ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th February 2009, 11:36 AM   #161
Number Six
JREF Kid
 
Number Six's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,016
Originally Posted by ravdin View Post
If anyone still cares, Bale has taken full responsibility for his tantrum:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/2009...ovies_eo/98799

So it looks like everything will be all right. The cameraman has his job and lots of public sympathy, Bale has grown up a little, and the rest of us have had a few good laughs at a famous person's expense.
Wait a second, that's a great apology and I credit him for it, but to say that we've "have had a few laughs at a famous person's expense" implies we're going out of our way to pick on a famous person. The only reason any of us even know who Christian Bale is is that he has aggressively pursued fame and our attention. At any time he chooses he can drop out of the fame game and then people will quickly stop caring about anything he does. I'd feel bad for him if he were an anonymous person unwittingly thrust into the national limelight, but that's not the case.
Number Six is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 11:39 AM   #162
ravdin
Illuminator
 
ravdin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,985
I don't think that Bale, or anyone else, is so talented that he's above the rules of normal civilized behavior. If you don't buy Bale's mea culpa, that's up to you. But I don't know what else he could say.

I'll at least buy that Bale doesn't want to be similarly embarrassed in the future, so he might think first before he blows his top on another set.
__________________
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens

Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan
ravdin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 11:56 AM   #163
jmcvann
Navel Gazer
 
jmcvann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Follow along closely.
Condescend much?

Quote:
It is an actor's job to be emotional. It is an actor's job to be angry. These are not side effects, or signs of a poor actor. They are a requirement.
No. It's an actor's job to ACT like he's angry. To behave AS IF he is angry. There's a big difference. "Method" acting does not require you to literally become your character, but to find ways to identify with your character so you can behave appropriately. And even "appropriately" has many definitions here. It is my opinion that those actors who have to "stay in character" off-stage haven't done their homework.
__________________
I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman

Last edited by jmcvann; 6th February 2009 at 12:23 PM.
jmcvann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 12:49 PM   #164
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
He may have acted childishly in anger, but his apology seemed very mature.
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 02:42 PM   #165
Gangularis
Muse
 
Gangularis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 980
Originally Posted by Redtail View Post
No I haven't. Have you acted on camera before?
Yes. I've also acted on stage, which just about every actor will tell you is the more challenging of the two.

Quote:
If that's all he has to do then why aren't you doing it? (It's FAR harder than you think.)
Thanks for telling me what I think.

Quote:
I do this for a living so I know this. I have to wonder though, is if the story was that Bale was horsing around on set, between takes and wrecked lights, and Hurlbut went off on him, would you be so hard on him?
What does CGI have to do with this? Ah well, The actor does. (Granted this shows your utter ignorance of acting and how hard an actor works... But then all you did was pick up a phone...)
All I did was pick up a phone? And you're calling me the ignorant one. Get a clue.



Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
*sigh*
"And cut!!" Nice job gumboot. Just the exasperation we were looking for. You got the part!



Quote:
Once more with feeling; the unique issue with acting is not that it is particularly stressful, but that it is particularly emotional.
Yeah.. because stress doesn't have anything to do with emotions..

Quote:
Follow along closely.
How close? I don't want to get too close, and distract you during the scene.

Quote:
It is an actor's job to be emotional. It is an actor's job to be angry. These are not side effects, or signs of a poor actor. They are a requirement.
It's also an actor's job to know how to control these emotions. It's also an actor's job to be a professional.

Quote:
Was it your job, at the call centre, to be angry? No. Did your career future rely on you being really incredibly angry? No. So why do you think there's any relevance comparing that job to acting?
Does his job rely on him to be angry, or to *act* like he's being angry? Method acting or not, that doesn't give a person free reign to act as they will.

Quote:
Some of you keep making remarks along the lines of "If I got angry like that at my job I'd be fired".

Is it a job requirement for any of your jobs that you are highly emotional and often angry?

No it isn't.
Absolutely silly justification for arcane behavior. Bale has a rough, hot headed, temperament. It has nothing to do with his job. It's HIS personality flaw. You don't go around hearing about all of these other actors that blow up on set, unless they're already the rough around the edges tough guy types like Colin Farrel or Russell Crowe. They are hot heads.. Not actors that simply get too into the part..

Quote:
In fact, for anyone working in customer service, it's a requirement of the job that you don't get angry or emotional.
Yeah.. does that mean it's a requirement that you get angry and emotional with the people you work with on a set, if they're not part of a scene?

Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I'm not sure anyone thinks Bale was justified in screaming at the guy for nearly 4 minutes. What people like me have been saying is that the incident was nothing of significance, in the context of a film set.
Right.. just happens every day, right? Is to be expected, right?




Quote:
Um no.
Um yes.




Quote:
Um, you really don't know what you're talking about.
Um, yes I do.

Quote:
The main reason big-name actors get paid so much money is because of the advertising value their name brings.
Ya don't SAY?!! NO WAY!! You know so much about Hollywood!! Can I have your autograph?

Quote:
A huge part of their job is promoting the film, which usually involves months of work, traveling around the world, doing hundreds and hundreds of interviews, and trying to ensure you don't make a single wrong step and give the film bad publicity.
Hundreds and hundreds? Just like Harrison Ford that virtually never goes around promoting his movies..




Quote:
Out of an actor or a graphic artist? An actor. Easily. And while the actor's away from their family for six months filming, then away for another six months while they promote the film, the graphic artist gets to leave work at the end of every day and go home to see his family. If he's feeling sick he can probably call in and have the day off. The actor just has to suck it up and do their job regardless of how they feel.
Oooh so compromising!! Because actors never bring their families along...

Quote:
A standard shoot day on a film set is 12 hours, and 14 - 16 hours would be fairly typical (I've done plenty of 18+ hour days). If actors require a lot of make up or prosthetic work it will be even longer (it took 8 hours to do John Rhys Davies' makeup for the Lord of the Rings films). My friend is an artist for Weta Digital, and he works pretty long hours, but that's mainly because his girlfriend is living in London at the moment, so he's just working as much as he can. Most of his work mates work a fairly regular 9 - 6 kind of day, unless there's some special meeting or something in the evening.
You're talking about a typical shoot day.. out of how many days of actual shooting?

Last edited by Gangularis; 6th February 2009 at 02:45 PM.
Gangularis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 04:23 PM   #166
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
So because they have a job the requires them to be emotional actors have a right to behave any way they damn well please?
No one has claimed this.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 04:29 PM   #167
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by jmcvann View Post
No. It's an actor's job to ACT like he's angry. To behave AS IF he is angry. There's a big difference. "Method" acting does not require you to literally become your character, but to find ways to identify with your character so you can behave appropriately. And even "appropriately" has many definitions here. It is my opinion that those actors who have to "stay in character" off-stage haven't done their homework.
Method acting requires the actor to actually feel the emotions they are meant to be expressing, as opposed to presentational methods where the actor simply mimics the external manifestations of the emotion. Some actors can just turn it off and on at will, but some can't.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 04:52 PM   #168
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Yes. I've also acted on stage, which just about every actor will tell you is the more challenging of the two.
This one won't. Screen acting is much, much more difficult than stage acting.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
All I did was pick up a phone? And you're calling me the ignorant one. Get a clue.
Er... talk about missing the point...


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Yeah.. because stress doesn't have anything to do with emotions..
Still missing the point, I see?


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
How close? I don't want to get too close, and distract you during the scene.
How old are you?


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
It's also an actor's job to know how to control these emotions. It's also an actor's job to be a professional.
Sometimes part of the job is to lose control. I've cited numerous examples they are positively regarded as "good" examples of acting. Was Juliette Lewis unprofessional when she actually physically assaulted someone on the set? Was Martin Sheen behaving unprofessionally when he smashed a prop on set?


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Does his job rely on him to be angry, or to *act* like he's being angry? Method acting or not, that doesn't give a person free reign to act as they will.
No one has suggested that it does give them free reign. And if he's a method actor, his job relies on him actually getting angry.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Absolutely silly justification for arcane behavior. Bale has a rough, hot headed, temperament. It has nothing to do with his job. It's HIS personality flaw.
And here's my issue with this entire thing. I've not once tried to justify or excuse his behaviour. What I have argued about is the above - that this incident necessarily means anything negative about Bale's character - is false. You simply cannot make that judgment based on listening to a single audio clip.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
You don't go around hearing about all of these other actors that blow up on set, unless they're already the rough around the edges tough guy types like Colin Farrel or Russell Crowe. They are hot heads.. Not actors that simply get too into the part..
You don't hear about it, but it's happening. And not just the actors. Crew as well. I'm telling you, this stuff is common on film sets. Did you hear about Josh Harnett doing it on the set of Thirty Days Of Night? Because he did. And he's a nice guy. People like Russell Crowe don't make the news for yelling at someone on the set - they make the news for assaulting photographers and other random people in the general public, off the film set.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Yeah.. does that mean it's a requirement that you get angry and emotional with the people you work with on a set, if they're not part of a scene?
No, that's not a requirement, but a lot of method actors do that because it makes it easier for them to maintain the emotions. And the nature of the job is such as a lot of the crew are often emotional with the people they work with.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Right.. just happens every day, right? Is to be expected, right?
Pretty much, yeah. I mean, I'd put this sort of rant nearer the more extreme end, but I've seen worse.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Um yes.
Like I said; no. Actors like Bale have to promote their film as well. It's a big part of the job.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Ya don't SAY?!! NO WAY!! You know so much about Hollywood!! Can I have your autograph?
Juvenile sarcastic mockery aside, just a moment earlier you categorically claimed that all an actor does is act in front of a camera, and when I pointed out you were wrong you claimed you were right and said you know what you're talking about. But here you're trying to suggest I'm somehow stupid for pointing out something so obvious as the fact that actor's don't just act.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Hundreds and hundreds? Just like Harrison Ford that virtually never goes around promoting his movies..
Yeah and Harrison Ford couldn't sustain his star power because most of his films don't do very well. Most likely because he's unusually private. The promotion tours are written into actors' contracts.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Oooh so compromising!! Because actors never bring their families along...
They sometimes get visits, if they're lucky.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
You're talking about a typical shoot day.. out of how many days of actual shooting?
Well, six days a week for six months. Do the maths. If you're lucky it will be only a five day week.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 05:21 PM   #169
jmcvann
Navel Gazer
 
jmcvann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Method acting requires the actor to actually feel the emotions they are meant to be expressing, as opposed to presentational methods where the actor simply mimics the external manifestations of the emotion. Some actors can just turn it off and on at will, but some can't.
First, there are different "method" techniques. Stanislavski. Strasberg. Meisner. Adler. And as I've said before, many great actors aren't "method" at all, and that doesn't automatically make them "presentational." Some actors just act without a bunch of ******** terminology.

Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
This one won't. Screen acting is much, much more difficult than stage acting.
There is no correct answer here. What's easier for one person is not easier for all people.

Quote:
Sometimes part of the job is to lose control.
I sure don't want to be in a stage combat scene with you - a great example, by the way of a scene that would need extensive emotional commitment - if you believe this to be acceptable.

Quote:
Was Juliette Lewis unprofessional when she actually physically assaulted someone on the set? Was Martin Sheen behaving unprofessionally when he smashed a prop on set?
Yes, and yes.

Quote:
No one has suggested that it does give them free reign. And if he's a method actor, his job relies on him actually getting angry.
No, it does not. He may believe that's the only way he can do it. But that's a different issue.

Quote:
Did you hear about Josh Harnett doing it on the set of Thirty Days Of Night? Because he did. And he's a nice guy.
Do you know Hartnett personally? How do you know he's a nice guy? Personal experience? Or media representation?

Quote:
No, that's not a requirement, but a lot of method actors do that because it makes it easier for them to maintain the emotions.
Ahhh...We finally agree. It is easier. Not more professional, but easier. More preparation and more skill would get the same result. But it's easier to be lazy and act like a jackass.
__________________
I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
jmcvann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 05:27 PM   #170
Gangularis
Muse
 
Gangularis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 980
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
This one won't. Screen acting is much, much more difficult than stage acting.
Yeah.. because there are so many more distractions during screen acting?? Stage actors only have to deal with frivolities like performing LIVE in front of hundreds of people, under really hot lamps, in god knows what out fits, where any number of things can go wrong.. yeah.. they got it cozy.



Quote:
Er... talk about missing the point...
There was no point worth addressing.




Quote:
Still missing the point, I see?
To answer your question. No, I was not missing the point.




Quote:
How old are you?
30 - A/S/L??




Quote:
Sometimes part of the job is to lose control. I've cited numerous examples they are positively regarded as "good" examples of acting. Was Juliette Lewis unprofessional when she actually physically assaulted someone on the set? Was Martin Sheen behaving unprofessionally when he smashed a prop on set?
It sounds like it. I really haven't heard much about those events.






Quote:
No one has suggested that it does give them free reign. And if he's a method actor, his job relies on him actually getting angry.
Again, it requires him to control his emotions, and *act*. It's not about just getting blindly enraged..




Quote:
And here's my issue with this entire thing. I've not once tried to justify or excuse his behaviour. What I have argued about is the above - that this incident necessarily means anything negative about Bale's character - is false. You simply cannot make that judgment based on listening to a single audio clip.
I think it's obvious, based on what we know of him, that he has, to some degree, a hot headed personality.




Quote:
You don't hear about it, but it's happening. And not just the actors. Crew as well. I'm telling you, this stuff is common on film sets. Did you hear about Josh Harnett doing it on the set of Thirty Days Of Night? Because he did. And he's a nice guy. People like Russell Crowe don't make the news for yelling at someone on the set - they make the news for assaulting photographers and other random people in the general public, off the film set.
Everyone on the set experiences stress. The only people that get away with acting like jagoffs are the *stars*, and sometimes the director.




Quote:
Juvenile sarcastic mockery aside
Maybe if you didn't sarcastically condescend to me, you wouldn't get the responses I gave you. In fact, I can promise you that you wouldn't have.



Quote:
Well, six days a week for six months. Do the maths. If you're lucky it will be only a five day week.
So you're trying to tell me that they work 10-16 hour shifts, six days a week, for six months a year????


Last edited by Gangularis; 6th February 2009 at 05:33 PM.
Gangularis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 05:48 PM   #171
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 6,973
I can't believe people are still making a big deal out of how long this lasted. He didn't monolog that whole time himself. Someone else kept responding in some way(s) that annoyed him more and then he responded to their responses. He was finished several times, and then in each case it got extended again by the other party (and then by him, and then by the other...). This is not long at all, as back-and-forth exchanges go. You just can't hear the other person very well because it's Bale's microphone.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 05:48 PM   #172
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,267
Quote:
Was Juliette Lewis unprofessional when she actually physically assaulted someone on the set? Was Martin Sheen behaving unprofessionally when he smashed a prop on set?
Yes, and Lewis should have been held accountable.
Gumboot, you might not mean it, but you really are coming off like you basically want actors to have immunity from consequences for their actions as long as they are done
"in character" and "on set".
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 05:57 PM   #173
EeneyMinnieMoe
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,221
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
I can't believe people are still making a big deal out of how long this lasted. He didn't monolog that whole time himself. Someone else kept responding in some way(s) that annoyed him more and then he responded to their responses. He was finished several times, and then in each case it got extended again by the other party (and then by him, and then by the other...). This is not long at all, as back-and-forth exchanges go. You just can't hear the other person very well because it's Bale's microphone.
The man on the other end of the rant was clearly just trying to apologize and make it go away.

If he had treated Bale the way Bale treated him and had defended himself with the same force and it was two people screaming at each other on an audio tape, it might not have been so ugly. Not that you don't have a total right to respond and defend yourself when someone screams at you.

Instead, you get someone brow-beating an underling. He actually gets angrier when the guy tries to apologize!
__________________
Help Robert out- please visit (Stop) Sylvia Browne !

StopJohnofGod.blogspot.com

Last edited by EeneyMinnieMoe; 6th February 2009 at 05:58 PM.
EeneyMinnieMoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 06:04 PM   #174
Gangularis
Muse
 
Gangularis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 980
rofl!! "brow-beating an underling"!

what a great phrase.
Gangularis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 06:49 PM   #175
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
I can see and probably have, actors of stature getting upset when disturbed while working, but c'mon, Bale ain't one of them, and it's freakin' "Terminator", most likely going directly to DVD anyway.
Infinitely ignorable and forgettable!
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 06:51 PM   #176
Gangularis
Muse
 
Gangularis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 980
Originally Posted by I Ratant View Post
I can see and probably have, actors of stature getting upset when disturbed while working, but c'mon, Bale ain't one of them, and it's freakin' "Terminator", most likely going directly to DVD anyway.
Infinitely ignorable and forgettable!
Gangularis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2009, 07:04 PM   #177
Gangularis
Muse
 
Gangularis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 980
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
It wasn't right when they did it to Bill O'Reilly, when he was MUCH more abusive than this for much less of a issue on the set, and it wasn't right now.
You call yourself the gatekeeper of the left?? For shame!!
Gangularis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2009, 01:14 AM   #178
Tbone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,448
Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Yeah.. because there are so many more distractions during screen acting?? Stage actors only have to deal with frivolities like performing LIVE in front of hundreds of people, under really hot lamps, in god knows what out fits, where any number of things can go wrong.. yeah.. they got it cozy.
So, summing up your view of stage vs screen acting:

Stage acting: In front of hundreds of people.
Screen acting: No one around but the actors and cameras.

Stage acting: Work under hot lamps.
Screen acting: Always work under normal lighting.

Stage acting: Could be wearing uncomfortable clothing and the like.
Screen acting: Always wear comfortable clothing.

Stage acting: Things could go wrong.
Screen acting: Things could go wrong, but they can edit it out later.


Also, who said stage actors have it "cozy?"
Tbone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2009, 01:43 AM   #179
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by jmcvann View Post
First, there are different "method" techniques. Stanislavski. Strasberg. Meisner. Adler. And as I've said before, many great actors aren't "method" at all, and that doesn't automatically make them "presentational." Some actors just act without a bunch of ******** terminology.
These different acting techniques describe different ways actors approach their performance. Some actors quite consciously select a particular method - especially those that have been formally taught. Those like me who simply learned by "treading the boards" don't follow any sort of set routine or "technique" but we still generally use one of two approaches. (I am more of a method actor myself).

I agree with your sentiment though; some actors focus too much on the BS terminology and their technique and what ever. RULE10 that. I just get out there and frikken act.


Originally Posted by jmcvann View Post
I sure don't want to be in a stage combat scene with you - a great example, by the way of a scene that would need extensive emotional commitment - if you believe this to be acceptable.
Er... I said "sometimes". Not always. Stage combat is a very bad time to lose control. And I am very good at stage combat, so have no fear. I can even make you your blade if you wish.


Originally Posted by jmcvann View Post
Do you know Hartnett personally? How do you know he's a nice guy? Personal experience? Or media representation?
Personal experience.


Originally Posted by jmcvann View Post
Ahhh...We finally agree. It is easier. Not more professional, but easier. More preparation and more skill would get the same result. But it's easier to be lazy and act like a jackass.
Yeah that's exactly what I said.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2009, 02:12 AM   #180
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Yeah.. because there are so many more distractions during screen acting??
Of course.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Stage actors only have to deal with frivolities like performing LIVE in front of hundreds of people
Which, unless you have stage fright, is a non issue. Once you get into an auditorium seating about 200 or more, the audience might as well not exist. This can contrast quite dramatically with, say, screen acting, where your audience (the crew) are usually impossible to ignore. And unlike an attentive stage audience who are pretty much sitting still and listening to you, a film crew might be doing any number of things.

That is, of course, assuming you're shooting in a studio. Start talking about location shooting and suddenly the potential distractions increase exponentially, depending on the specifics. Weather, traffic, bystanders... it can be quite fun! Then there's the sorts of job-specific considerations that you don't normally get with stage work - picture cars, moving camera shots, animals... the list just goes on and on.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
under really hot lamps
Hah, hah, you're kidding me right? Yeah those 2K pars really belt out the light don't they? Tell you what, why don't you stand under a couple of 24Ks for half a day and see how that feels. Films use much bigger lights than theatre. Particularly if you're shooting 35mm.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
in god knows what out fits
Why don't you talk to some of the extras who played Orcs in the Helm's Deep battle of The Two Towers about how god awful stage costumes are? I did a film where the lead actor spent nearly a week wearing wet muddy clothing all day. I've never come across anything that unpleasant on stage. The worst that I normally seem to have to deal with is a feeling of embarrassment.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
where any number of things can go wrong.. yeah..
Believe me, much more can go wrong on a film set than on a stage. And I've had some pretty god-awful things happen to me on stage before (ever been run over by a 12 tonne barricade? It sucks).


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
they got it cozy.
No they don't. Stage acting can be pretty demanding. Particularly if you don't get a break. On the flip side, stage acting is more fun.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
There was no point worth addressing.
There was. In fact you yourself made the point, whilst simultaneously missing it.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
It sounds like it. I really haven't heard much about those events.
They're famously cited as great examples of very intense acting.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Again, it requires him to control his emotions, and *act*. It's not about just getting blindly enraged..
Some directors actually intentionally goad their actors into losing it, to get a good performance out of them. Steven Spielberg is well known for it, which I think is quite important considering Spielberg directed Bale in his first major film. I suspect that Spielberg had a pretty significant impact on the kid.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
I think it's obvious, based on what we know of him, that he has, to some degree, a hot headed personality.
What do we know of him? All we really know for sure is the guy has a "potty mouth" which he himself admits to. That's hardly a staggering revelation - in my experience theatre and film people are worse than sailors!


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Everyone on the set experiences stress. The only people that get away with acting like jagoffs are the *stars*, and sometimes the director.
If I had to rank the people on a set I think are most likely to be excused for losing it at a fellow crew member it would be, in order:

1. Director of Photography
2. First Assistant Director
3. Producer
4. Director
5. Lead cast (only if they're famous/important)


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Maybe if you didn't sarcastically condescend to me, you wouldn't get the responses I gave you. In fact, I can promise you that you wouldn't have.
I wasn't condescending to you, I was repeating myself in simpler terms because your first post indicated you had completely ignored what I had earlier written. No one likes to be ignored.


Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
So you're trying to tell me that they work 10-16 hour shifts, six days a week, for six months a year????
It depends entirely on the film. For big name actors like Christian Bale, you're probably typically looking at between 4 and 6 months shooting, and 10-16 hours would be a pretty standard day (everyone loves a film with children in the lead roles because you're limited to an 8hr shooting day). Most Hollywood films seem to do 6 days a week although some shoots are 5 days a week - it depends.

Of course not all cast are in every scene, so it depends really on the nature of the schedule. With high profile cast they tend to block shoot all of their stuff in one go. But if the actor's going to be there for the majority of the film they might schedule in breaks. Then of course on top of that you have pick ups, publicity stuff, your sound post production, and possibly some pre-production work like fight training or whatever.

It varies a lot.

How much down time the actor has really depends on the actor. They might do one film every couple of years or they might do many films a year. Bale seems to do two or three a year.

The bottom line is, while they're working, screen actors typically work much longer hours than Computer Graphic artists.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2009, 02:23 AM   #181
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Gumboot, you might not mean it, but you really are coming off like you basically want actors to have immunity from consequences for their actions as long as they are done
"in character" and "on set".

I want people to appreciate that a film set environment is a unique type of environment, and that you cannot use someone's behaviour on set as judgment of what sort of person they are.

The regular rules of society simply don't apply on a film set. It's a closed, isolated environment and it has to function in a strange way to work.

I've never, ever screamed at someone like that, but I've been an a-hole on set before and treated people (normally extras - they're a pain in the ass) in a way I'd never treat someone in real life. I didn't do it because I enjoy the power, or because I'm a mean person. I did it because it's my job. I have to do it, to get the job done.

If a fellow crew member needs to act like a class A prick to do their job, that's fine, I'll deal with it, shut my trap, and let them do it. If they act like that off the set, or carry any sort of baggage with them from day to day I'll tell them to their face, that it's not good enough.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2009, 03:33 AM   #182
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
 
Undesired Walrus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,583
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I've never, ever screamed at someone like that, but I've been an a-hole on set before and treated people (normally extras - they're a pain in the ass) in a way I'd never treat someone in real life. I didn't do it because I enjoy the power, or because I'm a mean person. I did it because it's my job. I have to do it, to get the job done.
As someone who worked on set at Leavesden and Pinewood Studios for two years, I understand your anger, I've witnessed it.

However, I'd advise you that treating people with respect, regardless of the job you are undertaking, is preferable to treating them in a cruel manner. And, if the job is more important then your personal -momentary- emotions and exasperations, you have a duty to suppress it for the good of the picture.
__________________
Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945
Undesired Walrus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2009, 05:06 AM   #183
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus View Post
As someone who worked on set at Leavesden and Pinewood Studios for two years, I understand your anger, I've witnessed it.

However, I'd advise you that treating people with respect, regardless of the job you are undertaking, is preferable to treating them in a cruel manner. And, if the job is more important then your personal -momentary- emotions and exasperations, you have a duty to suppress it for the good of the picture.

I think you misunderstood me. There's on anger involved. Extras, in particular, have very little invested in a film. For them it's a holiday - a day off work to fool about and enjoy themselves. They're often quite uncooperative, and worse still many of them are also "actors" and if we ADs give them an inch, they'll take a yard.

As an AD, handling hundreds of extras, I simply can't afford to get to know each of them, understand their feelings, and explain everything to them. I have to establish my authority over them immediately, and I have to make it absolutely clear that for the duration of the day they will do what I say, when I say, and nothing else.

We're curt, emotionless, and uncompromising. We don't make exceptions to the rule.

That's pretty unpleasant - to be bossed about like that. I know it, because I've been an extra before myself. But it has to be done. That's how it works. I am sure there's more than one extra out there who thinks I'm a complete bastard.

I can't walk up to a bunch of extras and go: "Hey guys, how's it going? Who wants to be in this scene? Yeah? Cool. You guys come over here with me and we'll do some work. Oh that's fine, go to the bathroom and we'll wait..."

I do that and I'll have a sorry string of extras lazily stroll onto set in ones and twos. It delays the shoot, it makes things harder, and the 1st AD will chew my ear off for it.

Instead it's more like this:

"Right. You, you, you and you. Come with me right now. No. You can't go to the bathroom. Move it. No, leave the book behind. I don't care. Hurry up."

Some of it's just getting things done quickly, but it's more than that. There's a psychological aspect to it. It's posturing. I'm making it clear that I'm higher up than them, and that if they don't cooperate with me I'll make things uncomfortable for them.

It's an act, of course, and I need to do it for my job. Sometimes it sucks. It's hard to chat up a cute actress at the end of the day's shooting when you've been bossing her about all day.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2009, 06:06 AM   #184
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
 
Undesired Walrus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,583
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Extras, in particular, have very little invested in a film. For them it's a holiday - a day off work to fool about and enjoy themselves. They're often quite uncooperative, and worse still many of them are also "actors" and
I was employed by Warner Brothers, witnessing many thousands of extras being handled. I remember ecstatic faces, not disrespectful actions. I think you are making a broad generalisation.

Quote:
if we ADs give them an inch, they'll take a yard.
Using a favourite phrase of a Southern Slaveholder? We've reached the extremes here.

Quote:
We're curt, emotionless, and uncompromising. We don't make exceptions to the rule.
Again, all I can say is that is not my experience. Chris Carreras was, from what I recall, a highly respectful AD.

Quote:
I can't walk up to a bunch of extras and go: "Hey guys, how's it going? Who wants to be in this scene? Yeah? Cool. You guys come over here with me and we'll do some work. Oh that's fine, go to the bathroom and we'll wait..."
Nobody expects you to. But that doesn't mean this:

Quote:
"Right. You, you, you and you. Come with me right now. No. You can't go to the bathroom. Move it. No, leave the book behind. I don't care. Hurry up."
Is the correct strategy. The phrase shows complete disinterest (and even contempt) in the extra as a person. If you do not value them as a person -only merely as a cardboard cut-out and a necessary evil- then they have no reason to value the art you are attempting to produce.
__________________
Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945
Undesired Walrus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2009, 10:05 AM   #185
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 17,151
I remember on the Extras for the Abyss DVD, one of the actors said that his response to anyone who complained about working on any project was always "**** you, I did The Abyss." Some of the toughest working conditions ever. And James Cameron.

Granted, it was several years earlier, but I highly doubt Bale went into full Method mode when he did American Psycho.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2009, 01:08 PM   #186
jmcvann
Navel Gazer
 
jmcvann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
... get out there and frikken act.
Right on.

Quote:
I can even make you your blade if you wish.
I was just looking around for a rapier!

Quote:
Personal experience.
Fair enough! (I did not see that coming!)


Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Extras, in particular, have very little invested in a film. For them it's a holiday - a day off work to fool about and enjoy themselves. They're often quite uncooperative, and worse still many of them are also "actors" ...
I've seen this behavior and I just don't get it. Especially from other actors. I find myself thinking: "Why are you here?"

Quote:
Instead it's more like this:

"Right. You, you, you and you. Come with me right now. No. You can't go to the bathroom. Move it. No, leave the book behind. I don't care. Hurry up."
Works for me. I've done some extra work. I'm there to serve the project. I don't understand why some people don't get that simple concept.

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus View Post
Nobody expects you to. But that doesn't mean this ... is the correct strategy. The phrase shows complete disinterest (and even contempt) in the extra as a person. If you do not value them as a person -only merely as a cardboard cut-out and a necessary evil- then they have no reason to value the art you are attempting to produce.
I gotta agree with gumboot on this one. If an extra doesn't understand why he's there and what will be expected of him, he shouldn't be there. Gumboot's hypothetical directions above are stern, but certainly not contemptful.
__________________
I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
jmcvann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2009, 02:06 PM   #187
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
 
332nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,114
Originally Posted by Number Six View Post
It sounds to me like you're trying to equate what the guy did with what Bale did. There is no comparison. The guy made a mistake, as people do from time to time, _including_ Bale. Is Bale berated like that when he makes a mistake? No, and if someone tried to he wouldn't stand up for it. But he inflicts it on others because he can and he knows nobody will stop him. He's a bully.
No, I'm saying Bale overreacted to a repeated mistake and without knowing several factors that have been pointed out by Gumboot and others, calling Bale "a bully" is silly.

Also I'm pointing out that this is not a rare thing in the business, this just happened to be on tape.
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail
332nd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2009, 02:16 PM   #188
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
 
332nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,114
Originally Posted by Gangularis View Post
Yes. I've also acted on stage, which just about every actor will tell you is the more challenging of the two.
I see both of them as challenging for different reasons.



Quote:
All I did was pick up a phone? And you're calling me the ignorant one. Get a clue.
Get the point.
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail
332nd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2009, 03:56 PM   #189
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,267
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I remember on the Extras for the Abyss DVD, one of the actors said that his response to anyone who complained about working on any project was always "**** you, I did The Abyss." Some of the toughest working conditions ever. And James Cameron.

Granted, it was several years earlier, but I highly doubt Bale went into full Method mode when he did American Psycho.

There are literally dozens of Cameron stories in the business. And it is not just the extras. At one Point in the Abyss apparently Ed Harris almost quit because he felt Cameron was asking him to do something that was just plain dangerous and that no role was worth getting killed for.
A couple of years ago Cameron did a mea culpa that he knew he has behaved badly on set but he promised to change his ways. Stories coming out of people working on Avatar indicate he has not kept that promise.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2009, 08:00 PM   #190
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,361
Weird. I listened to his apology live on KROQ. At first I thought it was a joke.

Here's the impression from the voice-guy Ralph Garman that Bale himself thought was funny: http://kroq-data.com/wah/wah/audio/?a=1119
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2009, 02:03 AM   #191
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus View Post
I was employed by Warner Brothers, witnessing many thousands of extras being handled. I remember ecstatic faces, not disrespectful actions. I think you are making a broad generalisation.
Were you an AD? I ask that because I've seen plenty of ecstatic faces too - like I said, most extras are there to have fun. Yes, it's a generalisation, but it's a pretty accurate one. There's two general types of extras:

1) Actors - these are the ones who see themselves as serious actors, but happen to be doing some extras work "this time". Ricky Gervais' TV series isn't too far off. They can be the most painful, because they expect you to treat them like an actor. On the plus side, they tend to be more focused.

2) Non-film people - these are your people who have their own regular career, have no interest in a career in film, and are just doing it for a bit of fun and extra money. They don't have the arrogance of the other group, but they usually don't understand the process as well, and can be difficult to keep focused and in line.


Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus View Post
Using a favourite phrase of a Southern Slaveholder? We've reached the extremes here.
Is that where that phrase comes from?


Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus View Post
Again, all I can say is that is not my experience. Chris Carreras was, from what I recall, a highly respectful AD.
Well yeah, he's a first. Firsts don't have much to do with your supporting cast or extras. They spend most of their time with your lead cast and your crew. You need a totally different attitude for that job. As a First I normally wouldn't talk to anyone like that (except perhaps a 2nd or 3rd if they were dragging their heels).


Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus View Post
Nobody expects you to. But that doesn't mean this:

Is the correct strategy. The phrase shows complete disinterest (and even contempt) in the extra as a person. If you do not value them as a person -only merely as a cardboard cut-out and a necessary evil- then they have no reason to value the art you are attempting to produce.
I don't agree at all. It's not that we don't value them as people. It's that we don't have the time to micro-manage every little problem or request they have. I had an extra whose sister was involved in a very serious car accident while we were shooting, and we couldn't have been more accommodating. If there's a genuine problem I'll bend over backwards to help one of my extras.

But I won't let one of them head off set at lunch time to buy a newspaper, and I won't get into a discussion about the matter either.

(That's probably the only time I've ever actually got really angry at an extra).

A film set is a very big machine, and it only runs smoothly if every single cog is doing what it should be. Once it starts to break down things go from bad to worse exceedingly quickly, so part of my job as an AD is to keep the machine running. Most of those cogs can look after themselves pretty well. If it's going to break down somewhere it's usually going to be amongst the extras or sometimes the cast - it's very easy for them to lose focus and lose touch with what's happening, particularly if they have long periods of waiting around. So we keep on their backs and we don't let up.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2009, 02:09 AM   #192
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Stories coming out of people working on Avatar indicate he has not kept that promise.

Hah. My friend and his workmates linked up with Cameron for what was going to be a 2 hr video conference to go over the animation for some key sequences. As soon as the meeting started they explained to him that the models were mostly incomplete or simply place holders, and that no texture, lighting or rendering had been done. He was to simply ignore all of that and just approve or alter the animation itself (i.e. the movement).

Shortly after the first segment started it all went awry.

JC: What the **** is up with those rocks?
WETA: Just ignore those, they're just place holders. Look at the animation.
JC: This is ****, I've told you guys a hundred times! What the ****? They look like something out of the Flintstones!
WETA: They're just-
JC: This is ****. No. I'm not doing this. Come back when you have done some real **** work and don't waste my time with this **** **** ****!

And that was the end of the meeting. He cut the link. 2 minutes, 30 seconds into it.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.