Bow down to the Blue/Green Screen
I’ve ranted a bit here, and in the old site (posts returning soon, I hope) about how much of a let down the new Lucasworks have been. A very interesting development, however, was watching Shattered Glass on IFC. It’s a good dramatization/narrative of the Stephen Glass scandal at the New Republic. The revelation is that the movie starred Hayden “Anakin” Christensen. In my opinion, he really did well in the role. As the weasely Glass, he had to slowly, achingly fess up to fabricating stories.
In essence, the role called for being a whiny bastard, – just the thing I/we despise in SW III. But he pulls it off with pathos. Honestly. I have no sympathy for the whole situation at the New Republic, and I agree with Leon Wieseltier, that Glass is “a worm.”
So I don’t like the “real” person” and I don’t much care for the actor. But despite all that against, it’s an engaging performance.
So I can’t help thinking that it’s perhaps having a person and maybe other people, along with real walls, etc. — having an actual as opposed to “virual” set that perhaps makes the difference.
Except for when pulled over on the highway, I’m not an actor, so I can’t evaluate much further. I know that when I’m directing I try to get actors to focus on the smallest possible aspect of the scene.
Of course I pull up from my study of acting when I sat down last night in front of TCM to watch John Cassavetes’ Faces and Woman Under the Influence. Is that acting? Maybe. But it is surely great filmmaking.
When I watch those wonderfully rough-edged films I head right back to the drawing board and the legal pads. If it’s on the paper, it can be put on the screen. So that’s how I’m spending the next few months.
Besides, I already own the legal pads. I don’t have the money to do anything else.
Sphere: Related Content
July 9th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Nice observations – I have a special place in my heart for Star Wars. Even now with its clunky effects it still has an innocence to it. Empire too. I checked out after that though. The stories didn’t hold my attention and the effects became soulless. Besides the spectacle of his films what are you really left with? I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Lucas is better equipped behind a mouse than behind a lens. Acting was never a priority in his films, it’s been documented.
Then you have Cassavetes who was the polar opposite. He was all about the actor to the point where his films had a very rough, non-technical, documentary POV. I’m trying to strike a balance with my own work. I want to bring that authenticity of character into the fold before we forget about what people actually act like on film. At the same time incorporate these technical advances to create new looks and not be so dependent on overused techniques to tell a story.
Whether I accomplish that task or not has yet to be seen.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Have you read Goldman’s books? I really enjoy them, especially as a motivator. Getting into the Scene / Action / Dialogue / Shot mode of thinking.
just happened to come across his judgement RE: Phantom Menace and sequels in general: “Sequels are whore’s movies.”
Thanks for reading.
July 11th, 2006 at 9:19 am
I have both of the Goldman books but I have yet to dive into them. I rented Marathon Man a couple of weeks ago. I think his honesty about the “biz” is great. Check out the extra features on that DVD.