XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article , Paul S. Person  wrote:   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > Why deliberately watch a film of a book you didn't enjoy?   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > The kids wanted to see it, and I won't let me prejudice get in the   
   > > way of their desires :)   
   >   
   > So you start with a bad attitude ("the book sucked and I'm only   
   > watching the film because of the kids"). Might this have biased your   
   > reaction to the film?   
      
   Not at all. The book wasn't terribly good, but it didn't "suck". I just   
   didn't enjoy it. But there have been good movies made from books I didn't   
   enjoy in the past, so... :)   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > That would be a pity, if true, since one of the special features   
   > > > that came with the film states that they choose her because they   
   > > > wanted an actress who can handle the emotional range.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Oh, yeah, that's ironic. The only other actress I can think of   
   > > that has less emotional range is Kirsten Stewart. Mind you, there   
   > > was one scene in the last movie were she at least gave the   
   > > appearance of emotion, even if it was illogical. It's when she   
   > > thought Gale had been captured/killed in the tribute center and   
   > > she got all torn up over possibly having lost them both. There was   
   > > emotion in that scene, even if it was out of the blue and nothing   
   > > in the movies prior to that would give the viewer any reason to   
   > > think that's how she would react to possibly losing them both. But   
   > > still, some emotion. Other than that, she's a flat wall of   
   > > expressionlessness.   
   >   
   > You really aren't getting into the films, are you? Not at all.   
      
   That's what I'm saying, aren't I? They need a good actress to get the   
   audience "in" to the film. And Jennifer isn't that actress.   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Well, I disagree with most of the above. I won't claim there is   
   > > *no* emotion (for that, hire Kirsten Stewart), but it's generally   
   > > on cue and "now there's an emotional scene here, Jennifer, you   
   > > need to do X and Y, instead of an ongoing performance from her   
   > > throughout the movie.   
   >   
   > I should think it apparent that /all/ emotion in /every/ movie is   
   > "on cue"   
      
   Not true at all. A good actor displays emotion as part of acting. When a   
   co-actor delivers a line he or she reacts and displays emotion even though   
   the script doesn't say so.   
      
   And emotional responses should *never* be on cue, they should be a natural   
   part of portraying a character by an actor. Watch a movie like Stepmom by   
   Susan Sarandon and Julia Roberts and tell me which emotion was "on cue",   
   the entire movie is one big emotional roller coaster, every single scene   
   has layers upon layers of emotion that is the baseline of the performance.   
   No scene is a "ok, this is an emotional scene, Susan, please show grief,   
   anger or something here".   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > I think the problem is that Katniss/Jennifer has no character   
   > > traits to begin with. I mean, to keep this slightly OT, take   
   > > Martin Freeman for example, in the role of Bilbo. I won't claim   
   > > he's the perfect actor or the perfect Bilbo or anything, but even   
   > > without any stimuli, he is a character, he has a way to speak, a   
   > > way to react and a presence in a scene. Now, this isn't   
   > > necessarily *Bilbo* character traits, more like Martin Freeman   
   > > traits, seeing how he has the same traits in Sherlock as well.   
   >   
   > Since you admit that Jennifer Lawrence /can/ do better (have you   
   > seen her in /The Silver Linings Playbook/?), are you really saying   
   > anything more than that you like Bilbo but you don't like Katniss?   
      
   Yes, I am.   
      
   > Why should we believe that Freeman's actions are not as thoroughly   
   > scripted and controlled by the director as any other actor's?   
      
   Unless you're claiming that the same director also directs BBC's Sherlock,   
   I'm not sure how you could be claiming this.   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > But that's why you pick a certain actor, to give a character a   
   > > baseline to work from. Some actors doesn't have a baseline because   
   > > they build the character from the ground up (method acting), but   
   > > most actors already have a demeanor which is why they're chosen   
   > > for a part. Jennifer Lawrence doesn't have, or haven't developed a   
   > > baseline and she's not a method actor either. That means that her   
   > > performance hinges greatly on the director, and in this case, it   
   > > falls flat.   
   >   
   > And that can be a problem: /Man of Steel/ would have been better   
   > (not enough to make it good, but, still, better) if the famous actor   
   > with his own character traits had managed to play Pa Kent without   
   > them.   
      
   Huh? Not sure what you mean here.   
      
   >  Lawrence by any chace, do you? I take it these observations are your   
   > interpretations of what you see on the screen, in films you do not   
   > like, which might suggest a certain ... bias>   
      
   I am judging Jennifer Lawrence acting abilities based on her... acting. Not   
   sure how "bias" is a thing here at all?   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > I am not critizing the Hunger Games books and/or movies based on   
   > > the story, that would be stupid. I mean, I can subjectively have   
   > > opinions on whether I think it's a good/interesting story of   
   > > course, but I wouldn't expect that to mean anything to anyone :)   
   >   
   > But you are.   
      
   No.   
      
   > You didn't like the first book, and never read the other two.   
      
   I didn't enjoy the book, no.   
      
   > And to criticize the film /is/ to criticize the book, at least so   
   > far as the story goes, because the story is the same.   
      
   WTF? No it isn't. Are you seriously suggesting that critique of the Hobbit   
   movies is equal to critique of JRRT's books??   
      
   Since most of what I've talked about is one actress ability to act and the   
   fact that the movie was too slow due to material being stretched to span   
   two movies, the critique is nowhere near even related to any comment about   
   the books.   
      
   > This is not an action flick.   
      
   And now you're back to talking about action. I've never said it's an action   
   flick, I've never said it should be an action flick.   
      
   > It is not a teen love triangle flick.   
      
   It is definitely NOT a teen love triangle flick. There is *no* "love" in   
   any of the three movies so far. What we have is a distant main character   
   without emotions, a secondary character that has an obvious and unanswered   
   crush on the main character and a sideline character that has had about   
   four scenes in the two first movies and one scene where some sort of   
   affection towards the main character has been shown. There is more love in   
   an episode of Simpsons than in these three movies.   
      
   And I even remember that Katniss' feelings for Peeta was at least ambigous   
   to herself in the end of the first book, but in the movies, there is no   
   such portrayal from Jennifer. Peeta likes/loves/cares for her, and she is   
   100% unmoved by that, and there is nothing in her responses or reactions to   
   him that show any such feelings for him. And that's the problem.   
      
   > It is a war story in which the protagonist is in the dark and out of the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)