 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.235.205.231
In Reply to: RE: Michael Clayton posted by Daryl Zero on October 14, 2007 at 09:04:15
but effective: she appeared to be pregnant in the later scenes, btw, but not in earlier ones. I know films usually aren't filmed in sequence so perhaps she was pregnant earlier on but anyhow it was strange.
Sydney Pollack gave, for once, a good performance.
Clooney?
Carried the film quite well.
By no means a must see but definitely the best of Hollywood so far this year (going on memory here).
Follow Ups:
Even though she had some screen time, her character was not explored very much other than being observed in a few different situations. Her preparation for her interview was an effective background for her. Unlike other characters where there was exposition, Swinton's character did not have much in the screen play to flesh it out.
SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
I really liked two scenes she was involved in. First, when she meets Michael Clayton to discuss what was going on. The awkward nature of that meeting and the client being pretty upset and not comforted by Michael Clayton was pretty realistic. Second, her meeting with the "bag men" where she is discussing eliminating the litigator's character was also deliciously awkward. It showed how much out of her league she was which played into the final scene where Michael Clayton easily bullied her into a confession.
Wasn't the character supposed to be one dimensional? That's how she played her. There is no doubt in my mind about the acting talent of Swinton.
character should be one-dimensional and certainly no good actress, with so much opportunity, would so portray.
She may have been pregnant, as I noted the bulge, or just not interested in a large production, Hollywood film, or a last-minute sub. Who knows?
Her previous work should have no bearing on judging this one, should it?
Well, yes it should. If she were indeed a one dimensional actor then this role would be consistent. If on the other hand, she shows a wide range of role interpretations it would be safe tro assume that this one, if indeed it IS one diemnesionsl, is a chosen approach to the character and that that character was written that way.
with your "guess."
It appears she took this role, in which she gave a shallow performance, perhaps like many other fine actors do in Hollywood films: for the payday.
Look at the job the villains in the Die Hard films did. One-dimensional badguys but they managed to make them deliciously multi-faceted.
Anyhow, we disagree.
"no major character should be one-dimensional and certainly no good actress, with so much opportunity, would so portray."
An actor or actress becomes the character that the screenwriter created, the vision of which the director, if he or she is doing their job, translates to the screen. If Swinton's character is written as one dimensional, then so should her portrayal.
Yes, guys like Rohmer and Bresson had little respect for actors and purposefully "rehearsed" them (almost all of whom were non-professional actors) until not a shred of originality was left.
In Hollywood efforts, one chooses actors for their ability to act in a certain style. Swinton, an unknown commodity to 99.9% of the American film-going audience, obviously was chosen for her ability. That ability, unfortunately, wasn't on display.
Talented actors find ways to infuse tiny, underwritten parts with individuality and humanity. She didn't. These actors also have bargaining power with the directors, i.e. let's try it this way.
It is also true that scripts are not written in stone but rather shaving cream.
"These actors also have bargaining power with the directors, i.e. let's try it this way."
Not true. Many directors require that scenes be acted according to their vision, and provide the actor little editorial powers. For example, in the film I recently commented on here, Duck, You Sucker, Sergio Leone and Rod Steiger clashed because Leone required numerous takes of his actors to get the scene exactly how he wanted it. Steiger, on the other hand, believed in performing a scene one time, figuring that a second take would not improve the scene. Guess who won?
Further, you assume that Swinton, who has read the script, was not able to add a dimension to a role that was perhaps written as one dimensional, or that was not able to provide a dimension that was in the script. I doubt you have read the script, and, assuming you have not, you are hardly qualified to comment whether she either failed to provide a "dimension" that was in the script, or failed to add one where there was no such dimension.
It is just as likely that this was Swinton's educated interpretation of the role. And without having access to the script, and not being able to acutally talk with the screenwriter to learn his or her desire for the character, it is more than a little arrogant for you to suggest that Swinton, who certainly has more knowledge of the specific script and character, and most certainly more knowledge of the craft of acting than you, failed to deliver the goods, with respect to the character.
"In Hollywood efforts, one chooses actors for their ability to act in a certain style."
Well, no. If you are refrring to mainstream, blockbuster Hollywood films, then the actors are choosen based upon their income producing potential. They call those actors "bankable." If you are referring to smaller, more independent films, then there are many reasons why an actor may be chosen. They are available. They are friends with the director/producer. They get along well with others.
"Swinton, an unknown commodity to 99.9% of the American film-going audience, obviously was chosen for her ability. That ability, unfortunately, wasn't on display."
Says who? Most actors today still go through the cattle call of reading for parts. Casting director and directors likely contacted Swinton's agent, and tell the agent that they would like Swinton to read for a role. They send her script, which she reviews, and decides if she would like to be associated with film. If she agrees, they call her in, she reads for the part, and they decide if she is ready for the part. Perhaps they have called in other actresses to read for the role? Not unusual. On the other hand, Tom Cruise, who developes many of his own projects, does not go through a reading because producers know that his name on a marquee translates into big receipts, and they will write the role for him.
If Swinton has been in the final cut of the film, it means that she has satisfied the director and casting director that she knows the role, and is acceptable. Then she has pleased the director in her ability to perform the role on the set, and then the studios and producers prior to the film being released, as I assume that they reviewed the film prior to release, and, assuming there is a test audience, they found her performance acceptable enough for the studio to release the film with her in the film.
"It is also true that scripts are not written in stone but rather shaving cream."
Sometimes Yes. Sometimes no. Well written scripts from a reputable screenwriter are generally written in stone. Most good screenwriters take pride in their craft, and do not take kindly to their scpripts being re-written for an actor or an actress. Movies of any quality aspirations begin with a good screenplay. Piss off the screenwriter, maybe he does not write a script for you again.
In this case, the writer and director were one in the same, making it more likely that when he was casting the film he was looking for specific actors and actresses that fulfilled the vision in his head when he wrote the script. I presume that he took pride in his screenplay, that the screenplay was a labor of love, after all, while he has written numerous screenplays, this is the first time he has directed a film, which leads an intelligent person to the conclusion that this screenplay was more special to him than his others, as he apparently did not let another director interpret his work, making it more likely that he would be willing to change actress to suit the role rather than change the role to suit the actress. It may happen when the lead is Tom Cruise. I can certainly see the studio telling the writer to change the script to accomodate Cruise - else they get another writer. But on this project, that is unlikely.
But hey, if all you have are your "guesses" unsupported by any analysis and critical thought, who am I to argue.
is the editing.
Swinton may have played each scene in a variety of ways but when the director and editor sat down and cut the film they may have chosen the "one dimensional" ones (or the studio may have later int he process). This is something she'd have no control over at all
"You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
Certainly. How many times have we heard stories of actors whose roles were completely eliminated. Heck, in Hollywoodland, a film Tin has praised, we learn that George Reeves' performance was exercised from From Here to Eternity because a test audience regarded him as something of a joke, being the caped crusader on television, and would not take him seriously in a serious film. So the studio axed his performance.
I think the large issue is what they kept in the film. One can certainly express an opinion whether an actress pulled off the role, but cannot argue that the actress lacked something that was intrinsic in the rile without having read the script, and knowing something about the role itself. Because Swinton may have been "one dimensional" means little unless we have some knowledge that the role called for more "dimension."
Her role was not edited out, and so I think it reasonable to presume that the director, who was also the screenwriter, the producers, and the studio were satisfied with her performance in terms of it being consistent with the script. Therefore, we cannot assume her performance was as a result of her skills, interpretations, or that of the director.
I like to avoid casting negative aspersions on someone's work without knowing the necessary facts. Others have no such problems.
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
