Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2010 - 2:17 PM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

It's mainly sexuality and eroticism. She HAS done lots to advance theatre though, given acting workshops to disadvantaged youths in the UK etc..

I'm not putting her down, it's just that I don't think we can know her at all. She's a professional. Each interview she gives is a performance, there's an Oprah performance, a Parkinson performance, etc. etc..

She seems to play any of 5 cards in interviews:

(a) The brooding and smouldering part-Russian exile (her Dad was Russian).
(b) The ordinary girl from London, dearie,
(c) The down-to-earth, almost American gal next door who's also a bit posh but friendly with it.
(d) The political activist, feminist, serious actress
(e) The sex symbol.

Which you get depends on who's doing the interview, and the perceived audience, and what she wants from you. Publicity agents take note.

One thing's for sure: whatever she thinks you THINK she is, she'll damned well make sure she isn't. Unless she's publicising something. That's just how that game works. We don't know her.

Neo mentioned Vanessa Redgrave. Now SHE has the same persona for all her interviews, a sort of slow-speaking, almost childlike, pondering idealist. That's who she really is. Not everyone can get away with showing who they really are. And some just don't want to.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 10:51 AM   
 By:   neotrinity   (Member)



Mayhap THIS Is More to Your Traditional Liking, BillyBard Department:





Mind you, we rather doubt Ms. Taymor’s overall inclination



is simply to switch Prospero’s gender as it may be to offer a totally new REinterpretation with the feminine aspect
merely a striking starting point. Which, natch, we’ll have more to comment upon once we’ve actually seen the
dadblasted flick.

Curious question, tho: were you as immediately suspicious of such potentially radical revamping when, in 1970,
Peter Brook



totally (irreversibly) upended





Inquirin’ 5,000 year-young immortals wanna know, y’know? smile wink big grin



 
 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2010 - 5:32 AM   
 By:   neotrinity   (Member)





If I Were a Woman wink” Department:

When the BBC broadcast Shakespeare’s full repertory in the late 70s, there were two performances that
totally knocked us out with their conceptual originality, anchored artistry,overall impressiveness of
execution and (purely to us, we hasten to non-humbly add) almost definitive distinction –



and Miss Mirren’s enchanting Rosalind





And – not EVEN considering any and all else she’s done from her dynamic English stage performances in the
70s and 80s plus those assorted films – factoring in the range exhibited simply via her contributions to







we’d haveta grant the royally respected peerage of perspectives PhillyJay & BillyBard embody yet wholly
offer the dissimilarly optimistic appraisal Mme. Mirren’s vastness of expression can’t honestly be shriven
down to a healthy sexuality (as opposed to pruient exhibitionism like most of the nubile nitwits today) she’s
most admiringly never been bashful about embracing. smile smile smile

 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2010 - 5:48 AM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

I'm not saying her contribution as a thespian is down to sexuality, Neo.

I'm saying that accounts for the 'fanboy bikini' shot stuff, and her appeal in certain circles. She is very savvy about her marketing. My comments are re her offstage persona.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2010 - 5:50 AM   
 By:   neotrinity   (Member)



Oh, and Just One More Thing About That Off-Stage Personal, BillyBard Department:

Vis-à-vis your somewhat stringent explanation for Ms. Mirren’s apparently chameleon-ite changes
of personality whilst being interviewed,



once charmingly (tho no less forcefully) counseled us that, whether one-on-one via journalists or
reporters without a shred of actual interest in connecting with actors as human beings or dealing with
directors equally without a clue how to communicate or guide them, it becomes mostly a measure of
self-defense in learning how to protect yourself in situations (1) you don’t control or (2) aren’t inherently
safe sanctuaries for revealing yourself.

This you, more than most, are surely well aware of.

Snake versus the Mongoose Department:

And anyone NOT savvy about themselves in the pirahna-infested media whirlpool is simply asking for it.

So we’d suggest possibly the ‘blame’ – if such there actually is – mirrors its combatively conflictive matter
both ways, no?

 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2010 - 6:10 AM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

I'm not attacking Helen, nor her talent, Neo.

Between the lines, I'm aiming elsewhere. Your main adulation is based on her skill and track-record. She'd like that.

For an example of how she can handle 'bad' interviews, here's a Parkinson interview from the 1970s, where he fell flat on his face. He was usually a decent enough interviewer, but this one hit the wrong note:





She was a pal of Parky's and he interviewed her afterwards again.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2010 - 6:33 AM   
 By:   neotrinity   (Member)

We get where you're aiming, pard - and, oui, the above interview was noteworthy for its initial wrong notes -
but we're wondrin' if your target substantiates, cancels out or negates Glenda's self-preservatory advice.

Are there exceptions to the rule or doth this Rule hath no exceptions?

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2010 - 7:29 AM   
 By:   Richard-W   (Member)

Helen Mirren has always impressed me with her talent and courage. Since her appearance in the pornographic CALIGULA, it has been interesting to watch the ascent of her career from just another working actress to an icon of the theater, television, and movies and a role model for younger women. At the center of all those performances is an extremely intelligent woman who is adept at manipulation of co-workers and audiences alike. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I've seen her provoke the reaction she wants to provoke and then snap at the man for reacting that way, as she knew he would.

WILLIAMDMCCRUM:
Can you have a female Prospero? I haven't decided.

Of course it's an inevitable thing to do nowadays, someone would have attempted it, and a CGI film will make it come alive.

Some years ago they tried a ludicrous 'Queen Lear' which was a gimmick of course. Lear's is a male psyche, which is not the same as an aged lady's. This is not political-correctness territory, but psychology, and women are not men.

The key to the 'Tempest' is the 'Hanged Man' or the 'hermit' as Tarot people would put it, the one who, isolated and constrained on his island, draws to himself outwardly what he wills in his own microcosm. Shakespeare's lot tried to ride the occult whilst holding onto Christianity, which is a very tough ride. The building of the inner microcosm is the alchemist's toolkit. I suppose that is the same for women as for men .... maybe. Except that an alchemist woman in that era would have had the extra problem of being interpreted as a witch. I suppose you could get some feminist mileage out of that. But it's not even an atom of the full deal.


I've had some experience with THE TEMPEST. Much of the play I can recite by heart. Prospero is a man. Psychologically men are not women, and women are not men. This is true of literary characters as well as of people who write them. You can't have a female Prospero unless you rewrite and redefine the character so that it is no longer the Prospero Shakespeare wrote. You have to change the character and the story into something else. Gender deconstruction and the value judgment against the male that it implies has become accepted and habitual among studio execs. And audiences, I'm sorry to say, are fine with it so long as they are entertained. This is unfortunate because the Prospero that Shakespeare wrote, in the play that he wrote, is the stuff of great cinema, and nobody's ever tried to film THE TEMPEST that Shakespeare wrote.

WILLIAMDMCCRUM:
Mirren is a total professional. That doesn't make her a safe commodity. She plays her sexuality, and always has, whilst proclaiming a certain feminism. You flatter her at your peril, because unless there's a professional advantage, she'd snap back very quickly I think. The pin-up collectors here she'd certainly eat for breakfast, gentlemen. If one were trapped in an elevator with said Dame, one would need to keep a stiletto handy.


WILLIAMDMCCRUM:
It's mainly sexuality and eroticism. She HAS done lots to advance theatre though, given acting workshops to disadvantaged youths in the UK etc..

I'm not putting her down, it's just that I don't think we can know her at all. She's a professional. Each interview she gives is a performance, there's an Oprah performance, a Parkinson performance, etc. etc..

She seems to play any of 5 cards in interviews:

(a) The brooding and smouldering part-Russian exile (her Dad was Russian).
(b) The ordinary girl from London, dearie,
(c) The down-to-earth, almost American gal next door who's also a bit posh but friendly with it.
(d) The political activist, feminist, serious actress
(e) The sex symbol.

Which you get depends on who's doing the interview, and the perceived audience, and what she wants from you. Publicity agents take note.

One thing's for sure: whatever she thinks you THINK she is, she'll damned well make sure she isn't. Unless she's publicising something. That's just how that game works. We don't know her.

Neo mentioned Vanessa Redgrave. Now SHE has the same persona for all her interviews, a sort of slow-speaking, almost childlike, pondering idealist. That's who she really is. Not everyone can get away with showing who they really are. And some just don't want to.


How absolutely real and astute of you, WilliamDMcCrum. I can see you've been around the block a few times. What you've observed in interviews starts behind the desk at the meetings with the director in the Agent's office, and at the auditions. Posts like the above I find refreshing.

Richard

 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2010 - 7:35 AM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

but we're wondrin' if your target substantiates, cancels out or negates Glenda's self-preservatory advice.

Are there exceptions to the rule or doth this Rule hath no exceptions?


Well Neo .... the 'target' .... (?) .... maybe the target can speak for himself ...


Glenda is making good sense. But she was surely not the sort of person who modified herself or opinions. When she was acting, she was acting, when not, not. So in her interviews she never gave a 'performance' and as a result came across as totally honest. That got her elected as an MP later. But it meant she didn't hide the misgivings. You know better than I: you met her and interviewed her, yes?

I reckon it all depends on how much you give away of yourself. Some folk have strong, independent, original personalities that can't hide. Enough of H. Mirren shines though even when she bluffs it. The thing to remember though is that, surely even if the interviewer is a cretin, and some are, there's the responsibility to the audience at the other end too. They're the REAL people being communicated with.

Neo, is there some format where all you interviews could legit be put up on the net? There's a wealth of stuff you must have accumulated. You seem to get the best out of these interviewees, and that suggests they know you're genuine.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2010 - 7:51 AM   
 By:   neotrinity   (Member)

How absolutely real and astute of you, WilliamDMcCrum. I can see you've been around the block a few times. What you've observed in interviews starts behind the desk at the meetings with the director in the Agent's office, and at the auditions. Posts like the above I find refreshing.

Which just about sums up BillyBard in many ways, Rich (just don't sit him and Jeh near knives and forks at the same swingin' soiree big grin).

And he HAS been around the show-biz block (still is, actually) in a manner it's for him to professionally reveal but, like yourself, his insider knowledge and evidence of experience lends a certain undeniable A.A. (Authenticity of Awareness). cool

 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2010 - 7:58 AM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

Helen Mirren has always impressed me with her talent and courage. Since her appearance in the pornographic CALIGULA, it has been interesting to watch the ascent of her career from just another working actress to an icon of the theater, television, and movies and a role model for younger women. At the center of all those performances is an extremely intelligent woman who is adept at manipulation of co-workers and audiences alike. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I've seen her provoke the reaction she wants to provoke and then snap at the man for reacting that way, as she knew he would.



How absolutely real and astute of you, WilliamDMcCrum.

Richard


You're very kind, Richard.

It's interesting that you quote that trait in her, of refusing to fit any expectation, which was always my gut feeling about her. It may go with the territory of a certain type of 'political' performer of the 1970s in the UK. Her skill in intuitive performances relies exactly on that ability to be hyper-sensitive to the atmosphere she's in, but she is, as you say, also strong enough to harness that. Her beauty would give her the confidence perhaps.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2010 - 8:10 AM   
 By:   Richard-W   (Member)

Beauty is confidence, without a doubt.

Helen Mirren's range and intellect leaves most actresses in the dust, especially American actresses. I was saying that Helen Mirren creates the expectation that she later trounces on. Perhaps she thinks it's the character she plays that creates the expectation, but Mirren will express her sexuality out-of-character as Helen in interviews while denying that she is doing so when it serves her purpose. She is aware of the reactions, but she does not like having it referred to.

Changing Prospero's gender requires changing the subtext. Probably the outward plotting will be the same, but look for a revision of the underlying meaning. It will be Shakespeare's THE TEMPEST only on the surface. Everything underneath will be extremist feminism. It will be Julie Taymor's THE TEMPEST, not Shakespeares'.

That's a bad thing.


Richard

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2010 - 10:01 AM   
 By:   neotrinity   (Member)





Let Us Say This About THAT Request, B.B. Department:

Act I and II of what we bemusingly call our non-brilliant ‘career’ is over; Act III’s finale
is about to take off and, buh-lieve us, bub, hopefully you ain’t seen (read or heard)
nuthin’ yet.

All assuming, a'course, we don’t book passage in a one-way barrel over Niagara. wink



JOKE. smile smile smile

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 20, 2013 - 4:11 PM   
 By:   neotrinity   (Member)



One of THE



Most Sumptious



Performances of An



Already



Superlative



Career Department:

wink

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 21, 2013 - 5:00 PM   
 By:   Preston Neal Jones   (Member)

Dear Neo --

Thank you for bumping this thread back on to the Board. I had completely missed its original appearance, involved as I was at that time in my ongoing recuperation.

On my Mac screen, I'm seeing lots of little question-marks and X's -- do they represent pictures that I'm not seeing?

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 22, 2013 - 8:55 AM   
 By:   neotrinity   (Member)

The transcendent thanx are all on our matrix'd syde, Pres.

As to your quality query, after awhile some of these visual links either expire or disappear into that never-ending cyber black hole of non-extinction, necessarily, but soitenly non-appearance.

Occasionally - if'n we have the tyme, let alone energy not to mention actualized interest - we'll replace and update various Threads (who COINED that originating concept, anyhow??!!).

As our life (personally-professionally and professionally-personally) is more oriented towards other residually rewarding (not limited to but finally not excluding material and financial) aspects, inevitably the trade-off is gonna be felt somewhere.

We daren't overly assume our increasingly diminishing presence will mean a tinker's dam one way or the other - generally speaking - round here but, hay, as Angelo (our favorite Italian philosopher from the Old Country on the Canadian Syde of the Falls) always shrugs his 70-plus young shoulders and says:

"Whaddaya gonna do?" wink

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.