muppet hi fi wrote:Wolt - i don't know how to put this without you getting pissed off at me - but i worked as a union IATSE stagehand (Local 13) for many years - theater, music, film, industrials, special events, etc. - and physical appearance is a big factor in the portrayal of a character, in stage productions as well as films and industrials. Two of my 7 siblings were trained actors who worked in nationally known productions by the Guthrie, Penumbra, Mixed Blood, Mpls. Children's Theater, etc., as well as (in my bro Sean's case) TV commercials in NYC.
All things are considered when casting - from physical appearance to speaking/singing/elocution and any other pertinent abilities. the dude/dudette from the local community theater might be more qualified than Robert DeNiro or Helen Miran for any given role. i think you know this.
and btw - most female actors much prefer to be referred to these days as 'actors', not 'actresses'.
Seems common sense to me that physical appearance would be very important, if not critical. Woody Allen, I believe, plays a mean sax, as well as clarinet, but I still wouldn't want to see him in a Charlie Parker biopic.
I would that could be the funniest thing ever.
Yes you're dead right. It does sound a little bit like a film Woody might once have made, back when he was, you know, actually funny and wasn't so distracted with totally innocent external stuff like seducing his adopted daughter and what not
A pervert playing a junkie. Maybe not the best idea then.
Well it seemed to work alright the other way round, Dennis Quaid/JLL, Downey Junior/Chaplin, so wouldn't dismiss it right out of hand
Low Down Low wrote:
Seems common sense to me that physical appearance would be very important, if not critical. Woody Allen, I believe, plays a mean sax, as well as clarinet, but I still wouldn't want to see him in a Charlie Parker biopic.
I would that could be the funniest thing ever.
Yes you're dead right. It does sound a little bit like a film Woody might once have made, back when he was, you know, actually funny and wasn't so distracted with totally innocent external stuff like seducing his adopted daughter and what not
A pervert playing a junkie. Maybe not the best idea then.
Well it seemed to work alright the other way round, Dennis Quaid/JLL, Downey Junior/Chaplin, so wouldn't dismiss it right out of hand
I bow down to your superior knowledge of such things.
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
It all looks wrong and contrived, but maybe that will only matter to hardcore fans. I think what annoys me most for some reason is the Union Jack. I'm open to correction but I've never seen a video or photograph showing The Clash playing to a Union Jack background.
Low Down Low wrote:It all looks wrong and contrived, but maybe that will only matter to hardcore fans. I think what annoys me most for some reason is the Union Jack. I'm open to correction but I've never seen a video or photograph showing The Clash playing to a Union Jack background.
Right, how bloody hard would it have been to recreate the riot backdrops. Paul had a union jack patch on his shirt in the early days but unless The Clash were supporting The Jam then erm no!
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
Low Down Low wrote:It all looks wrong and contrived, but maybe that will only matter to hardcore fans. I think what annoys me most for some reason is the Union Jack. I'm open to correction but I've never seen a video or photograph showing The Clash playing to a Union Jack background.
Right, how bloody hard would it have been to recreate the riot backdrops. Paul had a union jack patch on his shirt in the early days but unless The Clash were supporting The Jam then erm no!
Not bloody hard at all is the answer, but I'm guessing they just thought the union jack made for a starker backdrop, style over historical accuracy - artistic licence and all that. Hardly augurs well if this is the snippet they have chosen to release to presumably wow us all. I can only imagine what other (tory) crimes they have committed!
It's about as good/bad as expected. I don't think it's particularly awful. Bio-pics tend to be bad, especially to hardcore fans, so I'm not disappointed.
Look, you have to establish context for these things. And I maintain that unless you appreciate the Fall of Constantinople, the Great Fire of London, and Mickey Mantle's fatalist alcoholism, live Freddy makes no sense. If you want to half-ass it, fine, go call Simon Schama to do the appendix.
matedog wrote:It's about as good/bad as expected. I don't think it's particularly awful. Bio-pics tend to be bad, especially to hardcore fans, so I'm not disappointed.
It's been my understanding that it's not a biopic. Joe Strummer is only part of the story.
Look, you have to establish context for these things. And I maintain that unless you appreciate the Fall of Constantinople, the Great Fire of London, and Mickey Mantle's fatalist alcoholism, live Freddy makes no sense. If you want to half-ass it, fine, go call Simon Schama to do the appendix.
