Madonna exposed (OT)
news
November 18 2002
The Sun-Herald
Madonna's latest attempt at acting has the critics laughing in the aisles,
Brett Thomas writes.
We'd come to expect it from her, of course. In a movie career, if that's the
right phrase for it, spanning two decades, Madonna has proved one fact time
and time again. She can't act.
She occasionally makes great records, she can certainly dance, and she has
marketed herself like no other celebrity. But on the big screen, she's a
disaster.
For husband Guy Ritchie, though, Swept Away is a huge shock.
The romantic comedy - he wrote and directed it, she stars - is a fully
certified dog that is expected to follow the lead already set in the US by
obediently rolling over and playing dead upon its Australian release on
November 28.
Ritchie was considered one of cinema's brightest new talents after writing
and directing the innovative and hugely entertaining London gangster movies
Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and Snatch (2000). Here was a man
with the golden touch, the first new director to get excited about since
Quentin Tarantino.
Swept Away is a remake of a 1975 Italian movie about the social and sexual
politics which come into play when a pampered rich bitch and a low-class
deckhand are stranded on a desert island. Suggested to Ritchie by Madonna,
it was to be his genre-crossing entree into Hollywood and the culmination of
her long-held, if misguided, ambition to be considered a genuine screen
talent.
Instead, the couple produced a movie that has had critics searching for new
ways to describe bad.
"Swept Away is a deserted island movie during which I desperately wished the
characters had chosen one movie to take along if they were stranded on a
deserted island, and were showing it to us instead of this one," the review
by Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert began.
"Swept Away accomplishes the impossible," Stephen Hunter of The Washington
Post wrote. "It makes you feel sorry for Madonna. Her performance is about
what you expect from someone who really must be considered still an amateur
actress: tepid, unconvincing, unattractive."
And Michael Atkinson of The Village Voice wrote: "Swept Away is merely an
indulgent vehicle for Mrs Ritchie - and Madonna is so spectacularly
convincing as a hateful, self-absorbed nouveau riche ogress that her
character's third-act transformation is as preposterous as her over-muscled
physique."
Even Madonna's American PR rep Liz Rosenberg had to plea for a cease and
desist order when the venom kept flying. "It's a public hanging by the
critics," she cried. "An assassination!"
Madonna, though, is used to being savaged by movie reviewers and starring in
flops; the multi-dimensional nature of her career ensures she can sustain
the hits.
But it's a different story for Ritchie's still-nascent career, and he was
also singled out for some stinging and potentially far more damaging
attacks.
"Ritchie so far has proven to be a one-trick pony," Jeffrey M Anderson of
The Examiner of San Francisco wrote. "His first two films are fun,
Tarantino-inspired capers, but they're essentially the same movie. When it
comes to more lifelike endeavours, it appears he doesn't have the goods."
Chris Murray, editor of Australian film magazine Empire, reckons it is now a
critical time for the 33-year-old director.
"Guy Ritchie kept doing these movies about knockabout guys on the streets of
London and the feeling was, let's see if you can do something else; let's
see if you can do a romantic comedy. The answer has come back: No, you
can't. It looks like an absolute disaster.
"He needs to do something fast. Snatch was better than Lock, Stock and he
was seen to be getting somewhere but Swept Away is like the Showgirls of
romantic comedy.
"The thing that has emerged from the movie is that Madonna should stay
behind a microphone, but it's not going to hurt her career because she's not
an actress. For him the hurt could be enormous. It's his first Hollywood
film
- and maybe his last."
Ritchie is not the first director, blinded by love, who wanted to combine
home life with work (see box, page 4). But for every Blake Edwards and Julie
Andrews, there's a Renny Harlin and Geena Davis, whose ego-fired screen
collaborations ended badly.
The bizarre bush telegraph that ensures word of a dud movie spreads around
the world often before filming has even finished meant Madonna and Ritchie
had plenty of time to prepare for the onslaught.
There were stories about alleged fighting on the set, a Cannes premiere
cancelled due to massive re-editing, and then preview screenings at which
audiences were left laughing at all the wrong bits.
The couple have played it cool during their limited promotion of Swept Away,
despite predictable assumptions that if their movie is bad, then so must be
their marriage.
"What's the obsession with slagging people off? Why all the negativity?"
Ritchie asked London's Evening Standard.
"The secret, I find, is to pretty much ignore all the stuff they say and
write about you. I think my wife and I feel as though we've enriched one
another's lives enormously, in all sorts of ways."
Which is lucky, because the movie is going straight to video in the UK.
"It's not being released here because people think it's s**t," Ritchie
admitted to the UK's Daily Mirror.
The couple have quickly yanked on parachute cords designed to cushion the
landing. Ritchie has done it by distancing himself from the movie, calling
it "not really my thing".
Madonna, 44, has refocused her movie energies on a certain hit, the
soon-to-be released James Bond flick Die Another Day, in which she combines
her two best talents, a small but high buzz factor cameo and the title song.
While Madonna's all-encompassing fame enables her to dismiss Swept Away as
an annoying speed hump, the jury remains out on Ritchie's career until his
next movie, believed to be a horror/thriller called The 49th Gate.
"I believe it's make or break," Murray said. "Is he still the next big
thing? Tarantino is back, Scorsese is back and Spike Jonze and PT Anderson
are now viewed as the hot directors. Guy Ritchie - who ripped off Tarantino
to a certain extent - has to get back up there."
One film critic said Madonna's much-criticised performance in Swept Away
wouldn't hurt her career because 'she's not an actress'.
Gojira1971
paramucho
>
>Swept Away is a remake of a 1975 Italian movie about the social and sexual
>politics which come into play when a pampered rich bitch and a low-class
>deckhand are stranded on a desert island. Suggested to Ritchie by Madonna,
>it was to be his genre-crossing entree into Hollywood and the culmination of
>her long-held, if misguided, ambition to be considered a genuine screen
>talent.
Which itself was a remake of THE ADMIRABLE CRICHTON where the man
servant slowly survives as the fittest and becomes the local leader
and sitter on the throne. When the rescue ship arrives he reappears in
his livery, serving tea. It was a comment on the British class system
and a kind of PYGMALION thing too.
The Italian remake was fabulous because of the actors and where the
plot ran pretty much as I guess SWEPT AWAY does. They get separated
from the classy yacht with him, a pretty rough Anthony Quinn type,
rowing for her, a real high class bitch, a bit like Madonna probably
sees herself. They get stranded and he leaves her to fend for herself.
She ends up coming crawling to him and eventually has to basically beg
him for what she wants, in all departments. Then they're rescued and
things go back to how they were before. I guess Italian communism was
mixed up in it. Fabulous filming.
The kind of acting you needed was of the calibre of WHO'S AFRAID OF
VIRGINIA WOLF. Social realism and all that. Not a shaving cream ad.
You see the problem.
Ian
mcnewsxp
who's going direct madonna and who is she going to let direct her(?).
i wonder if she knows how to appreciate a great actress or actor.
what does SHE see when watching great film.?
as smart as she is - why can't she do this thing called acting. [?]
still like her anyway.
don't buy too many off her records, though.
been dancing to erotica lately...
"news" <ne...@addy.com.> wrote in message news:ar95hk$7ou$0...@pita.alt.net...
The Rooster
Madonna's fantastic.
Stan "little star" Rosenthal,
http://madcashier.com
"Because you are, my bright little star
Face piles of trials with smiles.
It riles them to believe that you perceive the way they weave.
Keep on thinking free" - Moody Blues (
http://madcashier.com/various/inthebeginning.mp3 )
Dale Houstman
Gojira1971 wrote:
> who gives a shit about Madonna?
Rather obviously quite a lot of people. I don't numbermyself amongst
that crowd: I even find her records dull as grey dirt. But the numbers
don't lie: a lot of people "give a shit" about Madonna. Personally, I
wouldn't mind seeing her locked in a steel box and buried in cement, but
my wishes don't seem to count for much...
dmh
news
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:3DD8604...@citilink.com...
i admire my doona for being a very good marketer and a bloody good athlete.
just dont mention the word "music" and "madonna" in the same sentence, and
we wont have a problem.:)
The Rooster
> we wont have a problem.:)
Wonderful music. Just check out Ray Of Light - the entire album is
fantastic.
Stan
Ehtue
>> Rather obviously quite a lot of people. I don't numbermyself amongst
>> that crowd: I even find her records dull as grey dirt. But the
>> numbers don't lie: a lot of people "give a shit" about Madonna.
>> Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing her locked in a steel box and
>> buried in cement, but my wishes don't seem to count for much...
>
> i admire my doona for being a very good marketer and a bloody good
> athlete.
>
> just dont mention the word "music" and "madonna" in the same sentence,
> and we wont have a problem.:)
But you did ;-)
Teddy
> who gives a shit about Madonna?
Well, evidently she has a lot of fans. She couldn't have become a rich
woman without them. And the info was marked, "OT", though the
Materialist does have her Beatle connections in that George produced
one of her flop movies and she is supposed to have tried to fling
herself at Sir Paul when he was between wives. I suppose it'd make a
topic for discussion, as follows:
John Sebastian said you couldn't copy the Beatles because they were
always doing something new. How is this different from the way Madonna
"re-invents" herself every 2-3 years? Get out your #2 pencils, and no
looking over Ian's shoulder.
Dale Houstman
Heh. Well - the Beatles reinvention was a steadily upward investigation
of musical styles and recording techniques. Madonna's has something to
do with changing her lingerie and hair color. Her "songwriting" has not
evolved very much (for my money she has never produced anything else as
solid or iconic as "Material Girl" which says it all IMHO), and any
change there has mainly been rather superficial: a different sound due
to a different producer, the aid of a DJ, and so on. Not really very
impressive all in all. She has turned herself from a very cute chubbo to
an over-muscled creep, and - along her merry way - managed to confuse
personal growth with mere PR spin. I know we are supposed to be
challenged and shocked by her overt sexuality and homo-dilletantism, but
- really - it's nothing new to rock and roll.
dmh
Lizz Holmans
<mcou...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>as smart as she is - why can't she do this thing called acting. [?]
Good God, what makes you think acting talent has anything to do with
intelligence?
Lizz 'self-confessed thespian' Holmans
mcnewsxp
intelligence/talent to make their own personalities become invisible (to a
degree) and make us see only the character they are playing.
if you haven't experienced this then let me give you a list of films...
mcnewsxp
> challenged and shocked by her overt sexuality and homo-dilletantism, but
> - really - it's nothing new to rock and roll.
>
but i like it...
Dale Houstman
Yup. But I find Madonna's brand of it vaguelt fascistic rather than
liberating: the over-muscled perfection, and neurotic attention to
physicality is nauseating. I think Little Richard's sexier all in all,
and there's no reason I SHOULD.
dmh
Lizz Holmans
That's talent. Sometimes talent goes hand-in-hand with intelligence,
but it certainly doesn't have to. I have personally worked with actors
who could barely read their scripts but turned out wonderful
performances. And I know some very, very intelligent people that
couldn't act any one of the Seven Dwarfs off the screen cos they just
don't have the talent.
Empathy is what actors need. One doesn't need to be smart to know how
a character feels--just the ability to feel.
Lizz 'Besides, who cares about Russell Crowe's IQ? He has phwroar
factor out the wazoo' Holmans
mcnewsxp
hmm
i prefer rock stars who stay in shape myself.
can't stand to watch chubby performers, especially dancers in tight or very
little clothing.
mick stays in shape.
macca watches what he eats.
imagine a flabby tina turner.
i think she works for her looks rather than cheats with liposuction or
bulimia, etc.
and her parts are all real.
that fact that she is such a huge star and that she keeps her body in top
shape and doesn't mind striking some erotic poses is, er, um exciting to
me.
her music is not much more than just trendy fun stuff.
she's usually right with the going thing and always takes it to a very
palatable level.
she's a hip chick, for goodness sake.
Mister Charlie
only good thing she ever did was Material Girl.
mcnewsxp
i'm saying the best actors possess some level of intelligence beyond natural
talent.
ain't saying they need to know what a slide-rule is for.
empathy is an intellectual experiencing of another's feelings as well as
emotional.
you wouldn't know what you were feeling without the intelligence to know it
and you wouldn't be able to translate someone else's emotions into a
convincing performance of your own with some measure of intelligence - a
measure that madonna seems to be short of.
Dale Houstman
Lizz Holmans wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 07:25:43 -0500, "mcnewsxp"
> <mcou...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>great actors who can create engaging performances have the
>>intelligence/talent to make their own personalities become invisible (to a
>>degree) and make us see only the character they are playing.
>>if you haven't experienced this then let me give you a list of films...
>
>
> That's talent. Sometimes talent goes hand-in-hand with intelligence,
> but it certainly doesn't have to. I have personally worked with actors
> who could barely read their scripts but turned out wonderful
> performances. And I know some very, very intelligent people that
> couldn't act any one of the Seven Dwarfs off the screen cos they just
> don't have the talent.
>
You're correct that actors don't have to be smart. Marlon Brando's no
brain-trust despite his cultural pretensions. And intelligence can
actually get in the way of acting, since it is mainly intuitive.
But then again,there is such a thing as a sort of physical intelligence,
or something akin to grace or intuitive posturing. This is why two
conmparative dummies such as Gary Cooper or John Wayne can look very
good on screen, although they have the IQs of a damaged hammock.
Intelligence is a very complicated affair. But there's no doubt that
cognitive ability isn't the prime ingredient in great acting.
And I don't know what "talent" is really. It seems like one of those
words (like "charisma" as applied to an empty suit like Reagan) that
seems to be self-generating: one is dubbed "talented" when they succeed
at something, but the reasons for the success lie elsewhere I would think.
dmh
Dale Houstman
mcnewsxp wrote:
>> >> I know we are supposed to be challenged and shocked by her overt
>> >> sexuality and homo-dilletantism, but - really - it's nothing new to
>> >> rock and roll.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > but i like it...
>> >
>>Yup. But I find Madonna's brand of it vaguelt fascistic rather than
>>liberating: the over-muscled perfection, and neurotic attention to
>>physicality is nauseating. I think Little Richard's sexier all in all,
>>and there's no reason I SHOULD.
>>
>
>
> hmm
>
> i prefer rock stars who stay in shape myself.
Makes no difference to me if they sound good. Is Dylan "in shape"
really? Brian Wilson was never in shape. I'll watch the old corpulent
Johnny Cash over that face candy heading up Bush anyday.
> can't stand to watch chubby performers, especially dancers in tight or very
> little clothing.
> mick stays in shape.
Yeah, Mick stays in shape. Too bad he can't produce a record worth
listening to twice. aybe he'd be better off letting himself go a little,
stopping the pretense that he's only a very wrinkled 20 year old, and
writing songs that don't require cock-strutting. I think he's an
embarrassment more than a rock performer.
> macca watches what he eats.
> imagine a flabby tina turner.
So? Aretha is as big as a whale and she can still sing the legs off Tina.
>
> i think she works for her looks rather than cheats with liposuction or
> bulimia, etc.
> and her parts are all real.
That's your opinion. Being overmuscled and underfatted is not any more
"real" than any other physical shape, and - personally - I think she
looks strained. In the new "movie" she is actually unpleasant-looking,
and he face has begun to seem severe and artificial. Mama Cass could
have eaten her and sung her under the table at the same time.
>
> that fact that she is such a huge star and that she keeps her body in top
> shape and doesn't mind striking some erotic poses is, er, um exciting to
> me.
One can't argue with sexual attraction of course, but I have always
found people who work too hard to let you know they're "looking good" to
be quite nonerotic.
>
> her music is not much more than just trendy fun stuff.
> she's usually right with the going thing and always takes it to a very
> palatable level.
> she's a hip chick, for goodness sake.
Hip is dead.
dmh
mcnewsxp
> >> >> sexuality and homo-dilletantism, but - really - it's nothing new to
> >> >> rock and roll.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > but i like it...
> >> >
> >>Yup. But I find Madonna's brand of it vaguelt fascistic rather than
> >>liberating: the over-muscled perfection, and neurotic attention to
> >>physicality is nauseating. I think Little Richard's sexier all in all,
> >>and there's no reason I SHOULD.
> >>
> >
> >
> > hmm
> >
> > i prefer rock stars who stay in shape myself.
>
> Makes no difference to me if they sound good. Is Dylan "in shape"
> really? Brian Wilson was never in shape. I'll watch the old corpulent
> Johnny Cash over that face candy heading up Bush anyday.
>
brian's proably in his best shape now.
poor johnnie. if only he'd watched his health a little better.
i love him, too. it's a hoot hearing him do personal jesus.
> > can't stand to watch chubby performers, especially dancers in tight or
very
> > little clothing.
> > mick stays in shape.
>
> Yeah, Mick stays in shape. Too bad he can't produce a record worth
> listening to twice. aybe he'd be better off letting himself go a little,
> stopping the pretense that he's only a very wrinkled 20 year old, and
> writing songs that don't require cock-strutting. I think he's an
> embarrassment more than a rock performer.
>
guess it's that leo thing. madonna, arnold, mick
*snicker*
> > macca watches what he eats.
> > imagine a flabby tina turner.
>
> So? Aretha is as big as a whale and she can still sing the legs off Tina.
>
she sounds like a whale these days, too.
i don't care for that hollerin' stuff anymore.
and i like to watch.
> >
> > i think she works for her looks rather than cheats with liposuction or
> > bulimia, etc.
> > and her parts are all real.
>
> That's your opinion. Being overmuscled and underfatted is not any more
> "real" than any other physical shape, and - personally - I think she
> looks strained. In the new "movie" she is actually unpleasant-looking,
> and he face has begun to seem severe and artificial. Mama Cass could
> have eaten her and sung her under the table at the same time.
>
i meant not fake or store bought. i much prefer the real stuff.
well she is over forty.
> >
> > that fact that she is such a huge star and that she keeps her body in
top
> > shape and doesn't mind striking some erotic poses is, er, um exciting
to
> > me.
>
> One can't argue with sexual attraction of course, but I have always
> found people who work too hard to let you know they're "looking good" to
> be quite nonerotic.
>
well i sort of agree, but there nothing more attractive to me than a woman
who is in very good physical shape.
americans have let themselves go to pot. i think madonna sets a good
example of a woman who enjoys being looked at and who does her part to make
a second or third glance worth the stiff neck.
> >
> > her music is not much more than just trendy fun stuff.
> > she's usually right with the going thing and always takes it to a very
> > palatable level.
> > she's a hip chick, for goodness sake.
>
> Hip is dead.
>
nobody told me........
mcnewsxp
> >>intelligence/talent to make their own personalities become invisible (to
a
> >>degree) and make us see only the character they are playing.
> >>if you haven't experienced this then let me give you a list of films...
> >
> >
> > That's talent. Sometimes talent goes hand-in-hand with intelligence,
> > but it certainly doesn't have to. I have personally worked with actors
> > who could barely read their scripts but turned out wonderful
> > performances. And I know some very, very intelligent people that
> > couldn't act any one of the Seven Dwarfs off the screen cos they just
> > don't have the talent.
> >
>
>
> You're correct that actors don't have to be smart. Marlon Brando's no
> brain-trust despite his cultural pretensions. And intelligence can
> actually get in the way of acting, since it is mainly intuitive.
>
wouldn't call him a brain trust, but he would be on my list of intelligent
actors.
> But then again,there is such a thing as a sort of physical intelligence,
> or something akin to grace or intuitive posturing. This is why two
> conmparative dummies such as Gary Cooper or John Wayne can look very
> good on screen, although they have the IQs of a damaged hammock.
> Intelligence is a very complicated affair. But there's no doubt that
> cognitive ability isn't the prime ingredient in great acting.
>
> And I don't know what "talent" is really. It seems like one of those
> words (like "charisma" as applied to an empty suit like Reagan) that
> seems to be self-generating: one is dubbed "talented" when they succeed
> at something, but the reasons for the success lie elsewhere I would think.
>
good thing you didn't go for a career in the entertainment industry.
but just for your records - talent is "that certain something."
hoo wee!
Dale Houstman
mcnewsxp wrote:
>>>>>> I know we are supposed to be challenged and shocked by her
>>>>>> overt sexuality and homo-dilletantism, but - really - it's
>>>>>> nothing new to rock and roll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> but i like it...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yup. But I find Madonna's brand of it vaguelt fascistic rather
>>>> than liberating: the over-muscled perfection, and neurotic
>>>> attention to physicality is nauseating. I think Little
>>>> Richard's sexier all in all, and there's no reason I SHOULD.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> hmm
>>>
>>> i prefer rock stars who stay in shape myself.
>>
>> Makes no difference to me if they sound good. Is Dylan "in shape"
>> really? Brian Wilson was never in shape. I'll watch the old
>> corpulent Johnny Cash over that face candy heading up Bush anyday.
>>
>
> dylan ain't no cherub either.
Who said anything about being a "cherub"? He's a drunk. I like people
who don't spend their lives treating themselves like temples.
> brian's proably in his best shape now.
It still ain't Hercules.
> poor johnnie. if only he'd watched his health a little better.
Some of it's genetic neurological disorders. Not much you could do about
that. But the idea of a country star taking care of themselves isn't
particularly compelling. Merle Haggard's "Tonight The Yogurt Let Me
Down" doesn't strike me as overwhelming.
> i love him, too. it's a hoot hearing him do personal jesus.
>
That's very good, although I wish he had brought even a bit more
emotionalism to the track.
>
>>> can't stand to watch chubby performers, especially dancers in
>>> tight or
>>
> very
>
>>> little clothing. mick stays in shape.
>>
>> Yeah, Mick stays in shape. Too bad he can't produce a record worth
>> listening to twice. aybe he'd be better off letting himself go a
>> little, stopping the pretense that he's only a very wrinkled 20
>> year old, and writing songs that don't require cock-strutting. I
>> think he's an embarrassment more than a rock performer.
>>
>
>
> guess it's that leo thing. madonna, arnold, mick *snicker*
Mick used to be great, but his vocal approach - for the most part - had
been build on sexual irony, which doesn't age all that well.
>
>
>>> macca watches what he eats. imagine a flabby tina turner.
>>
>> So? Aretha is as big as a whale and she can still sing the legs off
>> Tina.
>>
>
>
> she sounds like a whale these days, too.
Well of late I agree. But she was humongously fat and still marvelous as
a singer not that long ago.
> i don't care for that hollerin' stuff anymore. and i like to watch.
Best to you!
>
>
>>> i think she works for her looks rather than cheats with
>>> liposuction or bulimia, etc. and her parts are all real.
>>
>> That's your opinion. Being overmuscled and underfatted is not any
>> more "real" than any other physical shape, and - personally - I
>> think she looks strained. In the new "movie" she is actually
>> unpleasant-looking, and he face has begun to seem severe and
>> artificial. Mama Cass could have eaten her and sung her under the
>> table at the same time.
>>
>
>
> i meant not fake or store bought. i much prefer the real stuff. well
> she is over forty.
But I think she thinks she's under 30.
>
>
>>> that fact that she is such a huge star and that she keeps her
>>> body in
>>
> top
>
>>> shape and doesn't mind striking some erotic poses is, er, um
>>> exciting
>>
> to
>
>>> me.
>>
>> One can't argue with sexual attraction of course, but I have always
>> found people who work too hard to let you know they're "looking
>> good" to be quite nonerotic.
>>
>
>
> well i sort of agree, but there nothing more attractive to me than a
> woman who is in very good physical shape.
And I like'em a little on the zaftig side. Oh well.
> americans have let themselves go to pot. i think madonna sets a good
> example of a woman who enjoys being looked at and who does her part
> to make a second or third glance worth the stiff neck.
A small achievement all in all I think.
>
>
>>> her music is not much more than just trendy fun stuff. she's
>>> usually right with the going thing and always takes it to a very
>>> palatable level. she's a hip chick, for goodness sake.
>>
>> Hip is dead.
>>
>
>
> nobody told me........
>
You gotta read the right papers. But "hip" - like almost everything else
- has been made into a commodity, and commodities aren't hip. Dylan was
and is hip, but only because he manages to maintain a certain distance
from the notion of "stardom." Madonna IS her PR department, and
personally I find that as interesting as limp lettuce.
dmh
Mister Charlie
today's celeb gristmill. But let's not confuse her with being important
to music in any sort of way, especially now.
Dale Houstman
mcnewsxp wrote:
>>>>great actors who can create engaging performances have the
>>>>intelligence/talent to make their own personalities become invisible (to
>>>
> a
>
>>>>degree) and make us see only the character they are playing.
>>>>if you haven't experienced this then let me give you a list of films...
>>>
>>>
>>>That's talent. Sometimes talent goes hand-in-hand with intelligence,
>>>but it certainly doesn't have to. I have personally worked with actors
>>>who could barely read their scripts but turned out wonderful
>>>performances. And I know some very, very intelligent people that
>>>couldn't act any one of the Seven Dwarfs off the screen cos they just
>>>don't have the talent.
>>>
>>
>>
>>You're correct that actors don't have to be smart. Marlon Brando's no
>>brain-trust despite his cultural pretensions. And intelligence can
>>actually get in the way of acting, since it is mainly intuitive.
>>
>
>
> wouldn't call him a brain trust, but he would be on my list of intelligent
> actors.
I love the guy, but I find him to be more of a lout than a brain. An
interesting lout.
>
>
>>But then again,there is such a thing as a sort of physical intelligence,
>>or something akin to grace or intuitive posturing. This is why two
>>conmparative dummies such as Gary Cooper or John Wayne can look very
>>good on screen, although they have the IQs of a damaged hammock.
>>Intelligence is a very complicated affair. But there's no doubt that
>>cognitive ability isn't the prime ingredient in great acting.
>>
>>And I don't know what "talent" is really. It seems like one of those
>>words (like "charisma" as applied to an empty suit like Reagan) that
>>seems to be self-generating: one is dubbed "talented" when they succeed
>>at something, but the reasons for the success lie elsewhere I would think.
>>
>
>
> good thing you didn't go for a career in the entertainment industry.
> but just for your records - talent is "that certain something."
Precisely what I said: it is a vague term for a pre-existing state which
nobody can put a finger on. I call it physical intelligence, and it is
why Charlie Chaplin still engages people and Ted Williams can hit. It
isn't cognitive intelligence, but it is more important to what looks
good on the screen. Gary Copper is a perfect example: dumb as duck, but
his presence somehow radiates interest. You could call it talent, but
that always implies some vaguely mystical attribute. I think it is more
easily found in a person's relationship with his/her own physicality and
their level of awareness vis a vis "what they come off as" on screen.
Even a mudpack like Wayne realized that he had to develop certain
"iconic" movements and gestures and looks if he was to have a chance at
sustaining interest in his presence. Thus he odd walk on a screen -
which is an artificial creation as it turns out. I think something of
this sort of process occurs in many actors (I am sure Gary Cooper had to
learn how to be Gary Cooper), and is a form of intelligence, but not
particularly one that is measured by IQ tests.
dmh
dmh
mcnewsxp
bach, mozart, beethovan, stravinsky?
artistic intelligence is not as easily measured as say mathematical or
scientific aptitude.
you (one) could probably argue all day on this one.
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:3DD93C4A...@citilink.com...
robertandrews
>Good God, what makes you think acting talent has anything to do with
intelligence?
It necessarily does. The notion of talented but intellectually inferior
people is a carryover from the days when the royalty, privileged classes &
academia made the rules. In America (& elsewhere) whites considered blacks
stupid, because many couldn't read & write at their level. If black folks
sang & danced better, it's only because God gave them that ability.
Pure bullshit.
The 20th century changed everything, since great art was available for the
price of a record or a movie. Marlon Brando is indisputably a genius, as
was Louis Armstrong. That's not to say that Brando has the aptitude to play
the trumpet, or Satchmo the aptitude to play Macbeth. And it doesn't mean
that all genius & intelligence is equivalent. Technically speaking, acting
on stage requires a massive amount of memorization, & great art requires a
lot more than "feeling."
Love her or hate her, Madonna has made a big cultural impact in America,
especially on younger women. She's arguably the most important single
American pop star since Dylan. She's had an influence on nearly all women
singers in pop, rock and R&B. I hear Madonna's phrasing & style everywhere.
If music video is a valid medium (& I don't see why it isn't), then Madonna
is certainly one of the most prominent in the field.
I don't know why she & Ritchie would think to remake Swept Away, an idea
that was doomed from the start. I can only assume that, like McCartney &
other megastars, they live enclosed, surreal lives, surrounded by sycophants
& accountants who lack the understanding & courage to set them straight.
Despite the horrors of fame & fortune, Madonna's usually been able to keep
herself together artistically. I don't think she's through yet.
robertandrews
>The kind of acting you needed was of the calibre of WHO'S AFRAID OF
VIRGINIA WOLF.
Woolf.
Dale Houstman
woof.
Lizz Holmans
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Good God, what makes you think acting talent has anything to do with
>intelligence?
>
>It necessarily does. The notion of talented but intellectually inferior
>people is a carryover from the days when the royalty, privileged classes &
>academia made the rules. In America (& elsewhere) whites considered blacks
>stupid, because many couldn't read & write at their level. If black folks
>sang & danced better, it's only because God gave them that ability.
>
>Pure bullshit.
I'm an actor. I know actors, some famous, some also-rans like me.
Trust me, I am not prejudiced against a group I have identified with.
To try to throw in the race card is spurious, except if you could the
fact that black actors have been mistreated and denied jobs because,
althought talented, they were the wrong color for the season.
>
>The 20th century changed everything, since great art was available for the
>price of a record or a movie. Marlon Brando is indisputably a genius, as
>was Louis Armstrong. That's not to say that Brando has the aptitude to play
>the trumpet, or Satchmo the aptitude to play Macbeth. And it doesn't mean
>that all genius & intelligence is equivalent. Technically speaking, acting
>on stage requires a massive amount of memorization, & great art requires a
>lot more than "feeling."
Talent isn't apportioned by color. And Marlon Brando is one of the
most over-rated actors in the world. And he's stupid, too.
Acting on state requires that you memorize your cues, remember your
entrances, and for God's sake don't trip over the furniture. All
right, that's an exaggeration, but it's also experience talking.
Great art is not the same as the ability to act. I'm going to see
Maggie Smith and Judi Dench on the same stage in December--the play
sucks, but I would go to see them read the phone book. Their acting is
such a contrast in styles, but both are extraordinary. I expect to
come away, if not exalted, at least richer for
>
>Love her or hate her, Madonna has made a big cultural impact in America,
>especially on younger women. She's arguably the most important single
>American pop star since Dylan. She's had an influence on nearly all women
>singers in pop, rock and R&B. I hear Madonna's phrasing & style everywhere.
>If music video is a valid medium (& I don't see why it isn't), then Madonna
>is certainly one of the most prominent in the field.
I've said that Madonna is the most influential woman in rock since
the '80s. I got massacred for that, I remember.
>
>I don't know why she & Ritchie would think to remake Swept Away, an idea
>that was doomed from the start. I can only assume that, like McCartney &
>other megastars, they live enclosed, surreal lives, surrounded by sycophants
>& accountants who lack the understanding & courage to set them straight.
>Despite the horrors of fame & fortune, Madonna's usually been able to keep
>herself together artistically. I don't think she's through yet.
She's no actor. There is no film (excepting the one with Roseanne
Arquette--can't remember name...'something Susan'; she has never
committed acting in her entire career. Compared to Madonna, Cher is
Sarah Bernhardt.
Doesn't mean she doesn't do well the things she does weill. Acting
ain't one of them and as soon as Guy Ritchie realizes it, the better
off their life with be.
Lizz 'And their bank balance, not that I'm worried' Holmans
mcnewsxp
since dylan?
well, i agree with most of it.
must she can't damn act.
swept away remake could have been good and she could have been good in it.
it wasn't a doomed idea.
anyone happen to see a short with her in it on the BMW web movie?
very funny.
news
news
"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nolitu0sg74rmf415...@4ax.com...
>
> I've said that Madonna is the most influential woman in rock since
> the '80s. I got massacred for that, I remember.
no wonder.
it's one of your more asinine comments.
n "and that's saying something" a
mcnewsxp
> Maggie Smith and Judi Dench on the same stage in December--the play
> sucks, but I would go to see them read the phone book. Their acting is
> such a contrast in styles, but both are extraordinary. I expect to
> come away, if not exalted, at least richer for
> >
i disagree but maggie's brilliant
> She's no actor. There is no film (excepting the one with Roseanne
> Arquette--can't remember name...'something Susan'; she has never
> committed acting in her entire career. Compared to Madonna, Cher is
> Sarah Bernhardt.
>
now that's funny!
Dale Houstman
arfer godfrey
Dale Houstman
I don't think he's over-rated in any way, shape or form. And I wouldn't
necessarily cal him "stupid" just not particularly intelligent as
intelligence is measured by IQ tests. But they're a scam anyway.
>
> Acting on state requires that you memorize your cues, remember your
> entrances, and for God's sake don't trip over the furniture. All
> right, that's an exaggeration, but it's also experience talking.
I think this is mostly true, and many actors say so. Laurence Olivier
said so many times, and he's no bright boy either: probably the dumbest
of the big three english actors of his time, the others being Richardson
(my favorite) and Gielgud (my second favorite.) But the "great" actors
take it further in some way: either by simply having a compelling voice
or face, or by inventing new ways of doing old things. Anyone can
eventually learn to go from the fake door over to the fake telephone,
but it takes some sort of inteligence to make that small trip
interesting in itself. This sort of "physical business" can be very
important in distinguishing a performace. For example in that otherwise
fairly mediocre film "Missouri Breaks" Brando improvised a marvelous
scene: when he comes into the house where a wake is being observed, he
is strangely tapping his cheek with his finger. The director didn't know
what this meant, until Brando finally resolved it by reaching into the
open casket and removing a piece of ice to soothe his toothache. This
would just be a bit of trivia, but it also reveals a bit of his
character: a man who has no regard for anyone or their sacred moments.
All his and brilliant and funny.
>
> Great art is not the same as the ability to act. I'm going to see
> Maggie Smith and Judi Dench on the same stage in December--the play
> sucks, but I would go to see them read the phone book. Their acting is
> such a contrast in styles, but both are extraordinary. I expect to
> come away, if not exalted, at least richer for
Both are fantastic, although for the most part I am partial to Maggie.
But Judy's work in the iris Murdoch role is transcendent and makes
something grand of what could have easily been a sentimental mess. The
man in that movie (who won the Oscar - rightfully - but whom I cannot
recall the name of right now) does much the same with a potetinally
sticky role: he strips it of cheap feeling and invests the role with
real dignity, but not any unearned sainthood.
>
>>Love her or hate her, Madonna has made a big cultural impact in America,
>>especially on younger women. She's arguably the most important single
>>American pop star since Dylan. She's had an influence on nearly all women
>>singers in pop, rock and R&B. I hear Madonna's phrasing & style everywhere.
>>If music video is a valid medium (& I don't see why it isn't), then Madonna
>>is certainly one of the most prominent in the field.
>
>
> I've said that Madonna is the most influential woman in rock since
> the '80s. I got massacred for that, I remember.
She might be, but I don't think the influence is especially musical:
most of her music is rather bland dance tunes really. There are plenty
of better female musicians: Kristin Hersh, Kim Deal, P.J. Harvey, to
name a few. I personally have a hard time recalling much of Madonna's
work beyond "Material Girl" which remains - for me - her best piece, and
that no great shakes.
>
>>I don't know why she & Ritchie would think to remake Swept Away, an idea
>>that was doomed from the start. I can only assume that, like McCartney &
>>other megastars, they live enclosed, surreal lives, surrounded by sycophants
>>& accountants who lack the understanding & courage to set them straight.
>>Despite the horrors of fame & fortune, Madonna's usually been able to keep
>>herself together artistically. I don't think she's through yet.
>
>
> She's no actor. There is no film (excepting the one with Roseanne
> Arquette--can't remember name...'something Susan'; she has never
> committed acting in her entire career. Compared to Madonna, Cher is
> Sarah Bernhardt.
Compared to Madonna, I'M Sarah Bernhardt!
>
> Doesn't mean she doesn't do well the things she does weill. Acting
> ain't one of them and as soon as Guy Ritchie realizes it, the better
> off their life with be.
These sorts of disasters can easily lead to divorce in this world: the
strain of seeing a reminder of one of your biggest mistakes every day
can be overwhelming I suppose, and - knowing Madonna - she might have
married the guy just to get a few more shots at the big screen. So she
tosses in a kid or two? She can always hire a nanny, and jet off to fuck
sports stars in Canada.
dmh
Danny Caccavo
> i admire my doona for being a very good marketer and a bloody good
> athlete.
I'm not aware she's a good athelete. She works out a lot, but that's
not necessarily being a good athelete....
dc
--
Danny Caccavo
dcac...@nyc.rr.com
"For your information, it IS a baby eagle"
olds
"Danny Caccavo" <dcac...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dcaccavo-3B0F63...@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> In article <ar9ofp$nst$0...@pita.alt.net>, "news" <ne...@addy.com.> wrote:
>
> > i admire my doona for being a very good marketer and a bloody good
> > athlete.
>
>
> I'm not aware she's a good athelete. She works out a lot, but that's
> not necessarily being a good athelete....
omg, irony is wasted on americans..:).
point being that her athleticism and energy on stage are great, but that's
about it.
robertandrews
>And Marlon Brando is one of the most over-rated actors in the world.
Then he's overrated by his peers & fellow artists. Nearly every actor &
director has acknowledged him as a brilliant talent, if not a genius. Here
are his first six films:
The Men
A Streetcar Named Desire
Viva Zapata
Julius Caesar
The Wild One
On The Waterfront
As a stage actor, I don't believe Brando received one negative review. But
maybe you believe that all the NY drama critics were seduced by his
stupidity.
>And he's stupid, too.
On what basis do you say that? As far as I know, Brando is a highly
literate man. His French isn't too bad either. He can quote yarns of
Shakespeare at the drop of a hat.
Like any exceptional artist &/or performer, Brando's intelligence emanates
from his work. I don't need to look at his score on the Mensa test.
Dale Houstman
robertandrews wrote:
> "Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>And Marlon Brando is one of the most over-rated actors in the world.
>
>
> Then he's overrated by his peers & fellow artists. Nearly every actor &
> director has acknowledged him as a brilliant talent, if not a genius. Here
> are his first six films:
>
> The Men
> A Streetcar Named Desire
> Viva Zapata
> Julius Caesar
> The Wild One
> On The Waterfront
The Men isn't very good at all, but Brando's fine in it. The Wild One is
well known but it's not much good either, its biggest point being that
it is where the Beatles copped their name. Viva Zapata is pretty solidly
dreary. I suppose my favorite Brando performaces are in Streetcar and
Waterfront and Last Tango, but he has often been the most fun in the
film dogs he has "acted out" in: Missouri Breaks and The Island of
Doctor Moreau, in which he does a nice homage to Charles Laughton who
starred in one of the earlier incarnations of the story. He is VERY
funny in The Freshman which is only an average film, although my
favorite part of that is Bert Parks singing Maggie's Farm! A treat that.
But no doubt, Brando is THE actor of the twentieth century though, as
almost every person in the "biz" has said.
>
> As a stage actor, I don't believe Brando received one negative review. But
> maybe you believe that all the NY drama critics were seduced by his
> stupidity.
>
>
>>And he's stupid, too.
>
>
> On what basis do you say that? As far as I know, Brando is a highly
> literate man. His French isn't too bad either. He can quote yarns of
> Shakespeare at the drop of a hat.
>
> Like any exceptional artist &/or performer, Brando's intelligence emanates
> from his work. I don't need to look at his score on the Mensa test.
I could agree with that. As I said - intelligence is really too complex
a thing to measure with mere marks on a standardized form.
dmh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mister Charlie
"olds" <ol...@addy.com.> wrote in message
news:arcf38$ndu$0...@pita.alt.net...
Mister Charlie
to Wally Marlon would have looked like a God!
paramucho
wrote:
Okay guys, now you can take "Virginia" apart.
Ian
olds
"paramucho" <i...@beathoven.com> wrote in message
news:3ddb2384...@news.supernews.com...
she's not worth a "j. arthur"!
mcnewsxp
actually, wally was a very intelligent man.
Dale Houstman
virgin? nah.
Mister Charlie
"mcnewsxp" <mcou...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:arda2d$kp3$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> hey now, don't put down the underdog.
> actually, wally was a very intelligent man.
Yeah, I know. Obviously he had something on the ball for so many people
(including Marlon) to like him.
Strabbo
63206.news.dfncis.de:
> Well, then, there ARE sexual athletics.
I wanted to letter in that, but my P.E. teacher wouldn't let me.
Bitch.
Marty
Mister Charlie
"Strabbo" <str...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92CB9A171B786...@24.70.95.211...
Dale Houstman
They look like two medicine balls to me.
dmh
olds
i wood have thought pole vaulting would be more your
thing.......................:)