Overacting
Delta5Qmp
style of Kubrick movies. Its nothing nearly as obvious as David Mamet acting
syndrome, but from Nicholson to Modine to Kidman, the acting of most his films
seems very refined, and one step shy of over the top. Perhaps this is his
preference, or a result of his puppeteer like approach to acting. Maybe im
wrong, can anyone site examples that prove or disprove this?
-RE
Gregg V. Carroll
Well Kidman talked about how doing so many takes of a scene eventually
starts to warp the actual process of acting. By take 30 the words are down
pat, the required nuances are down pat, and you're on to something
different, an exploration of the scene. Something else along the lines of
what you're speaking of comes out in the scene, beyond just getting a good
take. I think that might have something (or a lot) to do with it; the whole
"multiple takes" Kubrick spiel. Obviously not every shot has 30 or more
takes behind it, but perhaps the effect generalizes itself in the
methodology of an actor on a Kubrick set.
Gregg
Chris
seen regarded as over-the-top. But Nicholson in interviews for the "Making of"
documentary said how SK preferred something interesting, not "just realistic."
And that preference is good, because it makes for distinct and memorable movie
moments & experiences. I laugh out loud now whenever I watch him in the scene
with Wendy and the bat. The facial expressions are quite something. "As soon
as possibell?!" :-) One of the funniest scenes in his movies, up there with
almost every scene with Lee Ermey in _Full Metal Jacket_ or some scenes in _A
Clockwork Orange_ like the fight early on. (Those weren't too over-the-top, were
they? :-)
I don't know what else in his movies would be considered over-the-top. In
another movie, the performances of various people in _Dr. Strangelove_ would be
too over-the-top. You have George Scott -- literally -- going over the top in
one scene, so it was obviously intended that way.
In article <20010804013459...@ng-cq1.aol.com>, Delta5Qmp says...
__
Chris Cathcart [email suffix: yahoo]
"Language is a powerful tool in the hands of the learned, and
a disaster in the making for the untrained." -- Thomas White
Thornhill
"Delta5Qmp" <delt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010804013459...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
Often, the SK acting style approaches a kind of 'Mannerism' that can be
unsettling. This has a kind of two-dimensional quality, not merely
puppet-like, but rather more Shadow Puppet-like. Mamet distends this
effect, as does Pinter. Remember also SK's fascination (albeit subtle) with
actual 'puppets', 'dolls', 'dummies', 'robots', and other representations of
humans. Eventually, one begins to wonder just how to make the distinction?
Paradoxically, through the very 'flatness,' or this grotesque, over-charged
puppet-like quality, the characters seem all the more human, all the more
three-dimensional. More importantly, there's an insistent hint of how "All
the world's a stage..." for these actors/characters, and by extension, how
even *we* are merely players in it, too.
Thornhill
Richard Kim
>another movie, the performances of various people in _Dr. Strangelove_ would
>be
>too over-the-top. You have George Scott -- literally -- going over the top
>in
>one scene, so it was obviously intended that way.
>
According to the documentary on the Strangelove DVD, Scott was upset that
Kubrick often chose his most over the top take in the final cut, claiming that
it wasn't his true performance.
David Sticher
> Often, the SK acting style approaches a kind of 'Mannerism' that can be
> unsettling. This has a kind of two-dimensional quality, not merely
> puppet-like, but rather more Shadow Puppet-like. Mamet distends this
> effect, as does Pinter. Remember also SK's fascination (albeit subtle) with
> actual 'puppets', 'dolls', 'dummies', 'robots', and other representations of
> humans. Eventually, one begins to wonder just how to make the distinction?
>
> Paradoxically, through the very 'flatness,' or this grotesque, over-charged
> puppet-like quality, the characters seem all the more human, all the more
> three-dimensional. More importantly, there's an insistent hint of how "All
> the world's a stage..." for these actors/characters, and by extension, how
> even *we* are merely players in it, too.
The "SK acting style" appears to me as if the characters are pawns
governed by forces much greater than their own conscious decisions. SK's
world cuts beneath the surface to the underlying forces, and as such the
characters' inner workings are laid bare as their explicit actions.
We're not to be distracted by what the characters *think* they're doing,
but what they do in spite of thinking. Their consciousness is stripped
away to the point where they appear to be strange exaggerations of human
behavior as we see in day-to-day contact.
As for comparing SK's directing style to that of a puppeteer, I disagree
a bit - while the actors themselves may behave a little like puppets,
real life puppeteer-cum-directors don't seem to work in especially
Kubrickian circles. I always thought his methods sounded a bit more like
the old epigram on how to sculpt a horse...you start with a big block,
and you gradually chip away everything that doesn't look like a horse.
The performances don't generally appear to be manipulated by an unseen
third party, but more like a highly refined and pared down vision of the
characters' explicit actions.
- Dave
Peter Tonguette
>As for comparing SK's directing style to that of a puppeteer, I disagree
>a bit - while the actors themselves may behave a little like puppets,
>real life puppeteer-cum-directors don't seem to work in especially
>Kubrickian circles. I always thought his methods sounded a bit more like
>the old epigram on how to sculpt a horse...you start with a big block,
>and you gradually chip away everything that doesn't look like a horse.
>The performances don't generally appear to be manipulated by an unseen
>third party, but more like a highly refined and pared down vision of the
>characters' explicit actions.
I agree. If anything, it seems obvious that Kubrick was not fully aware of
precisely what he wanted out of a scene or from an actor until he was on the
set and was able to work it out with them. This helps explain why his films
took as long as they did to shoot. I also get the impression he allowed for
enormous room for actor participation and improvisiation, especially during
"critical rehearsal moments." Some of the most memorable sequences in
Kubrick's work - "Signin' in the Rain" in ACO, for instance - have come out of
these working methods.
Peter
M4RV1N
writes:
> If anything, it seems obvious that Kubrick was not fully aware of
>precisely what he wanted out of a scene or from an actor until he was on the
>set and was able to work it out with them.
The other possibility, which I think was probably true as often as not, is that
he had a precise intent and wanted the actor to discover it naturally (Murray
Melvin recounted this about one of his scenes in "Barry Lyndon"). The reason
for not telling the actor openly about a precise performance goal is because it
would automatically limit, even crush improvisation.
This helps explain why his films
>took as long as they did to shoot. I also get the impression he allowed>for
>enormous room for actor participation and improvisiation, especially during
>"critical rehearsal moments." Some of the most memorable sequences in
>Kubrick's work - "Signin' in the Rain" in ACO, for instance - have come out
>of
>these working methods.
Improvisation could possibly (but not usually) provide something >even better<
than what Kubrick had in mind. This is the point about Kubrick making actors
really work for their pay. Shelley Duvall was one of the few who didn't seem
up to it. Kubrick got a great performance from her anyway.
In the cases of Sellers, McDowell, Nicholson, and a few others, improvisation
did pay off in ways Kubrick could not anticipate.
The other point I want to add to this discussion is about "naturalism" in the
acting in Kubrick films. There are virtually an infinite number of ways people
can express themselves, many of which, if captured on film and put forward as
acting, would be derided as "way over the top," or "not naturalistic." What
people are so often conditioned to respond to in movies is people acting, well,
like they do in most other movies. Does Charles Manson act in a naturalistic
way? Goodness, does George W. Bush?!
To me, a false performance is one where the actor is clearly struggling with
his lines, and I've not seen that problem in a SK film after "The Killing."
Are his performances eccentric? Absolutely--except where the artistic need is
for them to be subtle. You won't find a more subtle performance in film art
than that of Murray Melvin in BL. You won't find one more overt than Scott in
Dr.S, or Patrick Magee in ACO. Nicholson's work in TS runs the entire
spectrum; the conversations with Lloyd and Grady are some of the most subtle
and brilliant of his entire career (Nicholson thinks that, as well).
I'm always wondering, (and this pertains to other recent threads) if people tag
their dispeasure with some other aspect of a Kubrick film (the psychological
discomfort they can cause, the lack of reinforcement of conventional views of
humanity) onto the acting. But also Kubrick films, generally, are not vehicles
for great performances (ACO and TS are two exceptions). They are primarily
vehicles for great ideas.
Mark Ervin
Thornhill
"David Sticher" <das...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:3B6B643E...@nyu.edu...
Very nicely stated. This was clearly something he 'courted'. Even as a
youngster, he's mentioned carrying his camera around in a paper sack like
lunch, not like "a Photographer" (his description of what he was secretly
shooting for on a train reminds me of Eliot's lines about the "mental
emptiness" that deepen on people's faces when there is little to think
about). Once one is able to capture that open moment, those few lapsed
seconds, it's hard to want to go back to what we think of as "acting."
>
> As for comparing SK's directing style to that of a puppeteer, I disagree
> a bit - while the actors themselves may behave a little like puppets,
> real life puppeteer-cum-directors don't seem to work in especially
> Kubrickian circles. I always thought his methods sounded a bit more like
> the old epigram on how to sculpt a horse...you start with a big block,
> and you gradually chip away everything that doesn't look like a horse.
> The performances don't generally appear to be manipulated by an unseen
> third party, but more like a highly refined and pared down vision of the
> characters' explicit actions.
>
> - Dave
A clarification here. I didn't intend to imply that SK was as a
'puppet-master'. Not at all. But, he was interested in observing how
people -- almost consistently -- are willing and able to give themselves the
delusion of self-control and freedom of choice, when it is usually the
opposite that is true. There's where the 'puppet' or 'simulacrum' notion
comes in. If there is manipulation by an unseen 'third party', I'd put that
down to fate, contingency, God, or what have you.
Thornhill
derek
> To me, a false performance is one where the actor is clearly struggling with
> his lines, and I've not seen that problem in a SK film after "The Killing."
> Are his performances eccentric? Absolutely--except where the artistic need is
> for them to be subtle. You won't find a more subtle performance in film art
> than that of Murray Melvin in BL. You won't find one more overt than Scott in
> Dr.S, or Patrick Magee in ACO. Nicholson's work in TS runs the entire
> spectrum; the conversations with Lloyd and Grady are some of the most subtle
> and brilliant of his entire career (Nicholson thinks that, as well).
I would say BL too covers the full gamut of performances, from Melvyn's
sensational understatement - sometimes conveying pages of nuance in the simplest
facial expression - to Frank Middlemass' apopleptic demise on confronting
Redmond's ambition to "Fill MY shoes!" (one of the most entertaining scenes I've
ever encountered).
> their dispeasure with some other aspect of a Kubrick film (the psychological
> discomfort they can cause, the lack of reinforcement of conventional views of
> humanity) onto the acting. But also Kubrick films, generally, are not
vehicles
> for great performances (ACO and TS are two exceptions). They are primarily
> vehicles for great ideas.
I think this is *exactly* the point, as so many of Kubrick's characters are
extreme representations of a philosophical stance. This, yes, is a frustration
for audiences who want to see only Peter Sellers in a Sellers role, Nicholson in
a Nicholson role, but Kubrick had a clear preference for actors who played
strong character performances over stars who played personalised screen
personas. Even the stars he chose were forced to change lanes before the camera,
and it's interesting that even among the bigger names he engaged, all a
remembered for the originality and tone of their characters rather than their
presence in another vehicle tailored for their career profile. A young Harrison
Ford may have been a Dr. Bill, Elizabeth Taylor a Mrs. Dr. Bill, but their
performances would have stood out quite distinct from their other work. (Taylor
not a good example here but humour me on a lazy Sunday).
Just contemplating the whole question is somehwat disheartening - too many
movies now are just so we get to see ... someone; the character they play is
almost incidental to who they are as a star.
regards,
derek
--
"Now put your clothes on and get out of here."
Wordsmith
Kubrick aimed for acting squared: meta-acting. He made his players push
the envelope...and they loved him for it!
Onemoretakesmith :)
Rod Munday
> I'm always wondering, (and this pertains to other recent threads) if people tag
> their dispeasure with some other aspect of a Kubrick film (the psychological
> discomfort they can cause, the lack of reinforcement of conventional views of
> humanity) onto the acting.
I absolutely agree, I've personally witnessed some pretty outrageous
performances in real life, especially in times of crisis. There seems
to me to be a convention of film acting, which appears to edit this
reality in order to make it acceptable for audience scrutiny. In more
extreme cases this results in actresses playing their big grief scene
in perfect make up, but a more subtle example is an actress just
playing a grief scene in a controlled way so that her performance does
not cause the audience to become alienated from her. I think these are
the conventions of acting that Kubrick chooses to transgress: both in
the way he gets actors to underplay and overplay, but rarely pitch
their performances toward what would be considered conventional movie
acting.
This is actually a very similar technique to Nabakov (harking to
another thread) who writes which such sure footedness that he can mix
moments of almost hyperbolic intensity with calm banality and we are
still interested in what he has to say. Maybe that's the trick of
these two masters, and - venturing a generalisation here - all masters
in any given medium: through their absolute mastery of technique they
can explore the extremities of the human condition and they don't have
to make us like them or their films to capture, our attention and
effect us profoundly.
> But also Kubrick films, generally, are not vehicles
> for great performances (ACO and TS are two exceptions). They are primarily
> vehicles for great ideas.
>
> Mark Ervin
From Barry Norman article on the Kubrick Site:
When I last spoke to him -- to congratulate him on Full Metal Jacket
-- I aked what he planned next and he said: "What do you suggest?"
I said, "Come on, you must have a million ideas."
And with a note of horror in his voice he said: "No, no, ideas are a
trap! You can't make a film based on an idea -- you must have a
story."
Regards, Rod Munday
Crickmail
>better<
>than what Kubrick had in mind. This is the point about Kubrick making actors
>really work for their pay. Shelley Duvall was one of the few who didn't seem
>up to it.
I think Kubrick's relationship with Duvall on TS may have gone beyond bad
chemistry and/or Duvall's professional flaws. Part of it may have been Kubrick
deliberately intimidating her to get the desired affect out of her performance.
-Jon Springer
Wordsmith
Kubrick dealt in archetypes. It's not suprising Jung interested him
so much. Character was secondary in SK's universe: cutting to the meat
of the philosophical issue was key. Actors were specific vessels for
his broad and abstract mind games.
Bishoptakespawnsmith :)
Dave Walker
In the "funny parallel" department, if anyone here is familiar with
the band My Bloody Valentine, one of their leader/producer
Kevin Shields' favorite techniques was to record dozens of
vocal tracks of singer Belinda Butcher and overlay them
in the studio. If he did 20 takes of her vocal, he might
use tracks 12 and 13 as the "lead" vocal and mix the other
takes underneath as atmosphere. He did this because
he said there was a special vocal quality that emerged
from her fatigued vocal chords at that point that
was completely different in character from the
earlier and later takes.
-d.w.
Gregg V. Carroll
Neat. Great band. :)
Gregg
Gordon Dahlquist
On 4 Aug 2001, M4RV1N wrote:
> The other possibility, which I think was probably true as often as not,
> is that he had a precise intent and wanted the actor to discover it
> naturally (Murray Melvin recounted this about one of his scenes in
> "Barry Lyndon"). The reason for not telling the actor openly about a
> precise performance goal is because it would automatically limit, even
> crush improvisation.
this is pretty common with any director who knows what they're doing - an
actor who discovers something themselves plays it more deeply and
truthfully (even on repetitive takes) than if they try to replicate
something that's been explained to them. but beyond this, it's not like
kubrick had a "secret plan" for a particular moment. in understanding the
scene and how it fits into the script as a whole, he understands how a
moment has to rise - in intensity, in pitch, in relation to the rest of
the scene. there are always a number of valid ways to do this, and
getting an actor to the place where the right discovery is made is what
directing actors is all about.
> Improvisation could possibly (but not usually) provide something >even
> better< than what Kubrick had in mind. This is the point about Kubrick
> making actors really work for their pay. Shelley Duvall was one of the
> few who didn't seem up to it. Kubrick got a great performance from her
> anyway.
there are different kinds of improvisation. duvall was actually know as
an "improv actress" from working with altman. but altman's improvisation-
heavy films of the time frequently ended up withactors coming up with
their own dialogue. what kubrickwas after was something totally
different: he wanted actors who knew their lines so coldly, who were so
deeply invested in the scene as written that their instinctive reactions -
genstures, and yes, improv lines - were generated to be consistent with
that context. in the improv duvall was used to, her improvs supplied the
context. what kubrick wanted was something much more rigorous. but, yes,
her performance is superb.
> In the cases of Sellers, McDowell, Nicholson, and a few others,
> improvisation did pay off in ways Kubrick could not anticipate.
I'd go further in the instance of sellers: huge sections of strangelove
depended on his invention for success, and on him alone. his performance
as dr. s is what lifts the film's final section into the ether, and makes
its satire so psychologically penetrating.
> To me, a false performance is one where the actor is clearly struggling with
> his lines, and I've not seen that problem in a SK film after "The Killing."
> Are his performances eccentric? Absolutely--except where the artistic need is
> for them to be subtle. You won't find a more subtle performance in film art
> than that of Murray Melvin in BL. You won't find one more overt than Scott in
> Dr.S, or Patrick Magee in ACO. Nicholson's work in TS runs the entire
> spectrum; the conversations with Lloyd and Grady are some of the most subtle
> and brilliant of his entire career (Nicholson thinks that, as well).
I agree, but this is consistent with kubrick entire method. his films are
hardly naturalistic: the camera angles, the music, the lighting are always
in service of the story, and are always telling your that you're watching
a film, even as they're being as "real" or as "true" as possible (e.g. the
hue scenes in fmj). it's the brechtian thing, and the acting in kubrick's
is just about textbook brecht (though whether kubrick thought about
brechtian action for more than two seconds is hardly the point: it's a
practical working method to tell stories in a way to make clear why you're
telling the story and why you're hearing the story as important a part of
the story as the "story" itself).
> I'm always wondering, (and this pertains to other recent threads) if
> people tag their dispeasure with some other aspect of a Kubrick film
> (the psychological discomfort they can cause, the lack of reinforcement
> of conventional views of humanity) onto the acting. But also Kubrick
> films, generally, are not vehicles for great performances (ACO and TS
> are two exceptions). They are primarily vehicles for great ideas.
I agree. fmj suffers from this particularly, but the reaction to ews was
largely rooted in discomfort about how the characters behaved (or didn't).
because this behavior is often evasive, posturing, weak, cowardly, cruel,
unacknowledged, i.e. truthful to the world, it's naturally unpopular with
a certain percentage of viewers - the ones who don't want to look at the
story at the same time they're watching the story.
JSpringer0953
>hardly naturalistic: the camera angles, the music, the lighting are always
>in service of the story, and are always telling your that you're watching
>a film, even as they're being as "real" or as "true" as possible (e.g. the
>hue scenes in fmj). it's the brechtian thing, and the acting in kubrick's
>is just about textbook brecht (though whether kubrick thought about
>brechtian action for more than two seconds is hardly the point: it's a
>practical working method to tell stories in a way to make clear why you're
>telling the story and why you're hearing the story as important a part of
>the story as the "story" itself).
This is an utterly fascinating element of Kubrick's films. He somehow
discovered an acute sensiblility for employing what a Drama Prof. would call
"Verfremdungseffekt" - the essence of Brecht's theory and practice. But whereas
Brecht saw it as a tool of transformation to leftist causes, namely Marxism,
Kubrick saw it as pure technique in and of itself - a new form of storytelling.
What immeadiately comes to mind is the "tearing" camera effect during the Hue
City battle scenes in FMJ - later ripped-off by Speilberg in SPR (I think Doug
Milsome comments on executing the effect in American Cinematographer, although
I don't know what issue). This seemingly arbtitrary effect is at once a
"distancing" effect from the drama, yet in it's context can yield profound
meaning (using a little imagination). Also, another "alienation" or
"distancing" effect is achieved by merely distancing the camera from the
emotional content of the story. Again in the Hue City sequence, when the first
soldier is motally wounded by the booby-trap stuffed animal, and again when
Cowboy is hit by the sniper - I was always struck by how Kubrick seems to keep
the camera back, the opposite from the "in your face" close-up angle emotion
that any other director would have used in a battle scene. This dimension of
Kubrick's storytelling seems to go unnoticed/unappreciated and is usually
misinterpreted by many (ala EWS).
Jon Springer www.cricketfilms.com
Gordon Dahlquist
as a sidenote, it's important to note that kubrick's films quite often
focus on scenes of extreme emotion - redmond barry at brian's bedside, for
example - which are filmed very simply, usually from one angle, often in a
complete take. kubrick actually grants the scene more "reality" than we
usually get - a theatrical frame that allows the entirety of the actor's
work to be seen, the "whole [i.e., 'real'] moment". ironically, this
practice is generally seen as another example of kubrick's coldness - his
refusal to cut in and fetishize the emotion, to indulge in film grammer
that telegraphs how the audience ought to feel at any given moment
actually strikes critics as somehow mean-spirited. personally, I find
kburick's method both more effective and true, but also more respectful -
of both his actors and his audience.
Peter Tonguette
>as a sidenote, it's important to note that kubrick's films quite often
>focus on scenes of extreme emotion - redmond barry at brian's bedside, for
>example - which are filmed very simply, usually from one angle, often in
>a
>complete take. kubrick actually grants the scene more "reality" than we
>usually get - a theatrical frame that allows the entirety of the actor's
>work to be seen, the "whole [i.e., 'real'] moment". ironically, this
>practice is generally seen as another example of kubrick's coldness - his
>refusal to cut in and fetishize the emotion, to indulge in film grammer
>that telegraphs how the audience ought to feel at any given moment
>actually strikes critics as somehow mean-spirited. personally, I find
>kburick's method both more effective and true, but also more respectful
>-
>of both his actors and his audience.
I couldn't agree more. Much of this working method - shooting scenes simply,
in long takes, displaying the whole of an actors' performance - seems to
originate on "Dr. Strangelove" and working with Peter Sellers, yet another way
in which his collaboration with Sellers was a vital one. There were scenes
where Kubrick would simply set up a camera or two and let him go, although I
get the impression that many of his scenes as Quilty in "Lolita" were improv in
nature as well. Sellers was, of course, a unique case, but I think a study of
his working methods with him shows just how much Kubrick respected actors and
invited their participation. Certainly there are many scenes in "Eyes Wide
Shut" - Alice's two long monologues being the most noteworthy examples - where
there is great acting on display, presented relatively "straightforwardly" with
a minimum of manipulative cinematic elements.
The way most people describe Kubrick's relationship with actors actually
reminds me of someone like Hitchcock, whose films were literally pre-cut,
leaving no room for improvisation. He often got wonderful performances, but
there's always a boxed-in feel to them that you never get with Kubrick.
Peter
Delta5Qmp
reminds me of someone like Hitchcock, whose films were literally pre-cut,
leaving no room for improvisation. He often got wonderful performances, but
there's always a boxed-in feel to them that you never get with Kubrick. >>
I think thats because Kubrick is just better at it. He also does not refuse
new ideas when they come on set as hitchcock sometimes did. My favorite AH
quote- "I never said that actors are treated like cattle, I said they SHOULD be
treated like cattle" sums up that style of acting direction. Does anyone know
to what degree Kubrick preplanned and storyboarded his films? i have heard
that even 2001 was still being written as it was shot, but all his work feels
like it was storyboarded to the twitch. Has anyone SEEN a kubrick storyboard?
And of course, theres AI- that sounded like he finnished it before he gave it
to spielberg.
-RE