(no subject)
Dec. 12th, 2010 08:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Watching Private Screenings with Liza Minelli on TCM - where she discusses her father, Vincent Minelli's directorial technique. Makes you appreciate the fine art of direction - which is 85% of film.It's a visual medium more than anything else. And you can tell a well-directed film vs. a poorly directed one. In one bit she discusses the classic film Home from the Hill starring Robert Mitchum, George Peppard and George Hamilton. The actors had completely different styles. With Mitchum, he knew all he had to do was give him the staging and let him go, with Peppard who was method - he had to work with him more - give him his motivation, and with George...he was a new-comer and had to give him line readings.
I love this line: When Gene Kelly danced - you knew it was a great number, when Fred Astair danced, you felt like he was making it up on the spot. - Liza Minelli.
It's an interesting way of distinguishing the two. For me? Kelley is raw emotion, while Astair is effortless grace. I'd say I prefer one over the other? But it depends. Kelley is amazing in An American in Paris and Singing in the Rain, smart-alek, yet raw, with a muscular grace, like Bugs Bunny, and Astair in Daddy Long Legs, Band Wagon (my favorite of the Astair flicks), and Funny Face - who had such effortless grace...he would fall into a waltz or a tap as if he were just deciding to walk across a room.
Liza repeats her mother's advice on acting and her fathers. Her mother says you have to figure out why that person is saying and if it is really that, and if she isn't really saying that, what else would she say - and she had me rehearse a line with her. Don't say what you're really thinking, say what you should say, and everything you are really thinking should come from the eyes. Her father says acting is hearing and saying it as if you are saying it for the very first time.
It's a craft and a difficult one, which the true pro's make look easy. Like pure magic. It's the magician who stands up in front of you and pulls that bunny out of the hat, effortlessly.
2. I'm enjoying Hunger Games more than expected. Katniss is actually quite interesting and I like her. I don't understand why people said she's not the most touchy feely or likable character at first? I like her much better than I did Buffy at first. She's tough. She loves her sister too pieces. Is a tom boy, and not that into the girly crap. Where's the problem? (bewildered).
I love this line: When Gene Kelly danced - you knew it was a great number, when Fred Astair danced, you felt like he was making it up on the spot. - Liza Minelli.
It's an interesting way of distinguishing the two. For me? Kelley is raw emotion, while Astair is effortless grace. I'd say I prefer one over the other? But it depends. Kelley is amazing in An American in Paris and Singing in the Rain, smart-alek, yet raw, with a muscular grace, like Bugs Bunny, and Astair in Daddy Long Legs, Band Wagon (my favorite of the Astair flicks), and Funny Face - who had such effortless grace...he would fall into a waltz or a tap as if he were just deciding to walk across a room.
Liza repeats her mother's advice on acting and her fathers. Her mother says you have to figure out why that person is saying and if it is really that, and if she isn't really saying that, what else would she say - and she had me rehearse a line with her. Don't say what you're really thinking, say what you should say, and everything you are really thinking should come from the eyes. Her father says acting is hearing and saying it as if you are saying it for the very first time.
It's a craft and a difficult one, which the true pro's make look easy. Like pure magic. It's the magician who stands up in front of you and pulls that bunny out of the hat, effortlessly.
2. I'm enjoying Hunger Games more than expected. Katniss is actually quite interesting and I like her. I don't understand why people said she's not the most touchy feely or likable character at first? I like her much better than I did Buffy at first. She's tough. She loves her sister too pieces. Is a tom boy, and not that into the girly crap. Where's the problem? (bewildered).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 01:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 02:38 am (UTC)I think this a kink of mine - survivor tales with tough female leaders. I love female action characters - but they are so hard to find.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 02:48 am (UTC)And she remains that throughout. There's no doubt who the protagonist is in the story. It's her. That said they manage to bring in some tertiary characters that I also loved like Johanna and Finnick.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 02:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 02:34 am (UTC)But I think I'll tear through this faster, since going on vacation soon - which means more time for reading.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 02:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 11:48 pm (UTC)The book feels like a dark political satire in places - reminding me a great deal of George Orwell and Shirley Jackson, who both did similar takes on the concept. There's also shades of Roger Cormier - The Chocolat War, and Ronald Dahl.
Rather impressed and I'm only 20-30 pages into it. The Kindle is giving me the large print version - which is very nice to my eyes, after reading the tiny print of Storm of Swords for three months.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-14 01:27 am (UTC)Oh, it definitely is. This become increasingly apparent over the course of the series. There's a great deal about propoganda and the way it screws things up. There's the overlap of how death and war become reality TV. How the news has made it increasingly difficult to distinguish truth from propoganda (and at times out and out lies). How politics employ propoganda and TV coverage for political means. All of that pops up at some point. And the lines become so blurred that it's hard for the people in the story to distinguish what's actually real and what were roles played out for an audience to serve a certain end.
I also liked the way Haymitch and in book two the other Hunger Games vets show that that while the losers of the games lose their lives the 'winners' souls are damaged (in a variety of ways.) (::pets Johanna and Finnick::) (Though I didn't like the beginning of Book II. It got better as it went on though).
I was also interested by the fact that as we were introduced to the 'winners' that it seemed that more often than not brains must have bested pure brawn. There seemed to be at least as many female winners as male.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-14 02:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-14 03:11 am (UTC)And I suspect if you love Katniss you'll also have affection for Johanna.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 09:02 am (UTC)Yes, Kelly is a more "masculine" dancer - all testosterone; while Astaire is like a soap bubble - he floats effortlessly through the air. So I guess it all depends on which version moves you more, for me it's always Kelly.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 11:51 pm (UTC)And Astair does feel like watching a soap bubble - effortlessly floating through the air, top hat and tails, moving so fast, you can barely see the steps.
Best ones?
Kelley - American in Paris and Singing in the Rain
Astair - Band Wagon
no subject
Date: 2010-12-16 12:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 09:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 09:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 11:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 07:31 pm (UTC)I think that a lot of readers don't appreciate a young girl as an existential hero: Katniss has lost a lot and trust no one... and I think some readers found that hard to accept, personally I appreciated it!
Of course we do learn that her heart melts completely for the weak and vulnerable, and slowly she begins to realize that even the strong and egotistical have their vulnerabilities. She is easily one of the most interesting female characters I've read in ages. But then I found almost all of Suzanne Collin's characters interesting (even the nasty ones, even the ones with tiny roles to play).
And yeah, comparing Kelly and Astaire is a waste of time: better to just really enjoy both of them! lol
no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 11:56 pm (UTC)Hee, but I can't help it. ;-)
The Hunger Games is surprising me. It's more sophisticated and literary than I thought and a lot better written. Reminds me of Roger Cormier's YA novels and Shirley Jackson. Darker, grittier, and with a satirical edge.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-14 02:31 am (UTC)It surprised me too, I was expecting something like 'Twilight' (which is written with small words and short sentences that wouldn't challenge the reading level of a third grader), but Suzanne Collin's writing was really very beautiful even though the story was dark. Oh yeah, and like you I liked the satirical edge (the politics definitely stays in the 2nd & 3rd book!).
My only complaint about Collins is that because of the cliff hanging endings to chapters I found it very hard to put the book down! lol
no subject
Date: 2010-12-14 02:48 am (UTC)Agree though - so far she's a much better writer. I scanned Twilight in the bookstore - curious about it and thinking I might like it and was thrown by how horrible the writing was. Filled with adverbs. Poor adjectives. And the type of writing that I have worked 20 years not to do. I wrote like that at 15. It horrifies me that it was published let alone became popular and family members adore it. (shudder). But ...people's taste continues to bewilder me and who am I to judge someone else's taste? People think differently. So, I've added Twilight to my list of things that I am not permitted to discuss with people.
But just 10-20 pages in - it's satirical. There's this woman named Ethie Trinket that made me smile. The names and the descriptions remind me a little of Rowlings and Dahl. Clever.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-14 03:41 am (UTC)