 
|
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 |
69.233.105.220
There are very few actresses who look worse with their top off. Maggie may be one. She would be well advised to either keep her shirt on, or get some medical help for those tea bags.
Follow Ups:
...are the two guys you can reliably count on to claim that unless you're a version of the ideal woman you've no right to appear in a movie.
I think both of you should figure out some way to expand your minds beyond these adolescent reactions to what women look like.
The other actresses JG mentions in his post had immense talent and it's a bit silly to mention her in the same breath. Besides, he says she's a character actress yet she's the lead in the film in question.
I haven't seen "Sherry" because I saw MG several years ago as a secretary who is in a strange relationship with her boss and in that erotic role I didn't find her so.
It's relatively easy to portray characters with over-the-top characteristics, i.e. drunks, autistic, crazy, because one can "act" so much. Far harder to play "regular Joe" where nuance is everything.
Anyhow, it's probably impossible to appreciate a leading woman in a film where she's a romantic interest if the viewer finds her unattractive. That's not, I know, the subject of this discussion but it's more of what I meant though poorly expressed.
JG had his points, as did you this time around.
My head is bowed.
I erred.
I shall repent.
I will watch Gyllies' full oeuvre.
"Besides, he says she's a character actress yet she's the lead in the film in question."
A character actress can be a lead. Kathy Bates in "Misery." Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Capote." Character actors play different roles in different films. Tom Cruise basically plays the same character from film to film. The fact that Gyllenhall played a lead does not make her a leading actress. Her characters change from role to role. She is a character actress.
"The other actresses JG mentions in his post had immense talent and it's a bit silly to mention her in the same breath."
Predictably, you miss the point. You posted that Ms. Gyllenhaal was not attractive, and therefore not leading lady material. You mentioned nothing about her talent. I used some examples of women who are, to use your likely chauvinistic parlance, physically defective in some way, or, to put it in more politically correct terms, had unattractive features, and still were successful leads. And even played a love interest.
If you would like to talk about being "silly", then we could continue talking about the merits of actresses based strictly upon their physical features.
"It's relatively easy to portray characters with over-the-top characteristics, i.e. drunks, autistic, crazy, because one can "act" so much. Far harder to play "regular Joe" where nuance is everything."
Really? Perhaps you should paste your curricum vitae here. How many drunk characters have you played? Autistic? Crazy? You characterize Ms. Gyllenhaal's performance as being of a character that has an over-the-top characteristic, yet you have not even seen the film. And further, it demonstrates that you have not read my postings on the film because I specifically wrote that her performance is decidedly not over-the-top, it is very realistic, and avoids the usual cliches.
On the other hand, due to my wife's occupation, I have come into contact with numerous mentally handicapped adults, such as the one which Sean Penn portrayed in "I am Sam." My wife works with mentally handicapped adults on a daily basis. I think Penn is a great actor. I do not claim to be an expert, but my somewhat educated opinion was that he missed the mark. My wife thought it was a caricature, and bordered on insulting. Ditto for Ribisi's performance in "The Other Sister." Another pretty good actor. Easy? Hardly.
As timing would have it, I was in Court today in which a woman with chemical dependence who has lost her three children is fighting sobriety, and is trying to get her children back. I do not represent her, but I see her struggles. Gyllenhaal nailed her performance. And, by the way, you never see her use or under the influence of anything in the film.
"Anyhow, it's probably impossible to appreciate a leading woman in a film where she's a romantic interest if the viewer finds her unattractive."
For what viewer? You the arbiter of beauty? And where is the film in which she has played a romantic interest? "Secretary?" If you think that was romantic, then I'd hate to see the romantic toys hanging in your closet. Maybe that helps to explain the "X's." Hell, take a walk down into your local Municipal or District Courts and check out the women who are arrested for Solicitation and Prostitution. And the guys who are buying. Beauty winners they ain't. Guys, though, look pretty normal.
I've never considered Kate Hepburn particularly attractive, but I have no problem with her being in a romantic role. On the other hand, I probably would not pay to see her in porn film. But I try not to confuse romance, which everyone should have the right to experience, and most people do, and which is a not a spectator sport, with an act designed to get the viewer's rocks off.
If two people can find love, companionship, trust, and all the other things we hold dear, on the screen, then why should I care what they look like?
There are leading or character actresses in your world. No grey areas? So, how many lead roles does an actress need to have before she changes categories? Is the Pacino character in Godfather the same personality type as the cop in "Serpico" or the cop in "Cruising?"
How about DeNiro in Godfather, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Heat? Same guy, different roles?
I'd say not.
My point about your comparing Hepburn to MG was that Hepburn's supreme talent overcame her modest looks: MG is homely so she must stand on talent alone which, in my opinion, is shaky.
Bette Davis, I always thought, immensely was attractive. I can't think of a more animal sexuality than she projected in "Of Human Bondage." You may wish to note how beautifully she filled that tight dress, too. The young Bette had a divine figure, an hourglass.
I don't have a spare two or three hours to refute the rest; they're the same argumentative stuff like what I just eviscerated.
Eviscerated? Hard to do when most of your responses never respond to anything. But at least in this post you gave it ol' college try. Now if you would only respond to those statements you make that recite incorrect facts, and then run for cover when called to the carpet. All in good time, I guess.
"How about DeNiro in Godfather, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Heat? Same guy, different roles? I'd say not."
You mean different guy, or same role? Frankly, my recollection of DeNiro in Godfather is vague, at best. Taxi Driver and Raging Bull were clearly different roles, as was his performance in each them. Ditto Heat. I'd call Deniro a character actor - he creates a character for most of his roles, at least the better written roles. I'd venture to guess that he considers himself to be a character, not a lead, actor. Ditto for Pacino, though I find his performances for the last ten to fifteen years to be more the same than different.
"My point about your comparing Hepburn to MG was that Hepburn's supreme talent overcame her modest looks: MG is homely so she must stand on talent alone which, in my opinion, is shaky."
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are people who do not consider her "homely." Your writings on this subject clearly demontrate that for an actress, physical appearance is the key into the room, and, if you don't have the key, well, you better have the talent to compensate. If that does not qualify you as a male chavinist, I am not sure what does. At least wear the mantle with pride.
"Bette Davis, I always thought, immensely was attractive."
Fine. I don't. Though I have written here before that she is my favorite actress, it matters to me not a wit whether she is attractive. The point is not whether you think she is attractive, but whether you can see the woman beyond her physical appearance.
And in your response below to not being able to fool the camera, I suggest you search out some candid photos of those beautiful Hollywood starlets. The cameras don't fool people. The make-up artists do.
actor is the protagonist, almost always. That would be Robert.
Al P.
Jack.
The three most famous of their times.
Character actor?
Hahahaha.
You'd do better if you'd once admit your errors.
With that beginning, I quit reading.
Arguing and discussing are different. The latter assumes a degree of honesty or at least auto-criticism.
...that some one would likely know better than I.
How often was Edith Head responsible for the curves we attribute to nature?
Did she pad, etc?
in the Davis role I mention, the tightness of the dress, and it's ultra thin fabric, leave no room for padding and precious little to the imagination, as well.
Anyhow, there is just so much one can do with "padding." It's tough to fool the camera.
My point was that I think little of actresses who take their clothes off, period. So if you re going to sink to that level of sleeze for a paycheck, at least make sure you have the goods that people want to see.
Aeeiigh, DUI's blind!
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
in way that you believe the actor/actress could be the person, that the whle thing could be real life; and yet if an actress is playing someone who uses their body, their sexuality in an extremely forward and self destructive way she should only do so with her clothes on or she's sleazy, but if she does take them off, in this realisitic portrayal of what could be (and should seem like) a real everyday person, she should only do so if she has a certain type of body (one that meets your standards)?And you think EB got it wrong about shallowness and an adolescent view of what women should like like?
"You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
or romantic roles.
She is fairly talented, I guess, though I can't claim to have been very impressed, certainly not to the level of hype.
although that may be becaue I have had more contact with people like her. Lots of women she reminds me of, and she really seemed to be the heroin ruined sleezebag. She should have left her clothes on.
(A) You mean like the straight as a board, kinky haired Kate Hepburn? Or the frumpy Debra Winger? Or the rough around the edges Gena Rowlands? Or the owl eyed, boyishly physiqued Bette Davis?
(B) What romantic roles has she had?
(C) She is not a leading actress, but rather a character actress.
(D) She is married to actor Peter Saarsgard. I suspect he had other options.
(E) What hype are you referring to? Demi Moore was hyped, and her career has, ahem, deflated in reverse proportion to her surgically enhanced breasts.
(F) Odd, those so called advocates for change, for the downtrodden, who argue that the legally and socially disposessed treated as second class citizens, such as women have histortically been, by a society that primarily focuses on their physical features, are, in fact, as big a chauvinist pig as the worst offender. Hypocrites.
Homely and misshaped is what makes her sexy, really.
.
LOL
*
.
What words in that simple sentence obscure its point?
| 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 ]
