness" in Kathy Bates's performance that others can recognize? Over exaggerated superlatives do fail me with Bates's performance here.
You are acting like because of my opinion on her in Misery, compared to how you feel about it, that I shouldn't be offering my opinion or take, because you don't want to hear anything other than what you already feel you know about it. I don't mind listening to your comments, but I am not going to take them on board, anymore than you have to take mine.
It is a pointless exercise if we are just repeating the disagreeances over the quality of her performance and for the different reasons we hold. It is after all subjective, but I can only trust my own instinct not anyone else's unless they offer me something that connects.
Of course you can say the reverse to me I am perfectly willing to accept that. I think maybe I didn't say what I meant correctly. I meant that isn't it possible we are both right? What I mean is that maybe we want two different things from the performance. Performances, like movies, should be judged on what they are trying to achieve. Kathy Bates and Glenn Close should not be compared because they are both going for different things. One is purposely more realistic and nuanced than the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2019 1:16:35 GMT
Why do you care so much? I have no reason to try and convince you because I don't care whether you love the performance or not, nor do I have the proper tools or patience to do it. You need to find people who know how to study acting in order to have the discussion you are looking for. I hope you find what you are looking for. movieman, it is a discussion thread on film general and it will attract all sorts of angles and opinions. If your buttons get pushed regarding something your read, you own that. If you don't care for my opinion, you don't have to comment anymore, over and above what we have already discussed.
Fair enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 2, 2019 1:16:50 GMT
Well, I could say the reverse to you. Isn't is possible that you are unable to see the "lack of greatness" in Kathy Bates's performance that others can recognize? Over exaggerated superlatives do fail me with Bates's performance here.
You are acting like because of my opinion on her in Misery, compared to how you feel about it, that I shouldn't be offering my opinion or take, because you don't want to hear anything other than what you already feel you know about it. I don't mind listening to your comments, but I am not going to take them on board, anymore than you have to take mine.
It is a pointless exercise if we are just repeating the disagreeances over the quality of her performance and for the different reasons we hold. It is after all subjective, but I can only trust my own instinct not anyone else's unless they offer me something that connects.
Of course you can say the reverse to me I am perfectly willing to accept that. I think maybe I didn't say what I meant correctly. I meant that isn't it possible we are both right? What I mean is that maybe we want to different things from the performance. Performances, like movies, should be judged on what they are trying to achieve. Kathy Bates and Glenn Close should not be compared because they are both going for different things. One is purposely more realistic and nuanced than the other. Because one was performed with better skill and that is my point.
Yes, they can be compared, because they are only a few years apart, both are about psychotic women who were obsessed and both were vying for Oscars. One was more deserving than the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2019 1:20:18 GMT
I thought she was brilliant. Okay, maybe the outbursts from her can be a little OTT but it works within the context of the movie. Stephen King’s stories are usually surreal even if they are meant to be grounded in reality. Yes, Reiner was perhaps going for a more heightened approach to make the tense and somewhat claustrophobic setting and theme more palatable, but I also feel he may have made a few missteps, or made a bit of an err in judgement in his direction approach. There is also the script to contend with as well as written and it is still quite clever.
I would have just liked to have seen a more real Annie Wilkes and Bates doesn't exactly get under my skin here when watching it, other than she is just acted crazy, who pulled faces at times and had extreme temperament issues, which made her just come across as moody.
Here is another thing you seem to be missing. Different people find different things scary. The more realistic the performance often the less scary it is to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2019 1:21:57 GMT
Of course you can say the reverse to me I am perfectly willing to accept that. I think maybe I didn't say what I meant correctly. I meant that isn't it possible we are both right? What I mean is that maybe we want to different things from the performance. Performances, like movies, should be judged on what they are trying to achieve. Kathy Bates and Glenn Close should not be compared because they are both going for different things. One is purposely more realistic and nuanced than the other. Because one was performed with better skill and that is my point.
Yes, they can be compared, because they are only a few years apart, both are about psychotic women who were obsessed and both were vying for Oscars. One was more deserving than the other. They are performed withe equal skill imo. They can not be compared in the way you are comparing them. You wanted Kathy Bates performance to be nuanced in the way that Glenn Close is, but that isn't the way Bates chose to play the character. She plays it more dark;y comedic and OTT and it is a great performance of that style of acting imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 2, 2019 1:27:40 GMT
Yes, Reiner was perhaps going for a more heightened approach to make the tense and somewhat claustrophobic setting and theme more palatable, but I also feel he may have made a few missteps, or made a bit of an err in judgement in his direction approach. There is also the script to contend with as well as written and it is still quite clever.
I would have just liked to have seen a more real Annie Wilkes and Bates doesn't exactly get under my skin here when watching it, other than she is just acted crazy, who pulled faces at times and had extreme temperament issues, which made her just come across as moody.
Here is another thing you seem to be missing. Different people find different things scary. The more realistic the performance often the less scary it is to me. I am not missing anything. I am not so much talking about realism per se, I'd see a doco for that, but believability within the delivery which is key, which in turn makes the character appear more real, flesh and blood. The audience needs to connect with and get an inkling of understanding of what is going on under the surface. Even Caan expressed this in his character more believably.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2019 1:31:55 GMT
Here is another thing you seem to be missing. Different people find different things scary. The more realistic the performance often the less scary it is to me. I am not missing anything. I am not so much talking about realism per se, I'd see a doco for that, but believability within the delivery which is key, which in turn makes the character appear more real, flesh and blood. The audience needs to connect with and get an inkling of understanding of what is going on under the surface. Even Caan expressed this in his character more believably. I did. You didn't. That is what I am trying to get at.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Aug 2, 2019 2:15:11 GMT
I thought she was brilliant. Okay, maybe the outbursts from her can be a little OTT but it works within the context of the movie. Stephen King’s stories are usually surreal even if they are meant to be grounded in reality. Yes, Reiner was perhaps going for a more heightened approach to make the tense and somewhat claustrophobic setting and theme more palatable, but I also feel he may have made a few missteps, or made a bit of an err in judgement in his direction approach. There is also the script to contend with as well as written and it is still quite clever.
I would have just liked to have seen a more real Annie Wilkes and Bates doesn't exactly get under my skin here when watching it, other than she is just acted crazy, who pulled faces at times and had extreme temperament issues, which made her just come across as moody.
Fair enough. I just think the craziness of the performance added to the character. Realistic performances can also work, it just depends on how well it is done overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 2, 2019 2:21:38 GMT
I am not missing anything. I am not so much talking about realism per se, I'd see a doco for that, but believability within the delivery which is key, which in turn makes the character appear more real, flesh and blood. The audience needs to connect with and get an inkling of understanding of what is going on under the surface. Even Caan expressed this in his character more believably. I did. You didn't. That is what I am trying to get at. You must be a better man than me then movieman... 
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 2, 2019 2:25:18 GMT
Yes, Reiner was perhaps going for a more heightened approach to make the tense and somewhat claustrophobic setting and theme more palatable, but I also feel he may have made a few missteps, or made a bit of an err in judgement in his direction approach. There is also the script to contend with as well as written and it is still quite clever.
I would have just liked to have seen a more real Annie Wilkes and Bates doesn't exactly get under my skin here when watching it, other than she is just acted crazy, who pulled faces at times and had extreme temperament issues, which made her just come across as moody.
Fair enough. I just think the craziness of the performance added to the character. Realistic performances can also work, it just depends on how well it is done overall. What I am getting at, is that I found it a much easier or contrived performance than what could have been delivered. Bates appeared to be just inciting her lines instead of being them, or in the moment. She apparently had some clashes with Caan, because she liked a lot of rehearsals and he didn't. It was more of a self-aware performance she gave.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Aug 2, 2019 2:31:43 GMT
Fair enough. I just think the craziness of the performance added to the character. Realistic performances can also work, it just depends on how well it is done overall. What I am getting at, is that I found it a much easier or contrived performance than what could have been delivered. Bates appeared to be just inciting her lines instead of being them, or in the moment. She apparently had some clashes with Caan, because she liked a lot of rehearsals and he didn't. It was more of a self-aware performance she gave. See, I like self-aware performances like that since it gives it some flavour, and clearly Bates was having fun with the role. That alone makes it one of the best antagonistic roles I’ve seen for a female. I should definitely watch Fatal Attraction though.
|
|
