|
|
Post by Penn Guinn on Feb 6, 2022 17:22:46 GMT
I prefer it when it's less self-aware eccentricity. Are actors in general not more self-aware than mere mortals ?
Eccentricity that is not deliberate (ie self-aware) is perhaps more a mental thing ... Aunt Anna who wears a 1930's hat because it is a 1930's hat is not the same as Aunt Sally who wears a 1930's hat because she thinks it is the new and current fashion in her "now" which is 1930.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ass_E9 on Feb 6, 2022 18:03:06 GMT
I prefer it when it's less self-aware eccentricity. Are actors in general not more self-aware than mere mortals ?
Eccentricity that is not deliberate (ie self-aware) is perhaps more a mental thing ... Aunt Anna who wears a 1930's hat because it is a 1930's hat is not the same as Aunt Sally who wears a 1930's hat because she thinks it is the new and current fashion in her "now" which is 1930. I suppose what I mean is the morphing into self-caricature, as if they consciously decided to play/ramp up their "eccentricity" as a selling point to such a level that the viewer no longer sees it as something innate. Not the same, but similar to Leslie Nielsen getting too far in on the joke and appearing desperate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penn Guinn on Feb 6, 2022 18:10:03 GMT
Ass_E9 good point ... I understand now what you meant. If I think of another example .. will do a MacArthur !
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Feb 6, 2022 18:12:42 GMT
I am indifferent to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Jul 9, 2022 21:40:19 GMT
Some actors maybe go over the top...but is that eccentric? I can recall criticism of the Kirk Douglas playing of Van Gogh in Lust For Life, and in particular one critic (can't remember, likely Parker Tyler or Manny Farber) comment on how Douglas sounded like a tormented teenager begging to be understood by a real grownup in some scene with Anthony Quinn's manly, confident Gaugin. That stuck with me for some reason, and I think it's true. But was that the actor's intention? It's not like Douglas was aiming to channel James Dean. My take on that was that Douglas was interpreting Van Gogh that way, with Gaugin the Master, the Alpha Male, Van Gogh the pitiful wannabe. Yet this isn't how the film actually plays. After his death, Van Gogh, through his art, becomes the true Alpha, with his life's work beautifully on display in its final moments. One can as easily interpret Gaugin as the "villain" of the film, the crude peasant to Van Gogh's heroic "delicate artist". Either way, and no need to take sides here,--artists come in all shapes, sizes and dispositions--and yet a sensitive viewer one can't help feel that Van Gogh "made it" in his fashion, and that the energy he put into his art killed him. For the record, I don't think that Kirk Douglas went over the top in Lust For Life: he gave his all to the part, and was deeply sincere, not odd or eccentric. He struck me as tapping into himself in his portrayal of the great artist. If anyone was over the top in that film it was Anthony Quinn playing of Gaugin as a kind of waterfront bully.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 10, 2022 12:12:57 GMT
Everybody has 'eccentricities'; actors are simply better paid and get more notoriety/publicity/exposure for posturing theirs. Whereas ordinary folks who get too out there with their oddnesses are often apt to suffer problems in their personal and professional lives for doing so.
|
|
