I've had some health issues in the last couple of months, and am currently in recuperation mode after an operation. So I've been catching up on some QAF reading
( Read more... )
Oh, I so agree with all of this. Debbie ... she has her moments, but she has as many really bad ones as she does good. And this is an example. What possible difference could it make to Mel and Linds if Justin was at their wedding or not? It's not like he was a close friend of theirs - he's just a kid that they enjoy patronising. (And seriously, every time I read one of Randy's comments about how Brian patronised Justin I want to scream at him "Are you kidding? Compared to how every woman in the show behaved towards him, Brian treated him with extraordinary respect".
And ... well, don't get me started on the writers. You know, I'm sure, my feelings about them. It seemed to me that they were so impoverished for ideas that the best that they could ever come up with for B/J was to split them up and get them back together.
To be honest, I lost all respect for CowLip the moment they claimed that Michael was the "everyman" that the audience would most identify with and relate to. Heaven help us! If Mikey really represented "every man", I'd have become a lesbian years ago. But that they could believe that, that they could even think it, told me that they really had no idea at all either about the inner heart of their characters or about their audience. And that, I think, was in S1. I never really had high hopes for the writing after that. I've always said that two things contributed to the success of the show and neither of them had anything to do with the way it was written. One was that both Gale and Randy - but especially Gale - were able to reveal a great deal about the character without any help from the script. Gale was a master of this - the little looks, that tongue in cheek smirk, the way his whole body could convey his anguish, his indecision, his fears and anxieties without a single line of dialogue to help him. And Randy deserves an award for keeping the sybil!Justin of S5 even vaguely recognisable (from Hollywood party boy to pining over a the thought of 2.4 kids and a white picket fence to starving artist to romantic heroine swept off his feet by the 'palace for my prince' line and then back to starving artist again).
And the second thing was that they got Russel to direct those first episodes. Because that set the tone for the whole show - not just in terms of the camera set ups, and the music, but in terms of how Gale and Randy interpreted those characters.
After that, the success came despite the abysmal writing and the absurd directions in which the characters were pulled, not because of them.
Now I'm going to go off and see if I can come up with a St Pat's Day drabble. Normally I'd be heading out for some green beer and Irish music but I'm still not really up for that, so I'll have to do it myself. I have Kilkenny Ale in the fridge and I'm sure I can dig up a cd or two. Maybe even some vinyl from out of the vaults. Have a happy St Pat's Day!
One thing Gale does is to play AGAINST the script, which gives what he says so much more ambiguity and complexity.
And as Gale has said, it was frustrating to him that for every movement Brian made towards maturity, he was dragged back by some ridiculous plot twist (see the whole syphilis thing -- Brian, the poster boy for condom use, gets a disease that can't penetrate a condom) that seems invented to bring him back to square one.
It could also have been true of Michael. He *should* have been the 'everyman.' Almost everyone has experienced the pain of unrequited love, and many of us with a close friend. We *should* have felt empathy for Mikey. We *should* have gone through that painful journey of letting go with him. We *should* have rejoiced when he finally found real love with Ben.
But, for me at least, none of that happened. And I lay that almost entirely on Hal. He chose to portray Michael as a whiny, immature, petulant brat. It didn't have to be that way.
Well, exactly. Justin was always more likely to be the one who got something nasty, just due to his inexperience - especially while he was out in Hollywood, playing with a very different crowd than he was used to in Pittsburgh.
And you are totally right about the way Gale plays against the script. The way he delivered the "well, I guess we're all a little scared the first time" line in 101 is a really good example. That could have been said in a totally offhand way - which is what the "scripted" version of Brian would have done, cutting Justin off completely, denying any similarities between them. Instead, it's said with an entrancing touch of empathy and understanding. Not overdone, just THERE.
It also helps that Gale has that little "catch" in his throat when he talks very, very softly. It brings something totally genuine, unlike the "acting" of Hal or, sometimes, even Peter.
My acting teacher in college always used to yell, "I can see/hear you ACTING! Stop it NOW!"
Re: Re: Justinwren_kt7ozMarch 19 2019, 10:57:53 UTC
Yes. I have to admit that I'm very influenced in my response to actors by their voices. So it helps enormously that I just like Gale's voice, and Randy's. While Hal's was like nails on the blackboard to me from his very first line. That combination of smugness and whine when he was doing the "every nine seconds" line was simply unbearable to me.
But yes, Hal is definitely someone that you "see" acting (often very badly).
And ... well, don't get me started on the writers. You know, I'm sure, my feelings about them. It seemed to me that they were so impoverished for ideas that the best that they could ever come up with for B/J was to split them up and get them back together.
To be honest, I lost all respect for CowLip the moment they claimed that Michael was the "everyman" that the audience would most identify with and relate to. Heaven help us! If Mikey really represented "every man", I'd have become a lesbian years ago. But that they could believe that, that they could even think it, told me that they really had no idea at all either about the inner heart of their characters or about their audience. And that, I think, was in S1. I never really had high hopes for the writing after that. I've always said that two things contributed to the success of the show and neither of them had anything to do with the way it was written. One was that both Gale and Randy - but especially Gale - were able to reveal a great deal about the character without any help from the script. Gale was a master of this - the little looks, that tongue in cheek smirk, the way his whole body could convey his anguish, his indecision, his fears and anxieties without a single line of dialogue to help him. And Randy deserves an award for keeping the sybil!Justin of S5 even vaguely recognisable (from Hollywood party boy to pining over a the thought of 2.4 kids and a white picket fence to starving artist to romantic heroine swept off his feet by the 'palace for my prince' line and then back to starving artist again).
And the second thing was that they got Russel to direct those first episodes. Because that set the tone for the whole show - not just in terms of the camera set ups, and the music, but in terms of how Gale and Randy interpreted those characters.
After that, the success came despite the abysmal writing and the absurd directions in which the characters were pulled, not because of them.
Now I'm going to go off and see if I can come up with a St Pat's Day drabble. Normally I'd be heading out for some green beer and Irish music but I'm still not really up for that, so I'll have to do it myself. I have Kilkenny Ale in the fridge and I'm sure I can dig up a cd or two. Maybe even some vinyl from out of the vaults. Have a happy St Pat's Day!
Reply
what he says so much more ambiguity and complexity.
And as Gale has said, it was frustrating to him that for every
movement Brian made towards maturity, he was dragged back
by some ridiculous plot twist (see the whole syphilis thing --
Brian, the poster boy for condom use, gets a disease that
can't penetrate a condom) that seems invented to bring him
back to square one.
Reply
It could also have been true of Michael. He *should* have been the 'everyman.' Almost everyone has experienced the pain of unrequited love, and many of us with a close friend. We *should* have felt empathy for Mikey. We *should* have gone through that painful journey of letting go with him. We *should* have rejoiced when he finally found real love with Ben.
But, for me at least, none of that happened. And I lay that almost entirely on Hal. He chose to portray Michael as a whiny, immature, petulant brat. It didn't have to be that way.
Reply
And you are totally right about the way Gale plays against the script. The way he delivered the "well, I guess we're all a little scared the first time" line in 101 is a really good example. That could have been said in a totally offhand way - which is what the "scripted" version of Brian would have done, cutting Justin off completely, denying any similarities between them. Instead, it's said with an entrancing touch of empathy and understanding. Not overdone, just THERE.
Reply
when he talks very, very softly. It brings something totally
genuine, unlike the "acting" of Hal or, sometimes, even
Peter.
My acting teacher in college always used to yell, "I can
see/hear you ACTING! Stop it NOW!"
Reply
But yes, Hal is definitely someone that you "see" acting (often very badly).
Reply
Leave a comment