Elijah Wood is a childish dork
Larry Richards
I just saw the Elijah Wood interview on http://www.ringbearer.org and I
am truly appalled.
Elijah Wood has never read LotR and has no intention of reading it! All
he has ever read is PJ's script and the Hobbit. Based on his voluminous
reading of JRRT, he has come to the conclusion that Frodo is something
of a dry wit, something of a scamp.
There has been recurring posts here to the effect that Wood is too young
to play Frodo because Frodo was 50 at the time of the quest. The
standard answer has been that his youthful appearance can be attributed
to the Ring. For myself, this answer has been adequate to explain his
looks. From the pictures of Wood I have seen, he matches my idea of
what Frodo looked like.
My real concern has not been whether Wood *looked* old enough, but
whether he was old enough to lend to the part the gravity it needs.
Frodo is *very* mature, and matures throughout the book. Yet this twit
they have playing him thinks that Frodo is some little scamp. Not only
that, he has the balls to say that PJ's script is true to the spirit of
JRRT without ever having read LotR! How the hell does he know?! Does
he think the LotR is just another there and back again story? Does he
have any any idea about how *adult* LotR is?
Between this interview and the Arwen-Xena stuff I have heard, my
expectations for this movie have gone way down.
--
LGR
A confirmed winged balrog, Frodo speaking, Eowyn killing, pointy eared,
partisan!
Jiminut
>am truly appalled.
>
>Elijah Wood has never read LotR and has no intention of reading it! All
>he has ever read is PJ's script and the Hobbit. Based on his voluminous
>reading of JRRT, he has come to the conclusion that Frodo is something
>of a dry wit, something of a scamp.
I just took a reading myself. An exerpt you refer to:
Elijah Wood: "My character, Frodo Baggins, has a wry sense of humor."
I would say in comparison that Bilbo is something of a scamp, a wry sense of
humor. Frodo had maybe a couple laugh lines in the whole story, maybe enough
to count on both hands, but not more. Well either the script is just screwy,
or he got that view from his "voluminous reading of JRRT".
Pippin and Merry, occasionally even Samwise, they all tend to crack a joke from
time to time. I'd go so far as to say Frodo is one of the least humorous
characters in the book, second only to Aragorn, and maybe not even that. I
remember Frodo laughing once or twice, but Aragorn's sense of humor displayed
itself at least three times - in the Green Dragon (not letting on his true
identity) and twice in the Houses of Healing, with the Herbmaster
(Loremaster??) and with Merry and his pack. I'll go along with your concerns
about this interview.
Mike
Rory Molinari
Jiminut> Frodo laughing once or twice, but Aragorn's sense of humor
Jiminut> displayed itself at least three times - in the Green Dragon
["The Prancing Pony", shurely? Ed.]
Jiminut> (not letting on his true identity) and twice in the Houses of
Jiminut> Healing, with the Herbmaster (Loremaster??) and with Merry
Jiminut> and his pack. I'll go along with your concerns about this
Jiminut> interview.
Jiminut> Mike
Rory
FernWithy
interview does trouble me. Have they left in the silly song at the Pony, but
cut... oh, I don't know, Frodo's whole *character*?
---
FernWithy
John Whelan
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Larry Richards wrote:
> I just saw the Elijah Wood interview on http://www.ringbearer.org and I
> am truly appalled.
> Elijah Wood has never read LotR and has no intention of reading it! All
> he has ever read is PJ's script and the Hobbit.
You are way too easily appalled. There are plenty of people in this world
who have never read LOTR. They are in fact the overwhelming majority.
The fact that Elijah read the Hobbit puts him way ahead of most people.
Actually, what I found amusing about the interview was the implication
that Wood had perhaps mislead Jackson as to how much Tolkien he had read
(which in turn implies that Jackson cared enough to ask).
> Based on his voluminous
> reading of JRRT, he has come to the conclusion that Frodo is something
> of a dry wit, something of a scamp.
There is nothing wrong with Frodo having a sense of humor, particularly if
it was a nice dry one. I don't think it was Tolkien's intention to
portray Frodo as humorless (though he sometimes does come accross that
way). While Frodo eventually ends up haunted and over-serious, he
certainly should not start out that way.
> There has been recurring posts here to the effect that Wood is too young
> to play Frodo because Frodo was 50 at the time of the quest. The
> standard answer has been that his youthful appearance can be attributed
> to the Ring. For myself, this answer has been adequate to explain his
> looks. From the pictures of Wood I have seen, he matches my idea of
> what Frodo looked like.
Agreed. Woods looks are appropriate.
> My real concern has not been whether Wood *looked* old enough, but
> whether he was old enough to lend to the part the gravity it needs.
> Frodo is *very* mature, and matures throughout the book.
I'm not sure it makes sense to overestimate Frodo's "maturity" (whatever
that means). Practically all of Frodo's close friends were tweenagers.
He evidently preferred hanging out with the younger crowd. The general
effect of the Ring on Frodo, of course, would be to PREVENT him from
maturing (and not just physically). Frodo was rather haunted both by the
effect of the ring and the awareness of evil that it brought him, but that
is not quite saying the same thing.
> Yet this twit
> they have playing him thinks that Frodo is some little scamp. Not only
> that, he has the balls to say that PJ's script is true to the spirit of
> JRRT without ever having read LotR! How the hell does he know?! Does
> he think the LotR is just another there and back again story? Does he
> have any any idea about how *adult* LotR is?
Wood should probably keep his mouth shut, leastways till he reads the
book. But at this point it is really in the hands of the scriptwriter and
director, and is not likely to make much difference.
> Between this interview and the Arwen-Xena stuff I have heard, my
> expectations for this movie have gone way down.
I expect to here this refrain MANY MANY times on this NG. But did you
really expect every member of the cast and crew to be a die-hard worshiper
of the books? Are you really that shocked to find out that they all do
not share the same degree of reverence as you? That some might think of
it as just another job?
Anyway, it is probably good that this is not the case. Otherwise, each
cast member would be fighting with the director over artistic differences,
and variant interpretations of the material.
-- John Whelan
Nicholas Costa
Larry Richards <lric...@virginia.edu> wrote in message
news:380609F8...@virginia.edu...
> Snip<
>
> There has been recurring posts here to the effect that Wood is too young
> to play Frodo because Frodo was 50 at the time of the quest. The
> standard answer has been that his youthful appearance can be attributed
> to the Ring. For myself, this answer has been adequate to explain his
> looks. From the pictures of Wood I have seen, he matches my idea of
> what Frodo looked like.
Didn't Frodo Get the ring at his coming of age?? (i.e. late teens early
twentys when compered to humans) so how did the ring make him younger then
that?
Tenderfoot
<lric...@virginia.edu> wrote:
>I just saw the Elijah Wood interview on http://www.ringbearer.org and I
>am truly appalled.
This interview was made when?
>Elijah Wood has never read LotR and has no intention of reading it! All
>he has ever read is PJ's script and the Hobbit. Based on his voluminous
>reading of JRRT, he has come to the conclusion that Frodo is something
>of a dry wit, something of a scamp.
Uh well, I wish I had read PJ's script, which is more than any of us
have. Dry wit? That's not entirely inappropriate. You'll have to
explain what a scamp is though, I'm not familiar with the word.
>My real concern has not been whether Wood *looked* old enough, but
>whether he was old enough to lend to the part the gravity it needs.
>Frodo is *very* mature, and matures throughout the book. Yet this twit
>they have playing him thinks that Frodo is some little scamp.
It's scary how quick some of us are to judge. Tell me, have you ever
seen him act? I don't think he got the part on his looks alone...
Regardless, if an actor has some kind of misconception of the role
from reading the script, it's the director's job to set it straight,
whether your name happens to be Sir Ian McKellen or Elijah Wood.
These actors have more than a year of filming ahead of them, and
you're judging them on one brief interview after what, three days?
Like the ad says, the journey has only just begun. I'm sure everyone
will come out looking more mature in the end, just like Frodo did.
--
Tenderfoot
Gordon Walker
wrote:
That's Elijah Woods age. Does he look younger.
--
Gordon Walker
John Whelan
On 17 Oct 1999, Marc Greis wrote:
> However, the script must be pretty good if reading it alone would
> already be enough for an actor to compete at least with some of
> the wanna-be Tolkien experts in this group.
Heh heh. Right. I think the problem with many die hard fans is that they
have taken Tolkien worship to a level where they lose a certain sense of
perspective. Humor then becomes anathema, because it always threatens to
shatter the illusions built for themselves. They are horrified with the
idea of the film-makers approaching the project with a sense of humor
while forgetting that Tolkien himself approached his material with humor.
For instance, some fans elevate Tolkien characters up as though they were
idols to be worshipped, forgetting that Tolkien himself never does this.
I'm sure that if, in the first film, Gandalf is portrayed as a tired and
crochety old man, fallible and vulnerable, there will be dozens of
outraged fans protesting the desecration of his character, forgetting that
this is precisely how he was portrayed in the book.
Great post, BTW. Someone needed to stand up for EW, and you did a much
better job than I did.
-- John Whelan
Ilya Aksman
Marc Greis wrote:
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Larry Richards <lric...@virginia.edu> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> > I just saw the Elijah Wood interview on http://www.ringbearer.org and I
> > am truly appalled.
>
Ok, I can' stand it, I have to brag: it's MY SITE WHICH PUBLISHED IT FIRST!
The 1st ever Russian LotR movie site! back to business:
>
> Actually, after having watched this thread for a little while now, I
> am mostly appalled by the cluelessness of those people who
> criticize Elijah Wood with such a harshness and even with words
> like "twit" after a single interview.
I wholeheartedly agree. I don't understand why people prefer to judge an actor
by his interviews and not his roles. Do you really think an actor, or
whatever, bares his heart and opens every corner of his soul in every
interview he gives? Interviews are played by certain rules, they are often
influenced by politics, moods, etc. It's the actor's work where he supposedly
gives all of himself. I saw movies with Wood and I came to like this actor.
About this interview: it was done by Brooke Shields, the sex-bomb, one of the
most beautiful actresses and what not. And Wood is just a young guy who just a
year or two ago was scared of girls. And they were talking about kissing, for
God's sake! Do you really think that his state of mind was very serious, or he
was in the right mood to talk about high stuff in LotR scenario? I just ask
the guys here: if you were kissed by Brooke and then were sitting with her
talking about it, would it be easy for you to jump to serious LotR
discussions, this newsgroup's stype? I bet it was quite a suprise for him when
she uncovered herself as a LotR fan and started nudging him about not reading
the book, and
he just couldn't change the tone quickly.
Yes, I felt that Wood let me down after this interview, I too thought that he
read LotR. Yes, he deceived a lot of people, but it's because he wanted the
job badly, which is a good thing actually (wanting the job, not deceiving
people). Enthusiasm counts too.
And about this humour thing: other posters already pointed out that yes, Frodo
did have sense of humour. And I'd be glad to see it in the movie, especially
in the beginning, because we have to see and understand what he had to lose in
the end.
Natalya.
-----------
Visit the first Russian LotR movie site at
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/nata/movie.htm
Prembone
wrote:
>Once again, before you call someone a "twit", do some research.
>You want Wood to read the books? Well, just by reading Jackson's
>script, he obviously already knows Frodo's character better than
>you and some others here who have disputed the fact that Frodo
>indeed has a wry sense of humor
Just want to point out to anyone who missed it that I already made
this point. ;-)
"Fish to fish, chips to chips, fish to chips and chips to fish;
each to its own, as each desires, and may all be well fed! Jolly good."
MythTakes: Tolkien Parody http://mythtakes.tsx.org
~~~Woo-hoo!!!~~~
Prembone
> Elijah can't be more than 20
>something, and anyway you can't force a guy to read a book. He's an actor, and
>I guess they liked what he had to offer. The majority of the heat and/or
>praise should fall on the director.
I'm not an actor, but from what I have read and learned from
conversation (and I do have one "Beginning Acting" class to my credit!
Wow!) a **good** actor does his homework. If you're going to do a
movie based on a historical figure, you research that historical
figure, learn as much about him or her as you can. Likewise, if
you're going to do a movie based on a book, you read the friggin'
book, learn as much about your character as you can.
I hope that the soundbite was misrepresentative of Wood's
professionalism. It's unthinkable that an actor would approach any
role with such sloppiness.
FernWithy
>professionalism. It's unthinkable that an actor would approach any
>role with such sloppiness.
>
>
I suspect it is -- he really is a talented actor. I lost some respect for him
because he would say publicly that he had no intention of researching the role
adequately, but he seems able to pull off many roles nevertheless. Maybe he
didn't read Huck Finn, either, before doing that role, and he did it quite well
(surprising; he has such fine, delicate features that I didn't think he'd be
able to sell me on a river rat -- he did). I do not mean to impugn Wood's
talent by any means. He is the best actor in his age range, by a long shot,
and I was glad to hear of his casting as Frodo. He just really ought to read
the books. Even if the script is great, it will undoubtedly skip a few things
that are important for him to know about Frodo's character (eg, if they skip
the Barrow Wights, he might miss that it was before Aragorn came along that
Frodo discovered his own courage).
Anyway, just wanted to say that.
---
FernWithy
Prembone
wrote:
>And about this humour thing: other posters already pointed out that yes, Frodo
>did have sense of humour. And I'd be glad to see it in the movie, especially
>in the beginning, because we have to see and understand what he had to lose in
>the end.
Wait a minute. "What he lost," I might accept -- though I'd say "What
he lost sight of," rather than that he lost it completely; I think the
"old Frodo" was still a part of the transformed Frodo, buried beneath
the pain, wounds, etc.
But "what he **had to** lose"? If you're implying that Iluvatar
required him to lose his sense of humor, his humanity, then I must
disagree, and strongly. All that was required was that he do his
damnedest to complete the quest, not to throw away his sense of humor.
Anyway, as we see, he still had it post-quest. It just got buried
beneath the sobering effects of the violated Shire and the anniversary
illnesses and all that.
"Here is a test to find out whether your mission in life is complete.
If you're alive, it isn't." -- Richard Bach
The Secular Paganist http://www.stormloader.com/secularpagan (new URL)
The Prembone Pages http://prembone.tsx.org
Marc Greis
> For instance, some fans elevate Tolkien characters up as though they were
> idols to be worshipped, forgetting that Tolkien himself never does this.
> I'm sure that if, in the first film, Gandalf is portrayed as a tired and
> crochety old man, fallible and vulnerable, there will be dozens of
> outraged fans protesting the desecration of his character, forgetting that
> this is precisely how he was portrayed in the book.
I think one problem is that many fans build a picture of each character in
their minds, and then assume that it is correct, though it may be strongly
influenced by their own expectations towards that character. Perhaps people
also put a lot of themselves into a protagonist's character. It's probably
the same for me. And then, when someone challenges this opinion, they are
personally insulted. I can even understand that, because for example, why do
some people think the Balrog has wings after reading the books, and some
think he doesn't? No, I am NOT going to start that now, but that shows how
people read the books differently. The one thing I would like to see is some
more courtesy, especially towards a person who can not defend himself here,
and especially when this person may not be as wrong as it may seem at first.
Best regards,
Marc
--
Marc Greis gr...@cs.uni-bonn.de
James Kuyper Jr.
news:7ueg5f$k...@news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de...
...
> people read the books differently. The one thing I would like to see is
some
> more courtesy, especially towards a person who can not defend himself
here,
> and especially when this person may not be as wrong as it may seem at
first.
He could defend himself here, if somebody would tell him about it. Anyone
willing to volunteer? I don't know how, and don't care enough to bother
finding out.
Ermanna
Marc Greis wrote:
<shnip>
Wow! Marc, I wasn't really for or against Elijah Wood,
but you've convinced me.
> Marc Greis
Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight
Ewoks are Hobbits!
Tenderfoot
Better yet, let him defend himself on the screen.
--
Tenderfoot
John Whelan
On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Prembone wrote:
> I'm not an actor, but from what I have read and learned from
> conversation (and I do have one "Beginning Acting" class to my credit!
> Wow!) a **good** actor does his homework.
I am very skeptical of the standards you are setting for people whose
shoes you have never shared. For the most part, doing your homework means
memorizing your lines, which is no mean feat when you are the lead
character in a 310 page script. You also need to listen to the director,
and find out what he wants from you. You also have no idea what sort of
other demands are made on his time or if he is able to read quickly and
easily (not all people can -- and that is no reason to despise them).
Most people would find it extremely difficult to read a 1500 page book.
> If you're going to do a
> movie based on a historical figure, you research that historical
> figure, learn as much about him or her as you can.
I wonder how much historical research you have done that you so glibly
make this recommendation. I have a Masters in History, and am still
taking post-graduate courses. Historical research is neither easy nor is
it necessarily fun, and you have to be pretty good at it to come up with
an original angle on things. As a history student, I can certainly say
that if Shakespeare were to ask me to play Henry VIII, I would try to find
out from Shakespeare what sort of character HE wanted me to play, and not
lose a minute's sleep worrying about whether the portrait was historically
accurate. Movies are not accurate history. Do you really think that Mel
Gibson's performance as Wallace in Braveheart would have been enhanced
had he made a half-assed attempt to become a history student?
> Likewise, if
> you're going to do a movie based on a book, you read the friggin'
> book, learn as much about your character as you can.
>
> I hope that the soundbite was misrepresentative of Wood's
> professionalism. It's unthinkable that an actor would approach any
> role with such sloppiness.
I would be interested to hear from any real actors as to whether this is
indeed "unthinkable" by the standards of their profession. I'm sure that
reading the book is an admirable thing to do, and commendable when it is
done. But I suspect it is above and beyond the call of duty and doubt
that not doing it can fairly be considered a disgrace.
-- John Whelan
Prembone
wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Prembone wrote:
>
>> I'm not an actor, but from what I have read and learned from
>> conversation (and I do have one "Beginning Acting" class to my credit!
>> Wow!) a **good** actor does his homework.
>
>I am very skeptical of the standards you are setting for people whose
>shoes you have never shared.
Be skeptical if you choose, but I'm not setting the standards, I'm
reporting what I have been led to believe they are. As I said, I have
read what the people who walk in those shoes describe themselves as
doing to prepare for a role, and I have talked with people who have
walked in those shoes. The impression I got was that one does
research the role, not just memorize the script and take direction.
> You also have no idea what sort of other demands are made on his time
Preparing for a role, being his job, would be a priority in the
allocation of his time.
>Most people would find it extremely difficult to read a 1500 page book.
"Most" people? With all the people who've read LOTR?
>> If you're going to do a
>> movie based on a historical figure, you research that historical
>> figure, learn as much about him or her as you can.
>
>I wonder how much historical research you have done that you so glibly
>make this recommendation. I have a Masters in History, and am still
>taking post-graduate courses. Historical research is neither easy nor is
>it necessarily fun, and you have to be pretty good at it to come up with
>an original angle on things.
Calm down, take a deep breath, and look at this rationally instead of
emotionally. You seem to have taken offense at my post, which
surprises me, as I was trying to be fair and balanced in my response
to the original post.
Common sense would dictate that by "learning as much as you can" I am
**not** mandating one pursue a master's degree in history for an actor
portraying a historical figure, but simply saying that one **should**
do a **reasonable** amount of research -- "as much as you can," not
"as much as there is to learn about said figure."
The comment about hearing from "real actors" was also unnecessarily
acerbic. I never claimed to be an actor, real or otherwise, only to
have some knowledge of what actors themselves say is the standard of
professionalism in preparing for a role.
"I've better things to do with my eternity than further
your prurient interests." -- Frodo's Ghost
~~~Woo-hoo!!!~~~
John Whelan
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Prembone wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:53:48 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@dorsai.org>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Prembone wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not an actor, but from what I have read and learned from
> >> conversation (and I do have one "Beginning Acting" class to my credit!
> >> Wow!) a **good** actor does his homework.
> >
> >I am very skeptical of the standards you are setting for people whose
> >shoes you have never shared.
>
> Be skeptical if you choose, but I'm not setting the standards, I'm
> reporting what I have been led to believe they are. As I said, I have
> read what the people who walk in those shoes describe themselves as
> doing to prepare for a role, and I have talked with people who have
> walked in those shoes. The impression I got was that one does
> research the role, not just memorize the script and take direction.
I'm sure that some people do in fact do this when they have the time. I'm
sure that when they are talking about what they do to prepare for roles,
they focus on those roles that they have done alot of preparation for.
I'm sure they do not discuss those occasions when they had barely enough
time to memorize their lines before showing up on the set, which I am sure
is something that happens to any professional actor who has ever had a
tight schedule.
> > You also have no idea what sort of other demands are made on his time
>
> Preparing for a role, being his job, would be a priority in the
> allocation of his time.
If he cannot do an adequate job to please his director, I am sure he can
still be replaced, as Townsend was. But this is far more likely to happen
if, having spent too much time reading Lord of the Rings, he forgets to
learn his lines adequatly. Aside from this, you are in no position to
judge what should be a priority in a life you know nothing about.
> >Most people would find it extremely difficult to read a 1500 page book.
>
> "Most" people? With all the people who've read LOTR?
Yes dude. Most people. Take away all the people who have read LOTR, and
there are still a HELL of alot of people left.
> >> If you're going to do a
> >> movie based on a historical figure, you research that historical
> >> figure, learn as much about him or her as you can.
> >
> >I wonder how much historical research you have done that you so glibly
> >make this recommendation. I have a Masters in History, and am still
> >taking post-graduate courses. Historical research is neither easy nor is
> >it necessarily fun, and you have to be pretty good at it to come up with
> >an original angle on things.
>
> Calm down, take a deep breath, and look at this rationally instead of
> emotionally. You seem to have taken offense at my post, which
> surprises me, as I was trying to be fair and balanced in my response
> to the original post.
I am not offended. But I still believe you are setting standards for
people whose shoes you have never shared. Had you ever been a
professional actor, or if you had ever done historical research, I suspect
you would not put such demands so lightly on others.
> Common sense would dictate that by "learning as much as you can" I am
> **not** mandating one pursue a master's degree in history for an actor
> portraying a historical figure, but simply saying that one **should**
> do a **reasonable** amount of research -- "as much as you can," not
> "as much as there is to learn about said figure."
Common sense would dictate that since you do not know much about Elijah
Wood or his life, his abilities, his acting method, or available free
time, that therefore you do not know what can reasonably be expected of
him. He has read "The Hobbit". Maybe that (together with learning his
lines in a 310-page script) was in fact "as much as he could" under his
present circumstances.
> The comment about hearing from "real actors" was also unnecessarily
> acerbic. I never claimed to be an actor, real or otherwise, only to
> have some knowledge of what actors themselves say is the standard of
> professionalism in preparing for a role.
It was not intended to be acerbic, or to deride you as a "fake actor" in
contrast. I recognize that you made no attempt to misrepresent yourself.
I am still strongly suspect that people who are actually in a position to
know what should be demanded of actors would not share your highly
judgmental views. Acting is a highly personal art, and an actor should do
that which (in his experience) helps him give a decent performance,
whether that involves historical research or developing a rapport with the
director or standing on his head meditating for 3 hours a day or having
lots of wild sex to relieve his stress or watching Teletubbies to achieve
serenity.
Elijah Wood is a fairly respected young actor in a field where the
competition is fierce. I presume he knows how to do his job much better
than I do, and that he has worked very hard to achieve his current level
of success. If he does not feel that reading LOTR at this stage will
enhance his performance, then I do not feel I am qualified to question his
judgment.
I'm sure he will do a better job than I could have, in spite of the fact
that I have read LOTR and know how to do historical research.
If he gives a bad performance, I will be the first to criticize. If it
was a good one, I will presume he did all the "homework" required. The
rest is his business.
-- John Whelan
Will
John Whelan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Prembone wrote:
<snip>
> > Likewise, if
> > you're going to do a movie based on a book, you read the friggin'
> > book, learn as much about your character as you can.
> >
> > I hope that the soundbite was misrepresentative of Wood's
> > professionalism. It's unthinkable that an actor would approach any
> > role with such sloppiness.
>
> I would be interested to hear from any real actors as to whether this
is
> indeed "unthinkable" by the standards of their profession. I'm sure
that
> reading the book is an admirable thing to do, and commendable when it
is
> done. But I suspect it is above and beyond the call of duty and doubt
> that not doing it can fairly be considered a disgrace.
I'm not sure what you would consider a "real" actor to be since it is
hard to say at what point one actually becomes an actor as opposed to a
person who saw a play once and thought it might be cool give acting a
try for a week or so, and I don't claim to be a professional actor by
any application of the term you care to make. This is my very brief
resume: I have a fair amount of experience in amateur theatre, I studied
drama in college and topped the school, I will be studying drama in one
form or another at university next year.
I think we all should note at this point that in this interview Mr. Wood
only said he hadn't read TLotR and he thought that he could get all the
information he needed from the script, he didn't say that he never
intended to read it. That being said: Homework, for an actor, does
involve slightly more than memorising lines, another big part of it is
working out who your character is and what they're about and as such a
little research (where possible) is often in order. The extent of this
research will vary from person to person and from role to role. In the
more extreme examples of method acting, actors sleeping the night in
parks to get some feel for the homeless character is not unheard of.
For Braveheart (to use your example) no one expects Mel Gibson to have
the life and times of William Wallace by heart, but I can see quiet
clearly how a brief overview of what Scotland was like at the time of
the movie would give him a better feel for who Wallace was, where he was
coming from and what he was up to (obviously more research would have
been in order for Mel since he was also the director but that is
entirely beside the point).
In the case of TLotR all of the actors have an invaluable resource to
aid them with their character development (which is their responsibility
as well as Peter Jackson's) and it would seem unprofessional of them to
ignore this resource since they can certainly get things from the novels
that won't be in the script, but which would relevant to his role, and I
don't just mean cut scenes, depending on who is doing the writing
scripts (especially screenplays) can be very bare-bones affairs.
Ignoring the novels does seem like rather a half-assed way to go about
one of the larger (certainly one of the most public) roles of your
career.
This is not the blathering of a Tolkien fan who believes that only
fellow Tolkien fans should be allowed within a hundred paces of this
project. That is simply ridiculous. All I'm saying is that in not
reading at least part of the books Mr. Wood would be ignoring an
invaluable tool in the development of his character. Still like I said,
different actors approach their roles in different ways and if he
believes he can discover all that he needs to know about his character
from the script then it is not unreasonable for him to go that way. It
is obviously possible since often the only research tool available to
the actor is the script. Personally I think curiosity would eventually
draw me to read the book, but then I probably read more than many others
do anyway.
Hi everyone, this has been my first post here.
Will.
Prembone
<will_wil...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> That being said: Homework, for an actor, does
>involve slightly more than memorising lines, another big part of it is
>working out who your character is and what they're about and as such a
>little research (where possible) is often in order. The extent of this
>research will vary from person to person and from role to role.
Thank you. That's exactly what I had in mind when I posted my
original comment.
> In the
>more extreme examples of method acting, actors sleeping the night in
>parks to get some feel for the homeless character is not unheard of.
And since you bring up the subject: I wonder how a method actor would
prepare for the role of Frodo? ;-)
>For Braveheart (to use your example) no one expects Mel Gibson to have
>the life and times of William Wallace by heart, but I can see quiet
>clearly how a brief overview of what Scotland was like at the time of
>the movie would give him a better feel for who Wallace was, where he was
>coming from and what he was up to
At the least, read a good biography or two for background information.
>In the case of TLotR all of the actors have an invaluable resource to
>aid them with their character development (which is their responsibility
>as well as Peter Jackson's) and it would seem unprofessional of them to
>ignore this resource since they can certainly get things from the novels
>that won't be in the script, but which would relevant to his role, and I
>don't just mean cut scenes, depending on who is doing the writing
>scripts (especially screenplays) can be very bare-bones affairs.
>Ignoring the novels does seem like rather a half-assed way to go about
>one of the larger (certainly one of the most public) roles of your
>career.
This is one of the main reasons I was surprised that Wood would even
give a hint of not reading the books: He's playing the main character
in not one but three movies. To be fair, no, I wouldn't expect the
person playing Barliman Butterbur to have to read the novel in order
to get a feel for the character. But Frodo? The central character?
(Or one of them, anyway.) With all the nuances of inner growth and
struggle that take place in him over the course of the tale? It does
seem strange, at the least, that the actor wouldn't avail himself of
the primary source of knowledge about the character he is going to
portray.
>This is not the blathering of a Tolkien fan who believes that only
>fellow Tolkien fans should be allowed within a hundred paces of this
>project.
Same here. Trust me, nobody would accuse me of being a mindless
Tolkien-worshiper. I've even been known to criticize him, even though
I'm probably not qualified to do so since I'm not a devout Catholic
Oxford professor of linguistics who was born at the turn of the
century in South Africa. ;-)
> All I'm saying is that in not
>reading at least part of the books Mr. Wood would be ignoring an
>invaluable tool in the development of his character.
That's basically what I was saying, too. I can't imagine why he
wouldn't want to make use of the most obvious source of info about his
character.
> Still like I said,
>different actors approach their roles in different ways and if he
>believes he can discover all that he needs to know about his character
>from the script then it is not unreasonable for him to go that way. It
>is obviously possible since often the only research tool available to
>the actor is the script.
When that's the case, fine. Even in the case of minor characters,
fine. But when we're talking about one of the lead characters, over a
three-film project, I would think "read the source book" would be top
of the list for an actor trying to get a solid feel for the character.
Anyway, that's my opinion, though not without foundation. Disagree
with my opinion, but please don't tell me I have no right to hold or
express it or am incapable of forming reasonable opinions on things I
only know by "secondary research," as it were.
>Hi everyone, this has been my first post here.
Hi. Welcome to r.a.b.t. Don't forget your asbestos vest. ;-)
"I **really** wish I'd burnt the Red Book." -- Frodo's Ghost
MythTakes: Tolkien Parody http://mythtakes.tsx.org
Ole and Sven and the Lutefisk of Doom http://olesven.tsx.org
Prembone
wrote:
>I'm sure they do not discuss those occasions when they had barely enough
>time to memorize their lines before showing up on the set, which I am sure
>is something that happens to any professional actor who has ever had a
>tight schedule.
1. Did Elijah Wood say that he barely has time to memorize his lines,
let alone read the novel?
2. Bear in mind that we are talking about one of the central
characters, here, not a bit part.
>you are in no position to
>judge what should be a priority in a life you know nothing about.
I disagree, here and the other numerous times in which you stated this
opinion. First, I don't know "nothing" about acting; I have gleaned
**some** information about it, as mentioned several times, and I have
a brain with which to evaluate the information I have gleaned, and
with which to apply that information in forming a reasonable and
informed opinion.
Second, you are basically saying that we shouldn't "judge" anyone
outside of ourselves, or form and express opinions about things we
know about only second-hand. I disagree again. Hell, if we lived by
that rule, this newsgroup would dwindle and fade faster than you can
say b****g w***s.
>Yes dude.
Pedantic point: I'm not a "dude." ;-)
>I am not offended.
Your tone sounds like you have indeed taken offense at the opinion I
have expressed -- or more precisely, at my supposed presumption for
expressing any opinion about what is or isn't professionalism in an
actor's conduct.
> But I still believe you are setting standards for
>people whose shoes you have never shared.
I'm expressing standards actors themselves have expressed.
> Had you ever been a professional actor
I don't have to **be** an actor to know about it.
> or if you had ever done historical research, I suspect
>you would not put such demands so lightly on others.
Ahhh. Now I get it: It was using the historical-research example
that struck a nerve. You took it as implying that just any old silly
sod could go out and do proper "historical research," when in fact
even a highly trained professional with a master's degree in history
(such as yourself) finds it a daunting task.
Surely you understand that I'm using the phrase "historical research"
to refer to simply reading about the person and period in question?
Even reading just one good, reputable biography would count as
research for this purpose; it would give the actor **knowledge** about
the person and period upon which to draw. Not as extensive as the
knowledge of a professional master's-wielding historian, I'll grant
you, but more knowledge than reading nothing at all.
[snip repetition of "you're in no position to judge" stuff]
>I'm sure he will do a better job than I could have, in spite of the fact
>that I have read LOTR and know how to do historical research.
Yep. It was the "historical research" example that set you off.
CHUCK BRAMLET
In a previous article, prem...@excitebitespam.com (Prembone) says:
>Hi. Welcome to r.a.b.t. Don't forget your asbestos vest. ;-)
AFAIK, asbestos in out. I'm not sure what the current replacement
material is - Gore-Tex, maybe?
As far as EW not having read the book, has he at least read the
Cliff's Notes?
--
Mark Myers
>
> In a previous article, prem...@excitebitespam.com (Prembone) says:
>
> >Hi. Welcome to r.a.b.t. Don't forget your asbestos vest. ;-)
>
> AFAIK, asbestos in out. I'm not sure what the current replacement
> material is - Gore-Tex, maybe?
>
I don't think GorTex is flame retardant. I would suggest borrowing Nikki
Lauder's suit.
--
Regards
Mark Myers
jahdzia at iname dot com
FernWithy
>wrote:
>
>>I'm sure they do not discuss those occasions when they had barely enough
>>time to memorize their lines before showing up on the set, which I am sure
>>is something that happens to any professional actor who has ever had a
>>tight schedule.
>
>1. Did Elijah Wood say that he barely has time to memorize his lines,
>let alone read the novel?
Seriously -- it takes about four days to read Lord of the Rings, and that's if
you aren't laid up in bed with nothing else to do (then it takes two -- that
was the first time I read it). He's known about this for some time. I think
he can clear a few hours to do some reading. Further, as there are cue cards
on any set, it takes priority over memorization.
John, Prem is making no unreasonable suggestions. A first-year drama student
knows knows that you at least find out the basic information there is about
your character that exists outside the script. Read an encyclopedia entry, at
least, for an historical figure. Read a bio (preferably two, as any given one
is probably biased, and preferably not the same one the director is using,
though that should be read as well). Get grounded in what was going on in the
time frame. If you're making a movie set in 1944 and you haven't a clue that
there was a little international relations crisis going on, you're going to
have a problem figuring out the context of the lines you're learning.
---
FernWithy
Robert Brady
>Same here. Trust me, nobody would accuse me of being a mindless
>Tolkien-worshiper. I've even been known to criticize him, even though
>I'm probably not qualified to do so since I'm not a devout Catholic
>Oxford professor of linguistics who was born at the turn of the
>century in South Africa. ;-)
I'd hardly call 1892 "the turn of the century". ;)
--
Robert
John Whelan
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Prembone wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 20:23:16 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@dorsai.org>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm sure they do not discuss those occasions when they had barely enough
> >time to memorize their lines before showing up on the set, which I am sure
> >is something that happens to any professional actor who has ever had a
> >tight schedule.
>
> 1. Did Elijah Wood say that he barely has time to memorize his lines,
> let alone read the novel?
No. I never claimed he said that. It was I who raised that possibility,
and I believe it remains a possibility.
> 2. Bear in mind that we are talking about one of the central
> characters, here, not a bit part.
We are all aware of that.
> >you are in no position to
> >judge what should be a priority in a life you know nothing about.
>
> I disagree, here and the other numerous times in which you stated this
> opinion. First, I don't know "nothing" about acting; I have gleaned
> **some** information about it,
Conceded and recognized. However you have admitted that you have never
been in his position. Knowing alot about plate armor will not necessarily
tell me what it feels like to wear it. I am also enough of a skeptic to
suspect that how thing SHOULD be done as told in classrooms often has
little to do with how they ARE done in the real world.
> as mentioned several times, and I have
> a brain with which to evaluate the information I have gleaned, and
> with which to apply that information in forming a reasonable and
> informed opinion.
I have taken issue with that opinion, which is why I am arguing with you.
I do not really present a counter-opinion, but rather suspect yours to be
too narrow. It is you, not I, who have dictated that actors must prepare
for roles in a certain way, and declared it "unthinkable" to do otherwise.
To me, it is certainly quite "thinkable" and perhaps even forgivable, that
many actors in the real world might behave differently than your acting
teacher thinks they should. It is even possible that they might find ways
of giving good performances in spite of this.
In fact I very much suspect that the vast majority of actors, even
successful ones, do not behave in the way that your acting teacher thinks
they should. He/she is presenting an ideal, not a reality. If this is
the case (as I strongly suspect) then I do not agree in calling it
"unthinkable". Those who succeed in giving good performances will survive
as actors, whether they do extensive background reading or no. Those that
do extensive background reading will boast about it. Those that don't
will wisely keep their mouths shut (except for Elijah Wood, of course),
and boast about other things instead.
> Second, you are basically saying that we shouldn't "judge" anyone
> outside of ourselves, or form and express opinions about things we
> know about only second-hand. I disagree again. Hell, if we lived by
> that rule, this newsgroup would dwindle and fade faster than you can
> say b****g w***s.
Fair enough. But I still take issue with your POV and your judgment.
> >Yes dude.
>
> Pedantic point: I'm not a "dude." ;-)
Point conceded.
> >I am not offended.
>
> Your tone sounds like you have indeed taken offense at the opinion I
> have expressed -- or more precisely, at my supposed presumption for
> expressing any opinion about what is or isn't professionalism in an
> actor's conduct.
In that case I appologize for my tone. I still stand by my arguments.
> > But I still believe you are setting standards for
> >people whose shoes you have never shared.
>
> I'm expressing standards actors themselves have expressed.
While I expect many actors have boasted about what they do for
preparation, I doubt too many consider it unthinkable to do otherwise.
> > Had you ever been a professional actor
>
> I don't have to **be** an actor to know about it.
Sharing another's shoes often makes one less judgmental. That is all I am
saying.
Of course, it is possible for even actors to be judgmental. I't would be
very easy for an actor who can read 500+ words per minute to scoff at the
preparation efforts of one who is dyslexic. People are constantly trying
to toot their own horns at the expense of others.
> > or if you had ever done historical research, I suspect
> >you would not put such demands so lightly on others.
>
> Ahhh. Now I get it: It was using the historical-research example
> that struck a nerve. You took it as implying that just any old silly
> sod could go out and do proper "historical research," when in fact
> even a highly trained professional with a master's degree in history
> (such as yourself) finds it a daunting task.
I believe that the purpose of the points that I raised was clear from my
original post. I was using examples from my own life in an attempt to put
the situation in perspective. As one who has long realized that the vast
majority of students in class do not read the assigned texts when they can
get away with it, I find it perfectly "thinkable" that Elijah Wood might
not read LOTR, that Daniel Day Lewis might not have read Last of the
Mohicans, or that Mel Gibson might not have bothered to read even a single
abridged biography of William Wallace (in fact I would bet good money on
the latter two examples). If this is the case, why get upset about it?
You, however, are now using the information provided for some rather ad
hominem attacks. Please discuss my arguments, not my motives for making
them.
For the record, I do not consider myself a "highly trained professional"
in the field of history.
> Surely you understand that I'm using the phrase "historical research"
> to refer to simply reading about the person and period in question?
> Even reading just one good, reputable biography would count as
> research for this purpose; it would give the actor **knowledge** about
> the person and period upon which to draw.
Most of which would likely confuse the poor fellow and contradict almost
everything in the script. Val Kilmer, who played John Patterson in "Ghost
and the Darkness" would not have gained any help with the role had he
actually read "Man-Eaters of Tsavo" by John Patterson. I'm sure his
performance would carry greater conviction had he been allowed to remain
under the delusion that the events described in the script were what
actually happened. If he wanted guidance on the sort of role he was
expected to play by the filmmakers, he would have done better to watch Roy
Scheider in Jaws than to try to figure out what made the real Colonel
Patterson tick.
[The real Patterson, BTW, was a bit of a jerk who allowed 100 of his
Indian and African workers to get chomped by lions because he regarded
them as expendable. His contempt for his workers was the real explanation
for the disaster. I do not suppose that the British Empire would have
ever allowed 100 white guys to get mauled and eaten that way. Only when
the railway project shut down and his workers refused to stay did
Patterson realize his career was at stake and go out to shoot the lions.
Some hero! Knowing this, of course, would have been no help whatsoever in
portraying the character described in the script.]
> Not as extensive as the
> knowledge of a professional master's-wielding historian, I'll grant
> you, but more knowledge than reading nothing at all.
And how much knowledge do you need before you gain enough to help you with
your performance? Sometimes you are only likely to get yourself
hopelessly confused. You might be better off using your creative
imagination and using your dear Aunt Jane as an inspirational model. If
this is what helps you give a convincing and original portrayal, then
good.
> >I'm sure he will do a better job than I could have, in spite of the fact
> >that I have read LOTR and know how to do historical research.
>
> Yep. It was the "historical research" example that set you off.
Again, there is no need to speculate about my motives for making my
arguments. It is an unworthy alternative to responding to my arguments.
I was trying to be humble. I do not know how to do acting, and I do not
presume to criticize those who, from their record, clearly know how to do
their jobs well. I do not delude myself into believing that my reading
skills and historical skills (neither of which are impressive) would make
me an adequate actor, or that an actor might benefit from following my
example.
-- John Whelan
John Whelan
On 20 Oct 1999, FernWithy wrote:
> >John Whelan <jbwh...@dorsai.org>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I'm sure they do not discuss those occasions when they had barely enough
> >>time to memorize their lines before showing up on the set, which I am sure
> >>is something that happens to any professional actor who has ever had a
> >>tight schedule.
> >
> >1. Did Elijah Wood say that he barely has time to memorize his lines,
> >let alone read the novel?
> Seriously -- it takes about four days to read Lord of the Rings, and
> that's if you aren't laid up in bed with nothing else to do (then it
> takes two -- that was the first time I read it).
I think you have helped me make my point. It is silly to judge others
according to one's own capabilities. Evidently you have adequate reading
speed that you are able to go through 50 pages or more an hour, and
adequate focus that you are able to do so for up to 15 hours continuously.
Have you any idea how atypical these abilities are? Have you any idea how
many people in this world have never read even a single novel for
pleasure? Have you any idea how many people can read at less than half
your apparent speed? Or how many people have immense difficulty staying
focussed on reading material for more than 15 minutes at a time?
The mere fact that he has read and enjoyed "The Hobbit" probably makes him
an above-average reader. His admission that he has not read LOTR is
probably more an indication of honesty than a terrible sign of poor
professionalism. I guess if EW had been smart, he would have falsely
claimed he had read the trilogy, and none here would have been any the
wiser.
> He's known about this for some time. I think he can clear a few hours
> to do some reading. Further, as there are cue cards on any set, it takes
> priority over memorization.
Memorization notwithstanding, intimate knowledge of the script takes
priority over intimate knowledge of the book it is based on. It might be
reasonable for us Tolkien fans to hope that Jackson will be faithful to
the book in his portrayal of Frodo, but it would not be reasonable or
professional for Elijah Wood to presume this.
> John, Prem is making no unreasonable suggestions.
I do not think it is unreasonable to "suggest" to EW that he read LOTR.
Allow me to second that suggestion. It's a great book, and I think he
should read it. I have made the same suggestion to all my friends, though
distressingly few of them have taken me up on it. One that tried had to
give up due to poor reading skills (which he was reluctant to admit, as
are most people).
> A first-year drama student knows knows that you at least find out the
> basic information there is about your character that exists outside the
> script.
As I have said before, I suspect that the real world may not always
correspond to what the first-year drama student "knows".
> Read an encyclopedia entry, at
> least, for an historical figure.
I can't imagine that that would be any help whatsoever. Anyway, there is
a big difference between an encyclopedia entry and a 1500 page novel.
> Read a bio (preferably two, as any given one
> is probably biased, and preferably not the same one the director is using,
> though that should be read as well). Get grounded in what was going on in the
> time frame. If you're making a movie set in 1944 and you haven't a clue that
> there was a little international relations crisis going on, you're going to
> have a problem figuring out the context of the lines you're learning.
These are all lovely suggestions. They will probably not be followed by
most actors, and I see no point in getting worked up about it when they
are not. Should they all be replaced with less popular actors who have
better reading skills and always do their homework? Would such measures
improve the quality of acting in films? I don't know, but I rather doubt
it. The current system is that actors are judged by the quality of their
acting. As long as the product is good, no-one is going to worry about
the manufacturing process.
-- John Whelan
Shimpei Yamashita
>
>> Seriously -- it takes about four days to read Lord of the Rings, and
>> that's if you aren't laid up in bed with nothing else to do (then it
>> takes two -- that was the first time I read it).
>
>I think you have helped me make my point. It is silly to judge others
>according to one's own capabilities. Evidently you have adequate reading
>speed that you are able to go through 50 pages or more an hour, and
>adequate focus that you are able to do so for up to 15 hours continuously.
>Have you any idea how atypical these abilities are? Have you any idea how
>many people in this world have never read even a single novel for
>pleasure? Have you any idea how many people can read at less than half
>your apparent speed? Or how many people have immense difficulty staying
>focussed on reading material for more than 15 minutes at a time?
Perhaps, but how many people are capable of understanding what a
script demands of you and acting it out well in front of a camera?
And are the people who fall in this particular category no more likely
to have the skills mentioned above than the population at large? I
don't know the answer to that, but it doesn't seem too likely to me.
You do not expect "average" physics knowledge from professional
engineers, even though they depend on physicists to develop theories
for them. YYou do not expect "average" familiarity with chemistry from
your doctors, even though they depend on pharmaceutical companies to
make drugs for them. You do not expect "average" music theory
knowledge from professional concert pianists, even though they depend
on composers to write music for them. I don't think it's unreasonable
to expect something more than "average" tolerance toward letters from
a professional actor engaged in interpretation of literature, even if
he depends on the director to write the script for them.
--
Shimpei Yamashita <http://www.submm.caltech.edu/%7Eshimpei/>
John Whelan
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Shimpei Yamashita wrote:
> John Whelan <jbwh...@dorsai.org> writes:
> >
> >> Seriously -- it takes about four days to read Lord of the Rings, and
> >> that's if you aren't laid up in bed with nothing else to do (then it
> >> takes two -- that was the first time I read it).
> >
> >I think you have helped me make my point. It is silly to judge others
> >according to one's own capabilities. Evidently you have adequate reading
> >speed that you are able to go through 50 pages or more an hour, and
> >adequate focus that you are able to do so for up to 15 hours continuously.
> >Have you any idea how atypical these abilities are? Have you any idea how
> >many people in this world have never read even a single novel for
> >pleasure? Have you any idea how many people can read at less than half
> >your apparent speed? Or how many people have immense difficulty staying
> >focussed on reading material for more than 15 minutes at a time?
>
> Perhaps, but how many people are capable of understanding what a
> script demands of you and acting it out well in front of a camera?
> And are the people who fall in this particular category no more likely
> to have the skills mentioned above than the population at large? I
> don't know the answer to that, but it doesn't seem too likely to me.
You seem to be under the impression that, in the above paragraph, I was
describing the retarded and/or illiterates, or at least people of below
average intelligence. I know that plenty such people exist (and they
deserve respect and tolerance as well, for one cannot choose one's gifts),
but that is not what I was talking about. I was describing people with
either 1) slow reading skills, and/or 2) difficulties focussing/attention
deficit problems. Particularly as regards focussing problems, there is no
reason to assume that such a people are less intelligent than normal, or
that they would be unable to understand a script once they were able to
plow through it, or unable to learn their lines if given a strong motive.
In fact, a large number of people with focussing problems are quite
imaginative (hence, their minds tend to wander). Since acting is a skill
that requires creativity and imagination, I find it quite credible that
some actors might suffer from focussing problems when trying to read.
I hope I will not invite your contempt if I admit that I am unable to read
LOTR within the time-frame you specified...perhaps not even within twice
that time. My reading speed and focus have always been quite poor. If
what I am reading captures my interest, I spend an inordinate amount of
time pacing back and forth thinking about what I have just read, which
slows me down immensely. If it fails to capture my interest and
imagination, then I spend an even greater amount of time pacing and
thinking about other things entirely. I find it very difficult to prevent
myself from doing this, and it can be extremely frustrating if I have to
read something dull within a specific timeframe. Even when I am able to
force myself to remain seated and focussed, I have never been able to read
more than 30 pages an hour. Nonetheless, I consider my abstract and
analytical skills to be quite good. I believe that my posts on this NG
should be sufficient to establish that I have decent writing skills and am
not illiterate.
> You do not expect "average" physics knowledge from professional
> engineers, even though they depend on physicists to develop theories
> for them. You do not expect "average" familiarity with chemistry from
> your doctors, even though they depend on pharmaceutical companies to
> make drugs for them. You do not expect "average" music theory
> knowledge from professional concert pianists, even though they depend
> on composers to write music for them.
I'm not sure what you mean by "music theory", but I think it more than
likely that many talented musicians have no familiarity with it
whatsoever. "Music theory" sounds like a modern invention, which most
musicians throughout history have had no knowledge of, per se. A musician
needs to know and practice music, not "music theory".
As far as physicians and engineers go, they are generally licenced
professionals, and hence must go through some sort of standard curriculum
before they obtain their degrees. In the ages before licencing, you did
not need to understand chemistry or physics in order to practice medicine
or build a house. Actors are not required to be licenced, and are
therefore judged by their performances, not their credentials (just as are
musicians). This is as it should be, because the public is more than
capable of judging performances, and do not need the intervention and
protection of government licencing boards.
> I don't think it's unreasonable
> to expect something more than "average" tolerance toward letters from
> a professional actor engaged in interpretation of literature,
Please remember, his job is to interpret the script, not the literature
itself. It is Jackson's job to translate the literature into a script.
> even if
> he depends on the director to write the script for them.
An actor needs to be able to read the script, and learn his lines. Mr.
Wood has done so, so he evidently has the reading skills necessary for
actors. Acting requires other skills as well, of course, but they have
little to do with reading. Since I hear his performances are considered
fairly good, I presume he has enough creativity and imagination to
interpret his lines for an audience. I doubt his reading skills rival
yours, but he is probably "above average", since he has read and enjoyed
"The Hobbit".
BTW, I think it not unlikely that there may be a few well-known actors
who are in fact only semi-literate, and rely on others to help them read
through scripts and learn their lines. If so, then why be shocked? Live
and let live. They will survive as actors if the public likes their work.
Personally, I cannot imagine anyone reading a 1500 page book unless 1)
they really enjoy it, or 2) they have some other strong motive or reason.
Mr. Wood seems to feel he can get away with not reading the book, and I
suspect he is quite right (or would have been, had he not been dumb
enough to admit he had not read it.)
I certainly join you in suggesting that EW try LOTR, because it is a fun
book. If he does not read it for enjoyment, then I cannot imagine that
forcing himself to read it as a chore will in any way enhance his
performance as Frodo. The script should provide plenty of material to
enable him to interpret and imagine Frodo as a flesh-and-blood character.
If, after reading the script, reading the character profile, and asking
questions from the director, he finds he cannot adequately form a picture
in his mind of who he is supposed to be, then I can see that he might have
a motive to seek additional material. More likely, however, such an
inability to indentify with Frodo would mean that he was not right for the
part.
-- John Whelan
PJ
good job.
James Kuyper Jr. wrote in message
> Marc Greis wrote in message
Prembone
wrote:
>To me, it is certainly quite "thinkable" and perhaps even forgivable, that
>many actors in the real world might behave differently than your acting
>teacher thinks they should. It is even possible that they might find ways
>of giving good performances in spite of this.
>
>In fact I very much suspect that the vast majority of actors, even
>successful ones, do not behave in the way that your acting teacher thinks
>they should. He/she is presenting an ideal, not a reality.
I don't know where you got the idea that the view I have presented
comes from an acting teacher. As I have stated numerous times, it is
a conclusion drawn from reading and listening to the words of actors,
not just what my acting teacher told me back when I took that
beginning acting class.
And if Elijah Wood's grip on the character of Frodo consists of, "He
has pointy ears, hairy feet, and a wry sense of humor," (quoting the
article) perhaps he does need to read the original novel, after all.
I stand by my original assertion.
Prembone
wrote:
> Have you any idea how
>many people in this world have never read even a single novel for
>pleasure? Have you any idea how many people can read at less than half
>your apparent speed? Or how many people have immense difficulty staying
>focussed on reading material for more than 15 minutes at a time?
If Elijah Wood is incapable of staying focused on reading material,
how, pray tell, does he learn his scripts? Reading through mass
quantities of material is part of the actor's trade.
It reminds me of my music composition teacher's gripe about voice
students who thought they didn't have to bother learning to read
music, because the director would play each line on the piano. While
it's certainly possible to learn one's choir part that way, it's not
terribly professional.
Prembone
wrote:
Generally speaking, it's in that time frame. I didn't say he was born
**in** the year of the century's turn, just "at" the turn of the
century. Maybe I should have typed "around" or "about" the turn of
the century. Close enough for jazz. ;-) It's a newsgroup post, not
a master's thesis.
Prembone
wrote:
>
>In a previous article, prem...@excitebitespam.com (Prembone) says:
>
>>Hi. Welcome to r.a.b.t. Don't forget your asbestos vest. ;-)
>
>AFAIK, asbestos is out.
Jeez, Chuck, it was a one-liner. ;-) If it'll keep me from dying from
the flames, I'll wear it, and hold my breath.
John Whelan
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Prembone wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:28:48 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@dorsai.org>
> >In fact I very much suspect that the vast majority of actors, even
> >successful ones, do not behave in the way that your acting teacher thinks
> >they should. He/she is presenting an ideal, not a reality.
>
> I don't know where you got the idea that the view I have presented
> comes from an acting teacher.
It must have been from some mention you made of taking acting class.
Unless my memory is incorrect.
> As I have stated numerous times, it is
> a conclusion drawn from reading and listening to the words of actors,
As you well know, I have already addressed this later point "numerous
times".
The actors that enjoy reading books, read books. They then boast about it
when discussing what they do for acting preparation. These are the only
people you are going to hear talking about the subject. It does not prove
that they are typical or representative of all actors.
Those that do not read books generally do not talk about it, (and might
even be guilty of slight exaggeration or fibbing about it if the subject
is raised by others). People who do not read are generally ashamed to
admit that they do not read, and will not volunteer this information.
Just a while ago, a poster on this thread boasted that she could read LOTR
in two days. I'm sure this is not typical of the people on this NG, but
how many people did you see chiming in to announce that they cannot read
that fast? The only people discussing their superior reading skills are
those that have them.
As it so happens, we have one actor who has come out and admitted that he
has not done extra-curricular reading preparation. Your attacks on him
show why this is a bad idea, and why actors don't normally admit such
things. But since he has been honest and brave enough to testify, why is
his testimony illegitimate? Why do only the boasting actors count in your
estimation?
> not just what my acting teacher told me back when I took that
> beginning acting class.
>
> And if Elijah Wood's grip on the character of Frodo consists of, "He
> has pointy ears, hairy feet, and a wry sense of humor," (quoting the
> article) perhaps he does need to read the original novel, after all.
This was in an interview with Brooke Shields. How much more did you want
him to say? Nobody is supposed to be saying all that much to the press
anyway.
And everything he said was acurate. Frodo *does* have a wry sense of
humor, and, as far as the film goes, I'm sure he is correct about the
pointed ears.
> I stand by my original assertion.
Aye Captain, but she's taking on water.
-- John Whelan
John Whelan
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Prembone wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:23:11 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@dorsai.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Have you any idea how
> >many people in this world have never read even a single novel for
> >pleasure? Have you any idea how many people can read at less than half
> >your apparent speed? Or how many people have immense difficulty staying
> >focussed on reading material for more than 15 minutes at a time?
>
> If Elijah Wood is incapable of staying focused on reading material,
> how, pray tell, does he learn his scripts? Reading through mass
> quantities of material is part of the actor's trade.
So your arguing that if someone has the time, focus, and energy to read a
300 page script, then it follows (in your opinion) that he MUST have the
time, focus, and energy to read a 300-page script PLUS a 1500-page novel.
Obviously this makes no sense at all.
I could raise other objections, of course. Obviously, actors read scripts
because they have to. There is a strong motivation to help them focus,
especially with relation to their own lines. Your objection would not
make sense to anyone familiar with attention deficit problems. No-one
familiar with the subject would find the contradiction you cite above the
least bit mysterious.
> It reminds me of my music composition teacher's gripe about voice
> students who thought they didn't have to bother learning to read
> music, because the director would play each line on the piano. While
> it's certainly possible to learn one's choir part that way, it's not
> terribly professional.
Nonetheless, there are talented musicians in the world who don't know how
to read music. BTW, I tried to learn music in High School, but was
completely unable to get the knack of digesting the notes I read fast
enough to play them on time. This caused me to give up on music, after
several years of frustration. I sometimes wonder if this was wise, and if
perhaps instead I should have refocussed towards another means of
learning music.
-- John Whelan
FernWithy
>As it so happens, we have one actor who has come out and admitted that he
>has not done extra-curricular reading preparation. Your attacks on him
>show why this is a bad idea, and why actors don't normally admit such
>things. But since he has been honest and brave enough to testify, why is
>his testimony illegitimate? Why do only the boasting actors count in your
>estimation?
Wow. Then I can get your admiration by admitting that I didn't do my assigned
reading for class this week, and bulled my professor by spewing jargon at her?
I got away with it, too. Heck, I once got an A on a test on a book I never
read at all (too busy reading things I actually wanted to read that week); I
just listened to class discussions and re-formed them in an essay. Here I
thought I ought to be ashamed of myself. Turns out I should be "brave" enough
to admit to it.
(For the record, the reading time I mentioned *is* a very cursory reading -- a
firstover, so I get the sweep of the plot. I can then take a semester to
actually read each book and savor the words. But a cursory reading is all I'd
expect from someone who's just reading it for character information and not
amusement.)
---
FernWithy
John Whelan
On 24 Oct 1999, FernWithy wrote:
> >As it so happens, we have one actor who has come out and admitted that he
> >has not done extra-curricular reading preparation. Your attacks on him
> >show why this is a bad idea, and why actors don't normally admit such
> >things. But since he has been honest and brave enough to testify, why is
> >his testimony illegitimate? Why do only the boasting actors count in your
> >estimation?
Heh heh. This paragraph does indeed sound a little wierd and odd once
isolated from its original context. I presume that is why you chose to
isolate it from its original context.
> Wow. Then I can get your admiration by admitting that I didn't do my
> assigned reading for class this week, and bulled my professor by spewing
> jargon at her? I got away with it, too.
In order for me to accept this analogy as appropriate, I would have to
accept the assumption that consciencious reading and study is just as
important for actors as it is for students. Yet this assumption is
precisely the proposition we are debating, and that I am contesting.
Thus you cannot expect me to accept this analogy as appropriate.
> Heck, I once got an A on a test on a book I never read at all (too busy
> reading things I actually wanted to read that week); I just listened to
> class discussions and re-formed them in an essay. Here I thought I ought
> to be ashamed of myself.
A student who does not study is comparable to an actor who does not
act, or a fisherman who does not fish. I do not think it appropriate to
compare it to an actor who does not study, or a fisherman who does not
practice his lines.
In any event, your admission that you sometimes "fudged" your homework
makes you hardly in a position to condemn a non-student for failing to
read a book he was never assigned. At the very least, you can hardly
sympathize with the sentiment that such behavior is "unthinkable".
> Turns out I should be "brave" enough to admit to it.
As you well know, I did not merely refer to Wood's admission as "brave"
and "honest", but I also referred to it as "dumb". All three adjectives
might be applicable to your example as well.
But the issue we were discussing was not whether delinquents are wise to
confess their delinquencies. What I was questioning was whether is is
wise to condemn someone for honesty and compare them unfavorably to a
roomful of liars and fakers.
Take your example above, for instance. You were ashamed that you failed
to do your assigned readings, yet you got an "A" anyway. You may have
failed to do your reading, but in all likelyhood, so did all the people
who got B's, C's and D's. Punishing you for honesty would have been
foolish from the POV of the teacher, however unwise it might be for you to
trust your teacher's wisdom and confess.
If, after receiving your "A", you had (bravely, honestly, foolishly)
admitted to your teacher that you had not actually read the material, do
you think it would have been wise or fair, at that point, for the teacher
to penalize you for your admission? Would it be fair to place you below
fellow classmates merely for being more honest and forthright than they?
The analogy works for me here, for I would not feel it appropriate for a
teacher to condemn such a student any more than I feel it appropriate for
you to condemn Elijah Wood for his admission.
I might advise such a teacher to reevaluate his/her grading criteria for
the future, in the hopes of more successfully giving students a genuine
incentive to read the assigned material. But no such corrective measures
are ever required for actors who receives "good grades" from the public.
On this point your analogy fails completly.
> (For the record, the reading time I mentioned *is* a very cursory
> reading -- a firstover, so I get the sweep of the plot. I can then take
> a semester to actually read each book and savor the words. But a
> cursory reading is all I'd expect from someone who's just reading it for
> character information and not amusement.)
OK, but I cannot see how such a superficial skim-through would much
improve his understanding and appreciation of his role.
-- John Whelan
Prembone
wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Prembone wrote:
>> I don't know where you got the idea that the view I have presented
>> comes from an acting teacher.
>
>It must have been from some mention you made of taking acting class.
>Unless my memory is incorrect.
I mentioned as an aside that I took an acting class. I never said
that the sum total of my information about acting came from that
class, nor that my opinions were formed on the basis of what the
teacher of that class (or the textbook author) told me.
>
>> As I have stated numerous times, it is
>> a conclusion drawn from reading and listening to the words of actors,
>
>As you well know, I have already addressed this later point "numerous
>times".
Yes, but your arguments are not convincing.
>> I stand by my original assertion.
>
>Aye Captain, but she's taking on water.
Only in your imagination. ;-)
"And I hope my Sam's behaved hisself and given satisfaction?"
"Perfect satisfaction, Mr. Gamgee," said Frodo.
MythTakes: Tolkien Parody http://mythtakes.tsx.org
~~~Where the Tildeful People go~~~
Prembone
wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Prembone wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:23:11 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@dorsai.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Have you any idea how
>> >many people in this world have never read even a single novel for
>> >pleasure? Have you any idea how many people can read at less than half
>> >your apparent speed? Or how many people have immense difficulty staying
>> >focussed on reading material for more than 15 minutes at a time?
>>
>> If Elijah Wood is incapable of staying focused on reading material,
>> how, pray tell, does he learn his scripts? Reading through mass
>> quantities of material is part of the actor's trade.
>
>So your arguing that if someone has the time, focus, and energy to read a
>300 page script, then it follows (in your opinion) that he MUST have the
>time, focus, and energy to read a 300-page script PLUS a 1500-page novel.
>Obviously this makes no sense at all.
The way you distort my position, perhaps not. But it makes perfect
sense that if an actor can focus on reading through many different
scripts in the course of his career, he can certainly focus on reading
a novel that will give him essential background information for a
central role in a series of three major films in his career.
And should it prove that Elijah Wood is dyslexic, half-blind, and
suffering from acute ADD, and has all of his scripts read out loud by
a paid reader, well, then I guess he could always listen to the
books-on-tape. Where there's a will, there's a way. Perhaps he
didn't express himself accurately, but so far it sounds like he's
taking a "good-enough, what can I get by with" approach to this role.
Maybe you find that acceptable. I don't. And mine is the judgement
with the weight of reason behind it.
John Whelan
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Prembone wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 04:09:35 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@dorsai.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Prembone wrote:
>
> >> I don't know where you got the idea that the view I have presented
> >> comes from an acting teacher.
> >
> >It must have been from some mention you made of taking acting class.
> >Unless my memory is incorrect.
>
> I mentioned as an aside that I took an acting class.
I know. It was one of the points that you made. That was why I addressed
the point.
> I never said
> that the sum total of my information about acting came from that
> class, nor that my opinions were formed on the basis of what the
> teacher of that class (or the textbook author) told me.
I know. This was already acknowledged in my previous post. You made
other points, and I addressed them too.
> >> As I have stated numerous times, it is
> >> a conclusion drawn from reading and listening to the words of actors,
> >
> >As you well know, I have already addressed this later point "numerous
> >times".
>
> Yes, but your arguments are not convincing.
I'm not sure what it would take to convince you. If Elijah Wood somehow
gives an excellent performance as Frodo, without having read LOTR, would
this not be an adequate defense?
-- John Whelan
John Whelan
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Prembone wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 04:28:13 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@dorsai.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Prembone wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:23:11 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@dorsai.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Have you any idea how
> >> >many people in this world have never read even a single novel for
> >> >pleasure? Have you any idea how many people can read at less than half
> >> >your apparent speed? Or how many people have immense difficulty staying
> >> >focussed on reading material for more than 15 minutes at a time?
> >>
> >> If Elijah Wood is incapable of staying focused on reading material,
> >> how, pray tell, does he learn his scripts? Reading through mass
> >> quantities of material is part of the actor's trade.
> >
> >So your arguing that if someone has the time, focus, and energy to read a
> >300 page script, then it follows (in your opinion) that he MUST have the
> >time, focus, and energy to read a 300-page script PLUS a 1500-page novel.
> >Obviously this makes no sense at all.
>
> The way you distort my position, perhaps not. But it makes perfect
> sense that if an actor can focus on reading through many different
> scripts in the course of his career, he can certainly focus on reading
> a novel that will give him essential background information for a
> central role in a series of three major films in his career.
It is you who are distorting the equation. It is obviously unfair to
compare a single case of background research to an entire career of
script-reading, and then argue that the former is no big deal in
comparison to the latter. Most scripts are only 100 pages, take less time
to read than 100 pages of text, are not geared toward the highly
intelligent or literate, and often do not even need to be read in their
entirety by a person considering a specific part. Arguing that someone
capable of digesting a script must have the skills and inclination to be
an avid reader of 1500-page novels is ludicrous. Besides, if reading the
scripts causes him sufficient trouble, he may not have time for anything
else.
> And should it prove that Elijah Wood is dyslexic, half-blind, and
> suffering from acute ADD, and has all of his scripts read out loud by
> a paid reader, well, then I guess he could always listen to the
> books-on-tape.
Which will take about 50 hours to listen to, unless he opts for a
condensed version. If he goes the latter rout, then this is hardly
different from relying on Jackson's own "condensed version". This
approach will not necessarily solve any attention/focussing difficulties.
It may even exacerbate them.
> Where there's a will, there's a way.
If you're saying that, if Wood really wants to read LOTR, he will find a
way, then I agree with this. I guess he does not really want to.
> Perhaps he
> didn't express himself accurately, but so far it sounds like he's
> taking a "good-enough, what can I get by with" approach to this role.
A practical approach. It is his business how he prepares for his roles.
It is our business to judge his performance. If his performance is only
mediocre due to his negligence, then there are a zillion struggling actors
scrabbling to fill his niche. If the problem is a serious as you claim,
and it is really necessary for him to take his career more seriously, then
worry not. The problem will sort itself out in time.
> Maybe you find that acceptable. I don't. And mine is the judgement
> with the weight of reason behind it.
I judge actors by their performances. Preparation technique is their own
business. How does this approach lack the weight of reason?
-- John Whelan