theuofc

Hi, Danny,

What a great buy for £4.99. You make a good distinction when you say "television actors." I know what you mean. If we had to explain it, is it that television actors are strictly 'external' actors, but actors like Gary Oldman and Tim Roth are 'internal' or multi-dimensional actors?

Or? Anyone?

Thanks,

Barbara

ollie

When you say internal, do you mean in a Stanislavski "the method" type way ? think of some emotion in the past that has happened to you personally, and use it "in character" to achieve the desired effect ?

cheers Ollie.

"Bullseye !!"

Steve Crook

It doesn't matter how they do it, it's only the end result that's important. Some use "the method", others just act [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]

Steve

theuofc

Hi, Ollie,

I wasn't thinking of Stanislavski in particular, but if that routes gets the actor to the desired end, great. I suspect it is an exhausting route for the actor while actors who use technique can achieve the same end. Mai Zetterling had great technique yet distance. She didn't have to feel or have felt it personally to do a scene. She could do a highly emotional scene, then turn around and talk on the phone with a friend and pick up the scene almost witout batting an eyelash. So what I meant by external v. internal was akin to being external, almost wooden, going through the motions but no depth, as in sound and fury signifying nothing. You know the type of actor who yells his head off but it has no resonance, no dimension. This for me would be 'television' acting, while an internal actor might not yell at all. He might use one look, or say one word, with the camera closing in on his face and eyes and they reveal all. This would be the Bogarde type of actor. Bogarde used to say quite aptly that sometimes doing nothing is doing everything. The camera can read inside the face of the great actor. Recall every great actor's performance and you'll know what I mean.

Best,

Barbara

Fellwanderer

I'd agree with Barbara but change tack slightly. In the wooden actors' thread I mentioned watching old performances from some of our finest actors that were, quite frankly, not up to their standard. Some of that might also have been down to rushed/shoddy camerawork with the demands of television schedules.

I'm sure most so-called televsion actors would be hard-pressed to get work as a non-speaking extra in a decent film or role as a prop on stage.

FELL
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/angel_not.gif[/img]

All the best
FELL

A signature is no substitute for a life

ollie

Ray winston has been mentioned in the same breath as, tim roth and gary oldman (who can Really act) they would be the internal actors then?,old Ray imo is quite one dimensional,he does anger well,and thats about it,i've got nothing against him,in fact his best performance i think is in tim roths directorial debut film the Warzone where a different side of his ability is shown,but he does get blasted off the screen by a total unknown at the time,it's interesting roth (dir) chose him,maybe he was trying to show him in a different light?

cheers Ollie

"Bullseye !!"

ollie

I think it's interesting how the end result achieved [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif[/img]
Natural ability is evident in every profession,but i sometimes wonder if the only prerequisite to becoming an actor is having the desire to want to do it? or am i over simplifying [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]

cheers Ollie.

"Bullseye !!"

ollie

Or to answer my own post, is this how external actors are born [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused1.gif[/img]

cheers Ollie.

"Bullseye !!"

Steve Crook

You really aren't too keen on poor old Ray Winstone are you Ollie?

Steve

ollie

Well i've got the warzone,sexy beast and nil by mouth,he dosn't offend me in any of those,but thats his range.

cheers Ollie.

"Bullseye !!"

Harbottle

Ollie thinks a lot more of him than I do [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img] "No this is SHOUTING" R. Winstone (2005) [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbdown.gif[/img]

Latest viewing I Start Counting (1969) Its pretty obvious from the start who the "weirdo" is but a very enjoyable film, with an excellent performance by Ms Agutter.

Fellwanderer

It was, wasn't? I thought her slightly tipsy scene sliding down the stairs was especially good.

FELL [ok - I know I'm biased!]
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/angel_not.gif[/img]

All the best
FELL

A signature is no substitute for a life

theuofc

Hello, Fell,

You are absolutely right about the ensemble needed to create a fine film. Without a good script to start with, a director and cinematographer who have guessed right and can carry out their visions, a budget which allows enough breadth and time for the film, post editing not done by a Studio with different priorities, well even the finest actor can't shine. Thanks for the excellent point.

Best,

Barbara

theuofc

Hi, Ollie,

Thanks for the thought-provoking reply. I'm tracking down some of the more obscure titles with Winstone, Roth, and Oldman in them to give me a better look at the breadth of their work. I'm a bit more familiar with the latter two but not with their early Brit films. You may well be right about Winstone being more one-dimensional, having only seen him in Sexy Beast and Henry VIII, both of which I enjoyed. I much appreciate your alternate view of Winstone. It's good food for thought.

Best,

Barbara

theuofc

Dear Fell,

Your last comment caught me by surprise, and I burst out laughing. Most droll. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/clapping.gif[/img]

Best,

Barbara