![]() I remember Mitchell saying this to me, years ago, in college, when we were talking about Rowlands – and I just looked up Roger Ebert’s review of Another Woman and find, gratifyingly, that he says the same thing: ![]() But then you see her in Woody Allen’s Another Woman, and suddenly there is a revelation about this woman’s talent. She so inhabits his world, of manic madness and alcohol addiction and neurosis, that she has melded completely with her director. If you saw her only in her husband John Cassavetes’ pictures, you would be forgiven if you thought that she only had one context, and that was Cassavetes’ context. The context of King Lear is different than the context of Noises Off, and the actor who can go from one to the other, seamlessly, adjusting his or her approach and talent to the material, is a rare gem indeed.Īnother example I can think of is Gena Rowland’s acting. You have not created the proper context for your work. If you condescend to the material (“David Huxley’s problems are just silly compared to Hamlet’s problems”), then the entire project suffers. It may seem ridiculous that Cary Grant is wearing jodhpurs digging up the yard looking for a lost dinosaur bone, but why it is so funny is because it is so serious to HIM. Everything one does when one is acting must have stakes behind it. And by context I mean: the stakes are just as high in Bringing Up Baby as they are in Macbeth – that is one of the reasons why it is so funny, and why comedy in general, when it does work, works. She literally did not know how to “do” screwball comedy, and kept telegraphing to the audience, “I’m being funny!” It took a lot of work for her to get into the right context. She was known for melodramas and weepies, up until that point. I used an example from Katharine Hepburn’s life to illustrate this point in the post I wrote about her at HND. ![]() The point of approach is important, and if there is a sense that you are condescending to the material, that you feel it is somehow beneath you, then that is obviously not good. I have heard it said that an actor should approach King Lear in the same way he approaches a French farce, and while I understand the point, I think it goes too far (as most generalizations do). "Alice Through the Looking Glass" also stars Mia Wasikowska and Alan Rickman.I have always felt that context was decisive, when it came to acting styles. And the English actor says he "worked quite a lot on trying to make sure that he had a unique way of talking, a unique way of speech". Alice has spent the past few years following in her father's footsteps and sailing the high seas.Ĭohen will be seen essaying role of Time. And Disney's "Alice Through the Looking Glass" is set three years after the events of "Alice in Wonderland". Starring Mia Wasikowska, Time Burton and Disney's "Alice in Wonderland" took the audience on a delightful journey across wonderland. That's his brilliance, really," Cohen said in a statement. "There are not many people who could pull off the character of the Hatter that is that extreme, over the top and flamboyant, so Johnny is probably the only person that can pull that off and make it still believable and not absurd. Actor Sacha Baron Cohen feels Johnny Depp is the "only" actor who can pull off the character of Mad Hatter, a fictional super villain, with conviction on the silver screen.ĭepp will be seen playing the Mad Hatter in Disney's forthcoming film "Alice Through the Looking Glass", which will release in India on Friday.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |