Hi Sami,
I did spend some time on the forum but there were a lot of messages and I was trying to include everyone and not miss anything out. The board was quite slow too.
I think what Sami is saying is that it would be helpful to know which part of the conversation or which post is being responded to: not that you can't join in on anything being discussed unless it's addressed to you. If that makes sense? Justme, I know that you're new to forums and still finding your feet, so please don't be put off. I'm not sure if you or Kitten know how all the function buttons, like quoting specific text or posting images work...do you need a quick tutorial? It's really easy once you know what to do.
sami wrote:I love the info about the Tribeca festival. I had no idea De Niro is behind it . I watched an interview on Letterman, I didn't know he was so funny:
Haha! Letterman asking De Niro that really long question and getting the reply “yes”. He’s so cool. Hoffman was quite fidgety but De Niro was zen in that chair.
I don’t know if De Niro did the ‘bad’ films for the money to finance the setting up of the Tribeca festival, but imagine if he did….’Hollywood’ would be paying an A-list actor who would then use that money to finance something to promote the kind of films that ‘Hollywood’ doesn’t generally support.
sami wrote:I also would like to say that diversity of opinions is something I cherish. I love to argue with people and to challenge one another. If we all agree all the time it's boring, don't you think?
Sure Sami. It’s good to discuss things and look at them from different angles and perspectives. I think lively debate where people can express their points of view or opinions without it degenerating into a brawl or slanging match is healthy. I also think it’s nice when people have common ground and are in agreement about things too. It’s about striking a happy medium, I guess.
sami wrote:Regarding our theories about Joaquin's motives.. Well, I see what Justme and you are saying. If this is the case, that he doesn't like watching himself on screen, it means that he probably sees himself in a very critical way and if that's the case he will need to learn that he is wrong. He's not as bad as he thinks, obviously
Joaquin has spoken a lot recently about how critical he is of his acting and how he needs a lot of direction. I’m wondering… is it a defence mechanism he uses so all the praise doesn’t go to his head or…. that he actually needs the praise but he thinks the only way he can generate it is if he’s negative about himself first. Is it all just an ego trip? Take ISH…brilliant as it is, it was all done for his own gratification. All the brouhaha it created…he got a kick out of all that attention. Do you know what I mean?
I actually do agree with Joaquin in some respects about his acting….
I don't know exactly what I'm after—it's just a feeling that I'm chasing and I don't know what it is. But I think the only way I really get it is by feeling that there's no real control and that there's a certain amount of danger. Otherwise, when I go through a scene over and over, I start going through dialogue, and then I start putting inflections on things and going, like, "Oh, what if I did this?" And it becomes fucking smarty pants thinking he's being clever by doing some shit. But I don't like that actor; I don't like that in myself. I can see that from years ago, like, "You're just making a face and trying to say that you're angry right now and you're shoving that across the fucking screen." It's embarrassing. http://www.interviewmaga...m/joaquin-phoenix#/page2There have been times when I’ve watched him acting and I’ve seen that. I’ll cite Ladder 49 as an example, but there are moments in other films too. Not that I’ve seen this all the time in his earlier films - just sometimes. There you go Joaquin. I agree with you. Happy now?
On the other hand, I don’t agree with him about other aspects of his acting talent. Like I've said before: accept, own, give thanks.
Edited by user Thursday, March 7, 2013 9:25:46 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
