Having seen Friedkin's
-
franzkabuki — 13 years ago(November 30, 2012 07:02 PM)
Yeah, but being STILL MORE FRANK, with The Happening you did manage to pick out the worst of the worst when it comes to well, everything. Including acting.
That said, while the performances by the 2 leads in ZP are indeed rather poor, theyre not quite as awful as to prove a fatal distraction, as it were. Theyre ultimately tolerable - barely, but still.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
jimmy_miller — 13 years ago(December 09, 2012 01:11 PM)
No I wanted to know why you in particular think so. Is there a particular line reading that comes to mind? I hardly remember them having much dialogue at all, I don't understand what you mean by the 'woodennes of their behaviour'; they're pitch perfectly cast in the parts because that's who they are/were in real life at that time in their lives. What's the point about being amateurs if you can suck more being a Hollywood veteran like the actors in The Happening.
-
franzkabuki — 13 years ago(December 09, 2012 03:59 PM)
"Theyre pitch perfectly cast in the parts because thats who they are/were in real life at that time in their lives".
Ive heard this argument before and I guess I understand that point of view and it sort of makes sense but, still, they sometimes seemed to be acting rather than just "being who they were" - especially the girl (for particular instances, Id need to see the film again though). However, thats hardly that big a deal to begin with, since - as noted before - it isnt some film-ruining fatal distraction as far as Im concerned.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
jimmy_miller — 13 years ago(December 10, 2012 04:17 AM)
That's exactly the point - people seem to latch on to things of this nature - I personally feel this is one of the most unique films of all-time, ragging about the lead performances, and how they are not Hollywood stars is just nitpicking and excuses thrown around the film when people can't explain why they didn't like it in the first place. This is not a rant towards you franzkabuki but in general, that's why I opened the thread in the first place. Thanks for responding.
I agree with you - I need to see this film again! -
GuyOnTheLeft — 12 years ago(August 20, 2013 02:32 AM)
I thought the guy's acting was passable, and the girl's pretty bad (though she was easy on the eyes).
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc -
Zoomorph — 11 years ago(April 23, 2014 12:20 AM)
We all view films through our own arsenal of lenses. We live through the characters by understanding them. This is a film that requires a specific lens to appreciate. The characters here are aloof and peculiar. "Normal" people are unlikely to be able to place themselves in their world and see the meaning in it.
The movie is sparse and minimal in the latter half. This bores the viewers who aren't immersed in the story because they don't understand and empathize with the two main characters. There's nothing in the film to distract them. They look for something or someone to blame for them being bored (can't be themselves, of course).
Why aren't those characters showing more emotion? => BAD ACTING.
Why isn't there more dialog and action? => BAD SCRIPT.
Why are the characters not like me and why I am not able to empathize with them? => ROBOTS.
Personally I think this is a great movie and that there's nothing wrong with the acting. If the actors themselves don't like the movie, that confirms that Antonioni is to thank for it, and we're lucky that he knew how to "herd" these "cattle" to create better characters than they are capable of themselves.
~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~ -
Disardor — 11 years ago(July 21, 2014 08:40 AM)
There's nothing wrong with the acting, I agree. They sound like real kids in the late teens/early twenties. I think a lot of people bash this film reflexively due to its reputation for having bad acting, which stems from critics at the time who, like all critics, love to build up an artist with praise and then tear him down when they feel it's time to start championing someone else. Problem being that Zabriskie Point is every bit as good as the majority of Antonioni's work and more than forty years on from its release it's plain to see that for most of us.
Just as an aside, the shot where the plane is banking to the right over the blanket of fluffy, pillowy clouds is one of the most plainly beautiful images I've ever seen in film. -
Xeokym — 11 years ago(November 13, 2014 05:08 AM)
They sound like real kids in the late teens/early twenties.
Yes they do, but who wants to watch people acting like "real kids?" There's a reason why people go to the movies, because real life is actually relatively 'boring' compared to a movie that we watch for entertainment. If you want to watch kids acting like real kids then just stare at some 20-somethings for a few hours. The "actors" (I use the term loosely) in this movie have the personalities of wooden planks. They seem to be just walking through the movie saying their lines with no depth or emotion. If you have ever seen the interview of the 2 main actors on Dick Cavet, you can see why Mark & Daria put out such a minimal performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jyzFfrtLRk
They seem like unaffected, humorless, uninteresting, lifeless human beings who were forced to "act" in a movie with a director they hated. They obviously did not enjoy making the movie, and I think their true attitudes came through loud & clear in the movie.
I can't understand your crazy moon language. -
shoobe01 — 11 years ago(January 03, 2015 03:43 PM)
Maybe you guys only see real kids when you attend local amateur/school theater, but wooden doesn't begin to describe the acting. Want an example: Everything between the time she wakes him up from falling down the hill in Death Valley to the orgy sequence. Plenty of talking just short of being able to actually see them reading cue cards.
Lines are not spoken with any inflection, with no reference (or poor reference) to their physical actions, with variable (and therefore improbable and unbelievable) relation to each other such as cadence. This part especially was almost unwatchable. I am not sure I understand anyone who can't see that.
OTOH, the female lead was marginally acceptable other times, like in the cafe on the phone. Maybe because she didn't have to work with another person so could internalize her cues and they edited it to work better.
Supporting characters mostly were awful also. Business guys I bought into, and I appreciate how they were edited so it was mostly gibberish (the only time I was remotely convinced of the purported countercultural message) but the cops and newscasters and airport folks and tourists were also amateurish at best.