That was the problem -- it relied on overdone tropes of iconic female empowerment. I rolled my eyes at the baseball moment. It's lazy writing.
In furtherance to my response to CJL below, I don't know how much of this is the actress and how much is direction and editing. Film isn't like theater -- the actor is sort of at the mercy of the film-editors, directors, etc. Larson could have put in an amazing emotive performance and they cut it in favor of one that worked better with lighting.
Did you know Buffy often had up to 30-40 takes? Angel was limited to 22 per scene? I've seen the raw footage -- they did so many takes, the actors at a certain point were just pushing themselves through the lines. Stanley Kubrick did 54-55 takes per scene -- actors hated working with Kubrick.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2019-03-17 04:14 pm (UTC)And...
That was the problem -- it relied on overdone tropes of iconic female empowerment. I rolled my eyes at the baseball moment. It's lazy writing.
In furtherance to my response to CJL below, I don't know how much of this is the actress and how much is direction and editing. Film isn't like theater -- the actor is sort of at the mercy of the film-editors, directors, etc. Larson could have put in an amazing emotive performance and they cut it in favor of one that worked better with lighting.
Did you know Buffy often had up to 30-40 takes? Angel was limited to 22 per scene? I've seen the raw footage -- they did so many takes, the actors at a certain point were just pushing themselves through the lines. Stanley Kubrick did 54-55 takes per scene -- actors hated working with Kubrick.