Film: Closer

[CuriousCub]

you're hesistant to ask me something, yet already have out-right prejudged my answer by noting it won't be a proper one? i shouldn't even waste a breathe dignifying your nonsensical approach to whatever you are trying to get at.

this film is not the first for its kind at all. If you can't figure out how an actor's perfornance relates to the quality of the film, then you need more education on film dynamics, perhaps from film school.

 

[cravNbeets]

this film is not the first for its kind at all. If you can't figure out how an actor's perfornance relates to the quality of the film, then you need more education on film dynamics, perhaps from film school.

haha thats not what i asked. i asked why an actor being "type casted" as you so frequently said of law, roberts, and porman had anything to do with their performance in 1 particular film.

 

[fruitfly]

I thought Clive Owen gave the best performance in this film.

 

[CuriousCub]

haha thats not what i asked. i asked why an actor being "type casted" as you so frequently said of law, roberts, and porman had anything to do with their performance in 1 particular film.

dude, the phrasing of your original question was very awkward.

Them being typecasted shows that they are not giving original performances and thus the movie appears unoriginal because the actors carrying it are playing the SAME ROLES they always play in films. Thus the film appears as if it catering towards the actor's limited abilities at expressing range which demeans the quality of the film, because although the story may be good, the people portraying it are not, and thus the story can't be good because it isn't being delivered or expressed properly. In short, you're then not getting the whole story. I think Nichols was actually catering to the actors this time around because portman talked about how nichols was very protective of her nudity scenes. She is playing a fucking whorish stripper for crying out loud, and she's supposed to be deserving of protection for playing a role that is actually based on nudity?! what business does she even have choosing that role if she can't be bothered with fulfilling its requirements? is she gonna try out for a boxing film like Hilary Swank and then demand that she not engage in any boxing scenes because the director should be protective of her body?! Does she still think she is age 12 or something, because she sure the hell acts like it. was nichols playing a babysitter, a therapist, or a director? i can't tell. 8)

It's like having Vin Diesel playing Vin Diesel in a comedy and a drama and then a horror--how can the quality of the film be good when the actor chosen to carry the movie is the same each time? the actor has to carry the film, that is the goal of an actor. Actors like al pacino and jamie fox BECOME the film, and since the films are different every time for the most part, so are they because they are so good at inhibiting other characters that are not like themselves. Fuck, the scenery doesn't carry the film, the extras aren't supposed to either, so it's all about the actors. A good movie can't happen if the actors are all a bunch of lame-o's. That's why people will say "i'll watch anything with Bette Davis or Clarke Gable in it, etc." It's because one good actor can make a shitty storyline very watchable and intriguing....but an intriguing storyline can't make a shitty actor intriguing or watchable.

 

[cravNbeets]

one good actor can make a shitty storyline very watchable and intriguing.

hehe i'd be inclined to agree with you if i hadnt seen a little movie called "secret window" *shudders*

i do retract my original statement however. i many not agree with you but you made an argument that was logical

i really disagree with this:

I think Nichols was actually catering to the actors this time around because portman talked about how nichols was very protective of her nudity scenes. She is playing a fucking whorish stripper for crying out loud, and she's supposed to be deserving of protection for playing a role that is actually based on nudity?!

i don't think actual nudity was central to that scene at all. would her character have seemed any more "whorish" had she been required to go full frontal? i think the point was made. just because she had the clout to not have to go nude didnt change the story for me...

i can see your point tho. if a director is working with actors who have certain range, there are limitations to what they can do with them. however, they were cast in that role for a reason (hopefully not just dollars). question effectively answered

 

[CuriousCub]

^^^her unwillingness to fulfill the role's requirement indeed DID NOT change the story for me either and i don't see how it would for anyone, what it did do was make for a shitty story, and that's the end of the story, because the actor is not portraying the role effectively. What the hell is an actor doing applying for a role that requires X, Y,Z activities, and then demands that the role be tailored to fit her self-image, and what the hell is a director doing choosing that actor that clearly is not fit for the role, if not for publicity for his OWN self-image? he wants to boost his star power by making movies with current popular stars. When i read the interviews and "making of" notes on this movie, it appeared as if it was one big self-congratulatory, self-accomodating prom party; like a movie being made simply because everyone just felt like making a movie. No real talent is necessary, just as long as you're popular you can be part of it.

Nichols has a knack for bringing mega-watt stars together, as he did with real-life husband and wife Burton and Taylor in "Woolf." I truly think he was seeking these stars when preparing this movie because he knows that people will see the movie, REGARDLESS OF HOW SHITTY IS, just to see the fashion-conscious, publicity-engrossed stars, regardless of how shitty they are as actors. Just like how many are gonna see House/Wax just to see paris hilton just because it's "hey look, that's paris hilton!" Of course the reason half of these people are casted is because of dollars, do you think it is soley based on their talent? haha, there are so many talented people who don't get any roles because they don't play the media game. Meryl Streep is unanimously agreed upon as being the most talented and versatile actress in today's hollywood, yet why isn't she getting more roles fed to her on a golden platter? that's because hollywood is catering to the popularity business, and portman and roberts and law are featured so often in mags about makeup and fashion and romances, and streep doesn't dick around with that shit.

 

[Pounding_Grooves]

Curious, we get the message, you dont really like this movie, now get over it,

 

[CuriousCub]

haha...silly you. if you get the message, then why do you keep on reading mine over and over again and posting about it? why don't you yourself get over it and read something else? someone was asking me questions here, obviously they did not get the message....but as for you, you have no business telling me what i should be doing when you ought to be taking you're own damn advice on going elsewhere and stop involving yourself in my business when you clearly don't pertain to it. thank u, drive thru.

 

[Pounding_Grooves]

oh get over yourself ebert

 

[drEaMtiMe*@#]

well i'd been wanting to see this for ages and i finally got to last night.

i liked it. specifically i liked how it's a character driven movie rather than action driven. i liked how it's unconventional to a degree in the way that it shuffles to and fro in time. and also i actually found myself laughing out loud quite a few times at some of the character's comments. i.e. when natalie portman's character alice asks jude law (dan) why he want's to know who she slept with and he replies 'because i'm insane!!!'.

today i found out that the movie was taken from a play too. so there you go, if you didn't know that already. i didn't

 

[onetwothreefour]

^^^ that's a great comment (though i prefer clive owen's 'fuck off and die' :D). yeah, it was a patrick farber play, i think? unless my brain's playing tricks on me again.

 

[drEaMtiMe*@#]

clive owen was gold. he definitely gave the best performance in the film in my opinion.

 

[pfunk]

i thought this movie was very good. some of the dialogue (almost all coming from portman) was stilted, and i think her acting is pretty shoddy, but the rest of the cast was great.

jude law is a good actor but only in supporting roles. i'm not a fan of julia roberts, but i thought her performance was incredible.

someone called that 'cub' dude ebert. that was great. i think that is the biggest slam you could make.

this whole idea of actors being typecast is ridiculous. how do you think movies were cast in the 30s-50s (or today)? do you think when directors were casting montgomery clift or robert mitchum they were picking them up out of nowhere, casting them in wholly unique parts? i don't think so.

 

[CuriousCub]

oh get over yourself ebert

look, it's siskel talking from the great beyond. Sour graped in the grave! hey, the feeling was mutual that it was quite insulting that PEOPLE gave such a small insert for your memorial. Not even a cover!

 

[CuriousCub]

"this whole idea of actors being typecast is ridiculous. how do you think movies were cast in the 30s-50s (or today)? do you think when directors were casting montgomery clift or robert mitchum they were picking them up out of nowhere, casting them in wholly unique parts? i don't think so."

The characters of yesteryear are droves more multi-dimensional than the those of today. When Streep gets casted because she is Streep, it's because she has so many facets to her character that she brings something different to every role she plays, likewise with Bette Davis. These people owned their characters, they become them, they create variety within them. People can expect something different yet something familiar every time they see her. What makes her watchable is, in fact, the uniqueness she brings to every role despite the audience having familarity with her. When people watch the aforementioned typecasted, they are seeing the SAME CHARACTER FACETS being acted out rather than different ones which makes for a very one-dimensional character. Portman has never played any role but the one i already described in her career. Law is not even known for any role than the token "hunk" roles he has played, and those are the main roles he is given, and he actually has played more varied parts.

 

[pfunk]

"he has played more varied parts"- so he actually doesn't always play the "hunk" role. for being such an absolutist you sure insert a lot of caveats. Besides, his role in "closer" was hardly that of a "hunk". his role is more of that of a loser putz. Was that the same role he played in AI? I'm not sure.

Also, your typecast argument constantly shifts between a "these actors aren't as talented as those of yester-year" to "it's the directors' and screenwriters' faults for creating drivel that actors can't do anything with".

I can't figure out exactly what your thesis is. Although I have fairly pinpointed that it is shit.

 

[CuriousCub]

Good fucking grief, he is typecasted IN GENERAL--his PAST, very far back past, he has played varied roles. he is not known for them. thus he gets hunk roles, over and over again, and takes them. THAT MAKES HIM TYPECASTED.
because he was not typecasted for a mere SMIDGEN in his past doesn't mean shit. He clearly is not given roles based on his past roles, nor is accepting any that may be coming his way. So! he has in general, for a couple of years now, been typecasted like hell.

I am not trying to argue with any of you, i am giving statements and supporting them. Stop trying to make this a fucking battle. I have thoughts on the directors as well as the actors, as a movie features the relationship between the two; i am not trying to single out who the ultimate foe is. Have your thoughts, back it up, and move on.

 

[Pounding_Grooves]

like i said miss Curious" 3 responses in 35 mins" Cub take a leaf out of AC Milans book and GET OVER IT 8) if you really want to waste your time go to imdb where people will gladly dissect your arguments about this movie

 

[wizekrak]

I haven't seen this yet but my friends say I am Clive Owen's character.

 

[Infinite Jest]

take a leaf out of AC Milans book and GET OVER IT 8)

Quote of the week. Sadly wasted in here.

As for the film, watched it for 45 minutes before I realised I'd seen the play. Which I seem to remember enjoying a lot more than the film. I did think the technique of only ever having two of them onscreen together was vaguely interesting, but that's about it. As others have suggested, a bit of a lack of chemistry made the love stories somewhat unbelievable. Plus the characters were fucking stupid (think of the ending "we're running away to America together, yay!" "no, you just asked me a question and used the wrong words. Even though I love you, I never want to see you again".....riiiiiiggghhht).