All is Lost: A Review

When I first saw the trailer for "All is Lost", the 'lost-at-sea' film directed by J.C. Chandor and starring Robert Redford, I was not the least bit interested in seeing it. The trailer made me think the film was one of those hollywood movies that tries to play itself off as being an 'independent' or 'artistic' film, but is really just another hollywood shlock fest without the least bit of subtly or artistry. Upon seeing the film, I now realize how fantasticality wrong I was in my pre-judgement.

"All is Lost" is a really remarkable film. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It stars Robert Redford, and only Robert Redford. He is by himself the entire film, and he barely says a word. Redford is one of the great under appreciated actors of his time, and here he gives what may be the greatest performance of his career.

The film is an existential meditation on aging, death, love, fear, God, nature, capitalism, humanity, Hollywood and Robert Redford's own life and career. It is beautifully photographed and Redford's performance is masterful.

To be clear, this is not a film for everyone. It isn't a typical hollywood film. My best friend, the inimitable Chaz J. Chazzington, absolutely hated the film, saying it lacked emotion. I had the opposite reaction. To me it is the film that "Gravity" should have been. It is Robert Redford facing the vast darkness of the abyss, by himself, which is how we all must face our own annihilation. Cold, scared and alone.  Redford's complex stoicism may not be enough emotion for everyone, but keep in mind, it's not the emotions shown in a film that count, it's the emotions a film conjures in the viewer that really matter. And "All is Lost" brought up deep emotions within me, such as fear of my own impending death, of my own annihilation, of my own regrets in life, of all the joys and sorrows I have experienced in this life, and how I will miss it when it ends no matter what comes after it. 

In short, "All is Lost" makes us look at all the uncomfortable things we would prefer to ignore. Life, death and the inevitability of our destruction at the hands of the infinite abyss that we prefer to ignore rather than acknowledge, and that bears down upon us every moment of every day. The abyss is the relentless Shark calmly hunting us in his frigid sea, it is the Wolf coolly trotting after us in his forest, waiting for us to tire, it is the Tiger silently stalking us through his jungle, waiting for the precise moment to pounce. These are the feelings that we as humans try to not think about or feel. We do everything we can to avoid contemplating our own inevitable demise. "All is Lost" skillfully nudges us to think about the unthinkable and the uncomfortable. I found it to be a fantastic film and well worth your time.

JFK and the Big Lie

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For it if prosper, none dare call it treason."

- Sir John Harrington

I had the great misfortune to watch a segment of the Chris Matthews Show "Hardball" on MSNBC today. I usually never watch cable or network news but I made an exception this week out of my curiosity for how the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination would be covered. During his show today, Chris Matthews did a brief segment on the assassination with former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, author of the book "Reclaiming History" which sets out to debunk any and all conspiracy theories in the assassination of JFK. The segment was a wonderful piece of masturbatorial propaganda. Matthews and Bugliosi both thought it absurd and ludicrous for anyone to believe that a conspiracy had or could have taken place. So, they spent the entire ten minute or so segment tearing down straw men and acting flabbergasted at how anyone could ever believe such conspiratorial madness.

I don't know why I was the least bit surprised, Chris Matthews may be the most empty-headed, vacant and vapid person on television. On his best day he is an intellectual midget, on his worst he is a blathering, emotive, syphilitic baboon. Just to show you I'm not biased against Matthews because of his political view point, which I am sympathetic to on some occasions, let me share with you another commentator on television who may be even more disgustingly insipid and intellectually inept as Matthews, and that's the blow hard over on Fox, Bill O'Reilly. Years ago while O'Reilly was hosting the show "Inside Edition" he was outspoken in his demand that the JFK investigation be re-opened because he felt there were many unanswered questions. Fast forward to today and O'Reilly has put all doubt aside as he's become firmly entrenched in the establishment, as he became the co-author of the creatively titled book "Killing Kennedy". Both men are wonderful examples of what is wrong with not only the media in this country, but the country itself. They are frauds and phonies, poseurs and pussies. I would wager they don't have a single testicle between the two of them. They are establishmentarians, and they worship power like whores worship money, or pigs worship shit. That both profess to be 'men of the people' is a bad joke, since they are mouth pieces for the elite, nothing more than tools of propaganda for the powerful.

To be fair to Matthews and O'Reilly, they are not alone. All week long all of the major networks and cable channels have been doing stores on the JFK assassination. I include in this list, the History Channel, PBS and all the myriad of other cable channels. Without exception, there are no channels covering or exploring the idea of a conspiracy. Not one. There are documentaries on Oswald and how he acted alone, documentaries on JFK's final 24 hours before he was killed by a lone gunmen, documentaries on JFK's lost home movies of his life before he was killed by a lone gunmen and of course the "Definitive Guide to the JFK Assassination" which features Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi, two staunch anti-conspiracy authors, and  much, much more. 

The media drumbeat for a lone gunmen is overwhelming, not a single contrarian voice is to be heard. Every show or segment on the assassination is a replica of the Matthews and Bugliosi charade, where everyone agrees that conspiracies are a joke and that Oswald acted alone of course.  What is so strange about this set-up is that these shows are allegedly predicated on there being contrasting views. You get one guy on the left, one guy on the right and you have them spout talking points for five minutes and the segment ends. Not with the JFK assassination, with this topic you get one or more people to come on and confirm the official story and say how ridiculous conspiracy theories are, the host agrees and everyone goes home happy in their superiority. I find this despicable and not the least bit surprising. The media always accepts the official story and puts all it's focus and energy on belittling alternative theories. The media's job has become to protect the establishment at all costs. The media has zero interest in the Truth, their only interest is in Power. Anything that challenges the establishment or it's power and superiority is eliminated.

One of the straw men that Matthews and Bugliosi dragged out was the idea that people believe in conspiracies because they cannot believe that a great man like Kennedy could be killed by a 'loser' like Oswald. This is the sort of speculative and emotive garbage that passes for thought in the media today. Couldn't the argument be made that people like Matthews and Bugliosi cling to the idea of a lone gunmen because they cannot comprehend the thought that the establishment would conspire to murder their chief executive? If that was the case both Matthews and Bugliosi would be unintentionally complicit in Kennedy's killing because they have worked to uphold the power of the establishment that killed him.  So, maybe we should put to bed the moronic idea that people can't comprehend that the great Kennedy could be killed by the nobody Oswald. Think of it this way, do we struggle to believe that a loser like Mark David Chapman killed the great man John Lennon? Do we conjure up imaginary conspiracies to prove that Chapman didn't shoot Lennon? No. So, let's stop with the pop psychological analysis of people who see the facts of the case and believe that a conspiracy took place.

The other strange thing that the media talking empty-heads do is never discuss the actual facts of the case. They accuse conspiracy theorists of doing nothing but speculating but then they themselves go ahead and do nothing but speculate. A great example of this is the book "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner. He complains throughout the book of conspiracy theorists speculating about events, and then he spends the rest of the book speculating as to what happened and what Oswald was up to, except he speculates that Oswald acted alone as opposed to in a conspiracy. Bugliosi and Matthews avoided any sort of discussion on facts today as have all the channels all week. Not a single person has appeared on television to talk about the facts of the assassination, except to say that conspiracy theorists avoid discussing the facts of the case.

Matthews also said one of the dumbest and most historically illiterate things I've ever heard today during his segment. He was foaming at the mouth recounting how when he asked Oliver Stone how the parade route in Dallas could have been moved to allow it to pass by the School Book Depository in order to allow Oswald to be present for the assassination, he said Stone told him that maybe LBJ had gotten the route changed. This made Matthews lose his mind, he said it was 'inconceivable' to think Johnson was involved in the assassination. The mind boggles at this sort of ineptitude. LBJ became president when JFK died. A brief glance at history will tell you that leaders often get killed (throughout history it is more often than not that they get killed), and the person who usually kills them is the one who assumes power after them. Matthews may not like this fact, but it is certainly a fact. Does that mean that LBJ had JFK killed? Not necessarily, but it does mean that it isn't 'incomprehensible' that he might want JFK eliminated. Also, he was a powerful Texas politician with great reach and sway in his home state and had a bitter feud with not just JFK but his brother the Attorney General Bobby Kennedy. You could say you think it's 'unlikely', sure, but "incomprehensible"? I think not.

That is the thing that bothers me the most. The historical illiteracy. If you study history you will learn that of all the theories of history, The Great Man Theory, Marxian Theory etc., conspiracy theory isn't only a valid theory of history, it is the ONLY theory of history. It takes a willful ignorance or a staggering idiocy to see it any other way. That doesn't mean that there is a grand conspiracy connecting all of history, it does mean that in every single historical era, conspiracies have ruled the day. The establishment media would have you believe that only our era is devoid of conspiracies. We are somehow immune to conspiracies at the highest levels of power. That is so absurd as to be comical. Does that mean that all conspiracy theories are created equal? And all are true? No, of course not, not even close. What it does mean is that a study of history teaches us that it isn't the conspiracy theory we should be most wary of, it is the "official story" that deserves our greatest skepticism. If you believe the "official" story given by the government (any government), you are officially an idiot.

One last dead horse that every single establishmentarian, "official story" believer keeps beating is the idea that "three people can keep a secret but only if two of them are dead". Bugliosi said that exact thing today. This statement again displays a robust historical ignorance. Conspiracies only come to light after the powers that executed them have been eradicated. So if the JFK assassination were a coup d'etat, the power elites wouldn't exactly want it to come to light any time soon. They prefer to convolute the story and label any sort of conspiracy theories as unhinged thinking. Why do you think they haven't released all of the files regarding the case? If there is nothing there, why not release the files? The answer is pretty obvious, they have something to hide. Also this belief that conspiracies are impossible because no one could keep quiet for long is a statement that can never be proven, for with every conspiracy that comes to light, that would prove that every other conspiracy theory must be false, you see the tortured, circular logic in that? Conspiracies usually, but not always, come to light after the conspirators and their ilk have been toppled…see Sir John Harrington's quote above in bold face. (One caveat to this is that when people do come forward they are ridiculed, diminished or die. For example, did you know that someone in the CIA has come forward and admitted to being a part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy? Well, that someone is named below.)

In conclusion, do yourself a favor and never ever watch network or cable news. It is a cesspool filled with jackasses and idiots. It is a propaganda tool meant to lull you to sleep and convince you to not ask questions or search for answers on your own. The thing that the establishment media want to do at all times is to promote stories that are a tragedy and convolute stories that would outrage the populace against the establishment. The reason is simple, it is easy to manage a tragedy, it is difficult to contain an outrage.

Okay, now that I got that off my chest, let us take a quick look at some things you may or may not know about the Kennedy assassination.

DID YOU KNOW?

1. That the United States government officially believes that a conspiracy took place in the killing of JFK?

In the late 1970's the Church Committee, a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church to investigate intelligence activity, found that a conspiracy to kill JFK was most likely. The committee forwarded their findings to the Justice Department and asked them to investigate the case. The Justice Department has declined to do so. Question, why do pundits and commentators in the establishment only believe the Warren Report and not the Church Committee?

2. E. Howard Hunt admitted on tape on his death bed to being involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK.

E. Howard Hunt, of Watergate fame, was a CIA operative who many speculated was one of the 'hobos' photographed being detained by police in the train yard behind Dealey place the moments after the assassination. Hunt's CIA career is a pretty fascinating and/or frightening one depending on your point of view. His work involved but wasn't limited to the Bay of Pigs, Watergate and the Nixon administration. He confessed to his son St. John Hunt on tape. E. Howard Hunt claims that the following, among many, were involved in the conspiracy.

LBJ:  Gave the order to kill Kennedy and used his position of power to cover it up.

Cord Meyer:  CIA agent and husband of Mary Meyer, a mistress of JFK.

William Harvey: CIA agent connected to mafia kingpins Santos Trafficante and Sam Giancana.

Frank Sturgis: CIA agent, Bay of Pigs veteran and future Watergate conspirator.

Lucien Sarti: Corsican assassin and alleged 'Grassy Knoll' shooter.

A topic for another day is E. Howard Hunt's connection to George H. W. Bush, and Bush's whereabouts on Nov. 22, 1963 and his connections to the CIA well before he become head of the agency. 

3.  According to Roger Stone, a political operative in the Nixon, Bush I and Bush II political campaigns, there is strong fingerprint evidence and eyewitness testimony that LBJ hit man Malcolm "Mac" Wallace was in the sixth floor of the depository when the shooting took place.

In Stone's book "The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ", he ties LBJ to a series of politically motivated murders in Texas, all done by farmer Marine sniper and LBJ comrade Malcolm "Mac" Wallace. According to Stone, partial prints found in the sixth floor of the school book depository can be matched to Wallace. Stone also claims that eyewitness testimony places Wallace in the shooters nest prior to the shooting.

Here are two pictures of LBJ, the first is him taking the oath of office in Air Force One en route to Washington after the assassination. Kennedy's body is in the back of the plane. The second picture shows Congressman Albert Thomas (D) from Houston in the background giving LBJ 'The Wink'. Pretty chilling.

4. The fascinating life and public death of Lee Harvey Oswald.

There is documented proof that Lee Harvey Oswald was an FBI informant, even though the FBI denied this fact for years and destroyed evidence that proved it. Oswald met with FBI agents on multiple occasions prior to the assassination, but the agents burned their notes for all of those meetings. Odd.

Oswald also spoke Russian. He spoke it well enough for his future wife Marina to think he was a native Russian when she met him at a dance in Russia after Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union. Odd for a man with a ninth grade education and poor grades to master a foreign language he wasn't familiar with while growing up.

Oswald also had classified clearance into intel when he was in the Marines prior to his defection. He renounced his U.S. citizenship and turned over his passport when he defected to the Soviet Union.

When he returned to the U.S. he was given money to travel by the state department and given his passport back and allowed to bring his new Russian wife with him. His defection was seemingly forgotten and dismissed.

Oswald's tax returns are still classified and have not been released to the public fifty years after his death. A reasonable explanation for this would be that he was an active CIA operative who was on the CIA payroll, a fact which would be easy to discover if his tax returns were released.

Oswald had no gun powder residue on his hands or cheeks after the shooting of JFK. Proving he hadn't fired a rifle that day. His fingerprints were also not found on the murder weapon after the shooting. A single palm print was found on the rifle days after the shooting and after Oswald's own death by an FBI analyst. The print is somewhat suspicious since the FBI were with Oswald's body in the funeral home where it was being prepared for burial, and no witnesses were present for this time period with the body.

In the final analysis, whatever you believe to be the truth, do your own research, do your own reading, come to your own conclusions. You may be surprised by what you find and how your pre-existing beliefs are challenged.

12 Years a Slave: A Review

"12 Years a Slave" is the story of Solomon Northrup, a free black man, who was kidnapped in Washington D.C. and sold into slavery in the deep south. It stars Chiwetel Ejiofor, with supporting performances by Michael Fassbender, Paul Giammatti, Paul Dano, Sarah Paulson, Benedict Cumberbatch and Brad Pitt.  It is directed by Steve McQueen.

I thought the film was a work of subtle brilliance. The topic of slavery is one that is ripe for simplicity, sentimentality and overt moralization. This film avoids these pitfalls due to the mastery of the director Steve McQueen. McQueen shows the desolation, degradation and dehumanization of slavery not only upon those enslaved, but upon those who do the enslaving and also those who simply live in a world where slavery exists. The immorality of slavery has a corrosive and unhinging effect on everyone who lives with it, under it or near it. The dehumanization inherit in slavery is literally maddening for anyone coming into contact with it for any period of time. The mind and soul, whether of an individual or of a nation, cannot exist in balance while the cancer of slavery rages on anywhere within it's midst.

This theme of desolation, degradation and dehumanization is one which McQueen has touched upon in his other films as well. In "Hunger", the story of IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands and his imprisonment and torture at the hands of the British, he shows the brutalizer as well as the brutalized pay a high moral price for the evil and sadism of torture. Again, McQueen doesn't judge his characters, or project any of his judgements upon them or us. He shows that the evil men are capable of doing far outweighs their ability to live with the evil that they do. We see the corrosive effects of torture upon those who do the torturing, something that would have been interesting to see in a film like "Zero Dark Thirty", but I guess that is asking a lot from a film that is nothing but propaganda.

In "Shame", McQueens second film, he tells the story of  a sex addict living in New York City. Again, he shows the effects of imprisonment upon the human spirit and soul. In this film the lead, very well played by Michael Fassbender, degrades himself further and further in order to satiate his addiction. He is entirely captive to his sexual impulses. He is both captive and captor and it drives him to the brink of annihilation. As the film ends, McQueen leaves us to wonder whether Fassbender's character will choose another path, the question is never overtly answered, but you can't help but feel he cannot survive life in a modern day Babylon with demons such as his. You leave the film asking not only will Fassbender's character survive in this culture of instant gratification, but will I?

Which brings us back to "12 years a Slave". In the film McQueen shows the moral degradation brought about by the dehumanization of slavery. Slave owners can start out good, kind hearted people, but they must rationally, morally and ethically contort themselves so much in order to make sense of their world so as to lose the ability to maintain any sort of mental or spiritual balance. The enslaved are obviously also victims of this moral degradation. They simply do whatever they must in order to survive. They not only have their freedom taken from them, but their dignity, humanity and sanity. That is the most striking thing about this film, it expertly shows the insanity of slavery. I don't mean that as a metaphor, but literally how slavery has a maddening effect on anyone who comes into contact with it and they lose their moral balance and their minds. Slavery is a madhouse. Up becomes down, left becomes right. Good becomes evil, evil becomes good. In fact, the films that come to mind in comparison to "12 years a Slave" are not slavery films at all, but films like "Apocalypse Now", where a man descends into the chaos of the Vietnam war in order to find a Colonel driven mad  by the hypocrisy and insanity of war, or the original "Planet of the Apes" where astronaut Charlton Heston lands on an bizarre planet where apes run the world and humans are mere animals, Heston finally screams "It's a madhouse, a madhouse!!"

In terms of acting, the work of Chiwetel Ejiofor is stellar as a family man snatched from his civilized world of manners and etiquette and thrown into the chaos of human bondage. Like McQueen, Ejiofor never falls in into the trap of being the noble, unbreakable spirit, as can be so common in films about slavery. What makes his performance, and the film,  so moving is that he does break. He is destroyed as a human being on every level. He suffers moral degradation from his dehumanization as much as anyone in the film, and it is most striking because we see that he started out a rational, thoughtful, decent man. He ends up being made just as mad as the rest of the people under the spell of slavery. In the end we see what Ejiofor craves is not freedom, or love, or family, but rather civilization, as shown by his desperately grasping at the formality with which the film opens. It is a fantastic performance because it could have easily fallen prey to sentimentality which is the nemesis of great art. That is also McQueens great strength as a director, he never ever let's sentimentality seep into his films. 

McQueen's other great strength is that he is a visual storyteller. He lets images tell his story as opposed to dialogue. The images are what gets seared into your memory and tell you the story on a much deeper level than conversation ever could.  Even when a scene is nothing but two characters talking, it is how McQueen frames the shot that overrides any words that may be spoken. A perfect example of this is a scene from "Hunger" where Bobby Sands has an extended conversation with a Catholic priest in a visiting room at the HMP Maze prison in which Sands is being held. The scene goes on for almost ten minutes, but McQueen never moves the camera away from a long shot of the two men. Sands and the priest sit at opposite sides of a table and the camera stays still for ten minutes as they talk and smoke. It is an amazing scene, both by the actors and by McQueen, to have the confidence and vision to hold a shot that long at that distance. He never needs to telegraph an emotion, which would've been the standard move in a scene like the Sands/priest scene with a cut to a closeup. That is what makes McQueen such a tremendous director, his avoidance of sentimentality and his confidence to rely on images rather than words.

In conclusion, I found "12 Years a Slave" to be a fantastic film. It isn't a typical Hollywood type film, it is much more subtle and smart than that. I wholly recommend it to anyone who loves cinema and wants to see a finely crafted performance from a powerful actor, Chiwetel Ejiofor. I also highly recommend watching "Hunger" and "Shame" for both the directing of Steve McQueen and the acting of Michael Fassbender. 

Finally, something to keep in mind when watching the film is how it relates to our world today. We look back upon the horrors of slavery and wonder how could anyone have thought it was a moral and ethical thing to do when it is so obviously morally corrosive and cancerous. Ask yourself, are there things in our world today that are as equally corrosive and cancerous? Aren't we all morally diminished when our country tortures? Or when we indefinitely imprison people without trials? Or we kill innocents or women and children with drone strikes? Or we start illegal wars of aggression in which hundreds of thousands or millions die? We have stopped the evil of slavery, but our moral decay, our spiritual cancer, rages on all around us and within us. We are all as complicit today as the citizens of the slave holding south were then. As a character in the film says about the south and slavery, 'there will be a great retribution for the evil that they've done', and so it will be for all of us as well if we don't wake up to the truth staring us right in the face.

Halloween: Respect the Darkness

" I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE DEVIL."

" YOU SHOULD, HE BELIEVES IN YOU."

I love Halloween. Well, let me clarify. I love Halloween in theory. In practice it is usually awful. For instance when you're a kid and you have a really cool or scary costume and then you'd go out to trick or treat and your mom makes you wear a coat. Halloween is just one more thing ruined by mom's insisting on winning the war against 'The Chill'.

 What I love about Halloween is the really scary stuff. Demons, ghosts, spirits, the unknown, the eternal darkness and the unfathomable power of the Dark Lord and of evil. You know what I'm not afraid of? Michael Myers from the "Halloween" movies or Jason from "Friday the 13th", or the one I hear a lot, Hannibal Lecter from "The Silence of the Lambs". You know why I'm not afraid of Mike Myers or Jason? Because I'm not a teenager having sex, which seems to be the only people those two take an interest in killing. Hannibal Lecter? He's a sixty something year old man! Why would I be afraid of him? If I run, he can't catch me because…HE'S SIXTY!! If I can't run I'm not afraid to fight him because….HE'S SIXTY!!! The only sixty year old man I could possibly be afraid of is an I.R.S. agent or a really bad surgeon. Okay, back to Halloween and my problem with it..

What I don't like about Halloween is the belittling and mocking of the darkness and it's power, or people being too precious and cute with their clever costumes, or the fad of women dressing in Halloween slut garb. To be clear, I am not against women dressing as sluts, in fact, quite the opposite, but I would argue that they should do it for the entire year and not just on Halloween.

I guess my biggest problem is that all holidays have been commercialized beyond recognition and usefulness by our capitalist/corporate culture. Christmas isn't about Jesus being born, it's about buying things. Going further back, Christmas isn't even about the pagan celebration of the solstice either, never mind Jesus. Easter is unrecognizable as a celebration of Christ rising from the dead, and somehow has turned into a bizarre ritual involving chocolate bunnies and chicken peeps, whatever the hell they are. I am not even a religious person, I just dislike the mindless and meaningless way we celebrate things for no reason whatsoever.  Even Halloween has been neutered by our vapid culture by turning it from an acknowledgement of the darkness in this world and in ourselves, into a bonanza for the candy and dentistry industries.

The need to be reminded that we are helpless and hapless in this life and the next is important. Life is not like a movie, (SPOILER ALERT!!!!) in the end the star of the film, you, doesn't survive, they die, always.  We all die. Our fear of the abyss in this life and after it is something we should embrace, because if we don't face it and embrace it now, it will most certainly devour us when we face it on the other side. A definition of respect is "intelligent fear". We respect a bear because it can kill us, we respect a shark because it can eat us, and so we should respect the darkness, both within and without, for it can and will, annihilate us.

So, this Halloween, don't mock the darkness, don't laugh at evil, don't belittle the Dark Lord. Be respectful, you'll be glad you did, for the Dark Lord never forgives and never forgets. 

Now…onto my three favorite films to watch on Halloween in a very, very dark house. 

THE SHINING:

There may be nothing creepier than the shot which follows the young boy Danny as he rides his Big Wheel through the deserted halls of the Overlook Hotel until he suddenly comes across the twin daughters of the previous caretaker. Kubrick is a genius, and The Shining is as masterful a horror film as has ever been made.

ROSEMARY'S BABY:

Mia Farrow is fantastic and heads up a brilliant cast which includes John Cassavettes,  Ruth Gordon, Ralph Bellamy and Charles Grodin. Another genius, Roman Polanski, masterfully builds an increasingly claustrophobic tension around his luminous lead actress. Polanski brings to life every mother's darkest fears.

THE EXORCIST:

No matter how many times I watch this film, it scares the hell out of me. A bunch of years ago I went and saw it in the theaters when it was released with previously cut scenes. One of the restored scenes had Linda Blair as the young girl possessed by a demon(maybe the Devil himself), walking on all fours, upside down and backwards down the stairs with her head twisted around. It freaked me the hell out. This film is an absolute classic. If you haven't seen it in a while, watch it, and try to get a good nights sleep afterward.

CLASSICS: Nosferatu, Lon Chaney and Boris Karloff

Classic films aren't everybody's cup of tea, but I really like some of the old classic horror films. Nosferatu is one of the best. The vampyre in it is pretty bone chilling. Well worth checking out.

As are the films of Lon Chaney Sr. "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", "The Phantom of the Opera", "The Unholy Three" and "Laugh, Clown, Laugh" are all worth watching.

Boris Karloff is best known for being the original Frankenstein, which is a great film to watch on Halloween. I'm not much a fan of the other Frankenstein films, "Bride of Frankenstein" and "Son of Frankenstein", but the original is cool to watch. He also starred as the mummy in the appropriately titled "The Mummy". I like Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney Sr. a lot. Quality old time actors. 

GRAVITY: Or a Lack Thereof ?

I had the good fortune to go see the film "Gravity" last week. What follows is a spoiler free review. 

I really enjoyed "Gravity". It is an extremely well made Hollywood film.  It is tense, heart pounding and exhilarating. It kept me captivated for nearly two hours. It reminded me an awful lot of last years Oscar winner "Argo", in that this is the type of movie that Hollywood used to churn out all the time in the 70's. Quality idea, quality script, quality director and actors, add them all together and you get a quality film. It is an indictment of Hollywood that films like "Argo" and "Gravity", which are good, well-made films, are the exception rather than the rule.

The "Argo" comparisons also apply to the casting. Ben Affleck isn't the greatest actor in the world (he is a really good director), but he is a movie star. Sandra Bullock and George Clooney aren't the greatest actors in the world either (although Clooney is a great producer and good director), but they are certainly movie stars. Movie stars are very good at being themselves and being likable. Affleck, Clooney and Bullock have made fantastic careers out of being likable people. When you have a slam dunk of a story, like with "Argo" and "Gravity", and you have a very skilled director as both films have, then you don't need a transcendent performance from your lead actors. You just need your lead actors to be consistent and to put asses in the seats. Bullock and Clooney fit that bill without a doubt. 

I have never been much of a fan of Sandra Bullock, but I found her very likable in this role. She is still Sandra Bullock doing Sandra Bullock things, and George Clooney does George Clooney things, but that is really all that is required of them. The best performance in the film is that of "Space". Space/The Abyss is unrelenting and unforgiving, and makes for a perfect screen villain for Bullock to battle.

That's all the good news, the bad news is that the film is entirely forgettable. It is sort of like a delicious Chinese food feast that you thoroughly enjoy, yet leaves you hungry twenty minutes later. I was highly entertained for the duration of the movie, but afterwards could hardly recall any of it. There are no transcendent performances, no particularly memorable shots or scenes(just like with "Argo"). That doesn't make it a terrible film, it just makes it a watchable, well-made, yet forgettable one.

That all said, I am sure Sandra Bullock will be nominated for an Oscar, as will the film. Like "Argo" last year, Hollywood will probably want to congratulate itself for doing it's job and honor a star for doing hers. I look forward to the day when Hollywood churns out these types of films on a regular basis so that they don't deserve Oscar attention, but for now they are few and far between, so they will get lots and lots of award attention. 

In conclusion, I recommend "Gravity". It will entertain you, just don't expect it to change your life, or even your day. 

 SPOILER ALERT: A quick paragraph on a metaphorical look at the film with spoilers in it.

In a weird way I kept thinking about Bullock's big break-through role in "Speed". "Gravity" is like the grown-up version of "Speed", except much better. Bullock plays herself, only twenty years older and wiser after two decades of surviving the rough and tumble world of stardom. Clooney plays the Keanu role, just older and a little less dim, and "Space/The Abyss" plays the villainous Dennis Hopper role testing Bullock's mettle at every turn. If you look at the film that way, it becomes a metaphor for surviving Hollywood. Bullock has had her ups and downs and maybe even considered giving up, but she has soldiered on and never let Hollywood take her soul even though she has lost a lot, the least of it is her little girl, which obviously represents her loss of innocence, artistic and otherwise. Keanu, of course, was a big star, but has since drifted into the ether just like Clooney does in the film, presumably never to be seen again and also presumably by his own choice, and Hollywood as represented by "Space", is relentless and unforgiving and soul sucking. Hollywood will suck the life out of you if you don't have your protective suit on, and it is a devastatingly lonely and treacherous place for the few elite who get to bask in the view from above of all those little people down there. That is one way to look at the film, especially if your a metaphorical lunatic like me.  

BREAKING NEWS: Good Things Happening to Good People!

It's been very busy here at Mission Control, so please forgive the sporadic postings of late. To catch everyone up, there has been some shocking evidence discovered that proves the theory "Good things happen to good people" and disproves my previously long held belief that "Good things only happen to the most horrible people imaginable". 

Here's the evidence and the good people.

My dear friend, the beautiful and talented Christina Chang, can now be seen kicking ass as Megan Vannoy on ABC's "Nashville". Be sure to check her out every Wednesday night at 10 p.m., or catch up on what you've missed On Demand. Christina is as great an actress as she is a friend, which is saying quite a lot, so make "Nashville" a regular in your TV viewing.

This autumn it is full spectrum dominance from our Resident Rock God and all around great dude Dave Patten as he is currently touring parts of North America in support of his EP "On This Ledge". Just as Christina Chang is kicking ass in "Nashville", Dave Patten is kicking North America right in the ass. If he's coming to your town, definitely make the time to go and see him. He puts on a fantastic live show that is not to be missed. Follow the link to see the tour dates. 

Dave Patten Tour Dates.

The other big event in the Dave Patten full spectrum dominance invasion, besides crushing America beneath his Rock God boots, is that he is starring in his first feature film. "Delivery Man" starring Vince Vaughn and the aforementioned Dave Patten opens nationwide November 22.  

And last but certainly not least, the lovely and multi-talented Jill Latiano has produced a powerful documentary about genetically modified foods titled "GMO OMG". Please follow the link below to find when and where you can see this film. And trust me, you should really see this film, it is eye-opening to say the least. 

 "GMO OMG" directed by Jeremy Seifert

Congratulations to Jill, Christina and Dave. Here's to hoping you all continue to prove that good things can happen to good people!!

Stillness: Lessons from Redford, DeNiro and Penn

This past week Robert DeNiro turned 70, Sean Penn turned 53 and Robert Redford turned 77.  In honor of their births, let's take a closer look at their work and see if there's anything for us mortals to steal, for as the old saying goes, 'good writers borrow, great writers steal'.  The same certainly applies for actors. 

Robert Redford is easily the biggest movie star of the these three actors.  Redford is one of those rare actors who is actually under appreciated for his acting skills because he is such a big star and so handsome.  While his style is very different from DeNiro or Penn, it is in it's own way, just as highly crafted. 

The main thing that stands out in Redford's work is his mastery of stillness.  Stillness is a tremendous asset to the actor but an often overlooked one.  The key to mastering stillness is to not confuse it with stiffness.  Stillness is not a lack of fluidity, but rather a containment and control of a vibrant energy.  Redford's stillness is full, as opposed to stiffness which is vacant.  Think of Redford as an eagle perched on a branch.  It sits still but remains vibrant, powerful and majestic.  Redford's stillness is full of thought and intention, which gives the viewer the impression that he is a deep thinker and very smart, which is a great technique to fight against the usual stereotyping of good looking people, whether man or woman, as being less than bright.  

Stillness also draws the viewer in to the actor, it forces them to watch closely, for any movement is magnified and takes on greater meaning when it's surrounded by stillness.  It also helped in creating contrast with Redford's scene partners.  Think of the success Redford had opposite Paul Newman in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" and "The Sting". Newman's energy, both physical and emotional, was more chaotic and hot as opposed to Redford's which is controlled and cool.  Another example of this is in "All the President's Men" when Redford was opposite Dustin Hoffman, another more energetic and emotionally volatile actor, which further heightened and was heightened by Redford's controlled, yet full, stillness.  The lesson here is that contrast creates chemistry.

Stillness is also a big part of Robert DeNiro's repertoire as an actor but in a very different way.  If Redford is a majestic eagle on a branch, DeNiro is a hungry bengal tiger in a less than sturdy bamboo cage. DeNiro uses stillness and silence to create a very unsettling effect on his scene partners and the viewer. DeNiro's character in "Taxi Driver", Travis Bickle, often holds a steady look at another character for an awkwardly long period of time.  He doesn't say anything, but projects an immense sense of unpredictability and violence boiling just under the surface.  To strengthen this sense, DeNiro breaks off the stare and glances away for a brief moment, as if to think for a second, and then returns to it, fortifying the sense of the chaotic just under the surface.  It's a fantastic technique, one that is in many ways DeNiro's trademark, that he's used in most of his performances to great effect.  The key to the technique is that the silence and the stillness are filled with an energy and an intention.  When DeNiro stares at someone he isn't just looking, he's projecting his psychological intention upon them.  He wants something from them, or wants to do something to them.  As a viewer, you feel that intention just with his look and the holding of it.

DeNiro's Vito Corleone (Godfather Part II), Jake LaMotta (Raging Bull) and Jimmy Conway (Goodfellas) all have that same sense of controlled menace to them, that at various times roars to the surface and gives external life to the beast cultivated within.  Similar to Redford's stillness being well balanced by Newman's more chaotic energy, DeNiro's stillness, silence and ferocious inner life are often balanced by actors that are more outwardly chaotic and frenetic.  The obvious example being Joe Pesci playing opposite DeNiro in "Raging Bull", "Goodfellas" and "Casino".  Pesci's inner life is constantly being given voice and to great comedic effect, while DeNiro's remains silent, only showing itself through physical violence not words, with great dramatic effect.  The balance between the two strengthens their performances, and as stated earlier, contrast creates chemistry.

Sean Penn is an interesting contrast between DeNiro and Redford in that he is often filled with an unsettling energy that is in constant motion.  If Redford is an Eagle, DeNiro a Tiger, then Penn is a Shark, constantly in motion and with a voracious appetite.  Penn's kinetic energy feeds his characters and attracts the viewer in similar ways that Redford's stillness draws them in.  The big difference being that when Redford moves it takes on great meaning, but when Penn stops moving is when he has tremendous dramatic power.  A great example of this is his character Matthew Poncelet in "Dead Man Walking", Poncelet is always fidgeting, always looking around, always smoking, raving or bullshitting, but when he finally stops, and Penn looks up and you see his eyes, he is still for a moment, and we connect with him, we see his humanity and his soul, for a brief second.  Then he goes back to the movement, but it's that movement that makes the brief moments of stillness so powerful and revealing.  The moments of stillness with Poncelet are when we see him stop acting and start being real, and those moments are what makes Penn such an astounding actor.

You can see this throughout Penn's remarkable career, even in a comedy like "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", Penn's stoner/surfer dude Spiccoli is not the typical stoner, slow and sloth like, he's always fidgeting and moving.  It isn't until the end of his character arc when Mr. Hand actually teaches him something by getting him to sit still that we see Spiccoli isn't just a brain dead dope but a complicated and caring person.

The same technique can also be seen in "Mystic River" where Penn's character gets more and more still as the drama heightens and he is begins taking action.  The more still Penn becomes, the more menacing he is, and that is heightened by his frenetic energy that fills his character leading up to the stillness.

One final example is Penn's work as Harvey Milk in "Milk".  Milk is driven by a righteous cause and fueled by the injustice he sees in the world.  Milk's internal engine is running at full speed and he is constantly in motion campaigning or politicking, but the only time he slows down and gets still is when he is genuinely connecting with another character as opposed to trying to convince them to join his cause or to get out of his way.  The stillness makes Milk human, and the audience connects to him because we see him truly, genuinely connect with another person, whether it be his lover, a friend, a staff worker or a troubled young man on the phone.  Penn's use of constant movement make his moments of stillness pack the dramatic power that he is famous for.

Redford, DeNiro and Penn are all very different actors.  For instance, DeNiro and Penn are both notorious for completely inhabiting their characters physically, changing their appearance, their speech and their gait, whereas Redford is more of a leading man who must use his craft much more subtle ways in order to give a standout performance. Regardless of their differences, they all share one thing in common, mastery of the power of stillness.  We should learn from their fantastic work and try to integrate stillness into our acting tool box.

Robert De Niro and Sean Penn: Happy Birthday to the Kings of Commitment!!

Happy birthday to two of the greatest actors alive. Robert DeNiro, born on August 17, 1943, turns 70, and Sean Penn, born August 17, 1960 turns 53 today. De Niro and Penn are icons of American acting and can trace their lineage as great American actors all the way back to the grandfather, or godfather of them all, Marlon Brando. Just as De Niro and Penn were judged in comparison to the master Brando's work, so will young actors today be judged by the work of De Niro and Penn.

A brief look at their resumes is all it takes to see why they reside on the Mount Rushmore of American actors. Shockingly, De Niro has only won two Academy Awards, one for Best Supporting Actor (Godfather part II) and one for best Actor (Raging Bull), but his work is so phenomenally great it is beyond being measured by awards. His work with director Martin Scorsese alone is better than some of the greatest actors entire careers.

De Niro gave astoundingly memorable performances in the Scorsese films "Mean Streets", "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", "The King of Comedy", "Goodfellas",  "Cape Fear" and "Casino". His non-Scorses directed films are nearly as impressive, "Godfather Part II", "The Deer Hunter",  "Brazil", "The Mission", "The Untouchables", "Midnight Run", "Awakenings", "Heat" and "Silver Linings Playbook".

Sean Penn also has only won two Academy Awards, Best Actor in "Mystic River" and "Milk", but his work is also well beyond being judged by mere awards. Penn burst onto the scene as a twenty-one year old with a fantastic performance in the film "Taps". He then gave great performances in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", "Bad Boys", "The Falcon and the Snowman" and "At Close Range".  His work in "Colors", "Casualties of War" and "State of Grace" showcased his immense talent and skill.

He then seemingly disappeared for three years, only to reemerge with a supporting role in "Carlito's Way", soon after he starred as Matthew Poncelet in Tim Robbin's "Dead Man Walking". His mesmerizing performance in that film re-esteablished Penn as the greatest actor of his generation. He reinforced this position with stand out performances in "She's So Lovely", "The Thin Red Line", "Sweet and Lowdown" and "I Am Sam". Then came his two Oscar winning performances in in two very different roles in "Mystic River" and "Milk".

The amount of powerful performances De Niro and Penn have given is staggering. The one trademark of both of their work is simply: Commitment.  Physical, emotional and mental commitment to the character and the work.  What we can learn from both Robert De Niro and Sean Penn it is that we should take what we do as actors seriously, and take our craft seriously. When we do act, to commit to it, like a man who's hair is on fire commits to finding a lake. These men both teach us that if we want to act, and act well, we must commit to not only the part we are playing, but to the art and craft of acting.

My respect and admiration for both of these men, their work, their skill, their talent, their commitment, knows no bounds. I wish both of these iconic actors a very happy birthday, and I hope we see more of them on screen in the years to come. 

Constantin Stanislavski : The Patriarch

"Create your own method. Don't depend slavishly on mine. Make up something that will work for you! But keep breaking traditions, I beg you."

- Constantin Stanislavski

Constantin Stanislavski, the patriarch of modern acting, died 75 years ago today. It is no exaggeration to say that every performance we see in film, television and theatre today has its seed in the 'method' of Stanislavski. His rejection of a formulaic theatricality and his embrace of realism in all its varied forms, revolutionized the art of acting.

Although you can't get two different actors, teachers or schools to agree on what exactly Stanislavski's 'method' was, his approach is the foundation for every single acting 'school' around today. Like Abraham, who was the father of three great religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Stanislavski is the father of the three great 'schools' of acting, Strasberg, Adler and Meisner (and all the other ones too!!). You may think that's blasphemy. I think it's an apt metaphor, because those acting schools get along about as well as those three religions do, although to be fair, the acting schools do take themselves much more seriously, so conflict is inevitable. 

A toast to the Patriarch of Modern Acting, the great Constantin Stanislavski. We are all deeply in his debt. Oh...and go read his books, it's always best to go straight to the source material!!

"Unless the theatre can ennoble you, make you a better person, you should flee from it."

"Love the art in yourself and not yourself in the art."

Magna Mater: Edie Falco

Magna Mater is latin for "Great Mother", and is an apt title for a series of posts about actresses who have mastered, revitalized or reinvented the role of "Mother" on TV or in film.  Women, particularly women of a certain age, are really up against it in Hollywood's youth obsessed culture.  So, it is important to take the time and recognize the great actresses who have overcome the myriad of obstacles placed before women and succeeded despite the industry's sexism and ageism.

The headliner for the first Magna Mater post is Edie Falco and her portrayal of Carmela Soprano on HBO's "The Sopranos".  Falco won three much deserved Emmy awards for her work as Carmela, wife of mobster Tony Soprano (played by the late James Gandolfini) and mother to Meadow and AJ Soprano, her teen daughter and son. 

As good as James Gandolfini was as Tony, (see my tribute to the actor and praise for his work in my "Requiem for a Heavyweight" post below), Falco is the one who really had to do the more subtle and complex work.  Unlike Tony, Carmela CHOSE this life whereas Tony was born into it.  Tony was unconscious in most of his actions, a slave to his voracious sexual, violent and power hungry appetites.  Carmela on the other hand, was conscious of the nefarious ways that afforded her luxurious lifestyle but she chose to ignore it in order to maintain her comfortable life.

Carmela may have appeared a tacky New Jersey housewife, with her gaudy outfits and house, but a battle raged deep within her every moment of the day.  She was smarter, tougher and more genuine than the other mob wives but, unlike the other wives, she earnestly struggled spiritually with the choice of living the good life through 'bad' means. 

Carmela also wanted to be the voice of all that was good and right as opposed to Tony who was so tainted with the darkness of his work that he could never even understand his moral compass as much as he struggled with it, never mind be one to other people.  Carmela would chastise Tony, AJ and Meadow for their moral failings, all the while knowing she was a moral failure as well.  She would fight with Tony about his sexual escapades with other women, but failed to hold herself accountable for her emotional affair with the family priest.  She would be furious with Tony for withholding things from her, but she wouldn't tell him of her fling with AJ's high school principal.  She would agonize over AJ's lazy, entitled attitude toward life, but failed to see the moral compromises she made with her life in order to enjoy the good life that AJ enjoyed so much.

The key to Falco's performance is that she was able to be this walking contradiction while being very likable.  Fair or not, this is the key for women, they must be likable even when they are being a 'nagging' mother or a 'bitching' wife.  It is a high wire act for any actress, that's for sure.  Falco was able to do it by filling the spaces in conversations, or altercations with a vivid inner life.  In every scene she is in, it is what she doesn't say that is much more interesting than what she does say.  She would have been a superstar of the silent movie era because she is able to express an entire complicated story with just a look or a touch.

Carmela is a woman with a vivid inner life and a lot of secrets.  She keeps secrets from everyone with whom she has a relationship.  She doesn't say everything she's thinking to her friends, to her priest, to her lover, to her kids or to Tony.  She always holds something back even when she's been invited to speak freely.  She is too smart to let anyone know absolutely everything. 

A great way for the actor to build a vivid inner life that creates a dramatic tension in the open spaces of a scene, is for the actor to actually write out the things the character would want to say if given the chance, or if they had the courage or if they could be consequence free.  Fill yourself with the speech you want to give, the speech where you can say everything you've ever wanted to say, and be ready to say it at any moment.  Don't just write it out and think the work is done, be ready to say it, but choose not to in the scene.  This technique fills the actor with a sense of mystery and having a secret, and quietly empowers both the character and the actor in the scene. 

Another way to fill a character and a scene is with psychological intentions.  Falco is phenomenal at psychological intentions.  Just watch her scenes with the family priest to see this skill in action.  She yearns for the priest to make a move on her, to kiss her, but he never does.  Falco's yearning can be a result of creating a film that you play in your mind, for instance of your scene partner reaching over and grabbing you by the hair and kissing you passionately.  The more vivid and specific the movie in your head, the more powerful the intention and the effective the performance, and the movie in your head should include not just visual sensations but touch, smell and taste.  The film should be a multi-sensation, specific event for which you desperately yearn.  Psychological intentions are a great way to fill yourself, the character and the scene and yet still be in the present moment.  Intentions can also be tweaked to create a power dynamic between characters, for example, doing a scene where you have an intention for your scene partner to grab you and kiss you is very different than a scene where you want to grab and kiss your partner, it is a subtle difference in theory but a powerful one in practice.

So, Edie Falco shows us how to create an inner life in order to bring life to every moment we are on screen.  Watch her work as Carmela and you'll see her struggling constantly to keep her inner life to herself.  When her secrets finally do come out, in the finale of season 4, her explosion with Tony may be the single greatest piece of acting ever seen on television.  It is so visceral, gut wrenching and electric you feel as if you shouldn't even be watching such a personal, intimate moment between two people. If you do watch this scene, also take note of Falco's use of breath to tap into emotion and express the armageddon of her character's emotional world.  The scene is four years in the making, and all the work Falco did for every scene of every episode leading up to it, pays off in this ultimate climax of explosive truth and emotion. It is an absolute tour de force of a performance and one we should watch in the context of her work over the entire run of the show in order to fully appreciate it's otherworldly brilliance.

For her work as Carmela Soprano, Edie Falco is most deserving of the title Magna Mater, and Magna Actrix (great actress). 

Man of Steel: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Monotonous

Superman is a great American myth and archetype.  It is ripe for a quality re-telling of the story, just as Christopher Nolan re-told the Batman myth with his iconic Dark Knight films.  I was hoping Man of Steel, directed by Zack Snyder and written by David Goyer, was going to be to Superman as Dark Knight was to Batman.  Alas, 'twas not to be. 

Let me say, the collection of actors in this film is a pretty impressive list. Russell Crowe, Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane and Laurence Fishburne have 11 acting Oscar nominations between them.  The failure of the film is not the fault of these actors.

Henry Cavill plays Superman and is perfectly cast.  He is impossibly handsome and is as ripped as you'd expect a Superman to be.  I first saw Cavill on the Showtime TV show The Tudors.  He is a fine actor with a subtle charm and dynamic presence, so I hope he doesn't get tainted by the stink of Man of Steel.  He has the makings of a movie star, but this is a bad film to kick off his climb to the top.  Henry Cavill is not the problem with Man of Steel.

As for the film itself, I won't go into the painful details, so no need for a spoiler alert, the only spoiler alert would be that the film is a steaming pile of excrement atop a flaming pile of even more excrement.  The main quality of the film is that it is relentlessly LOUD, for no other reason that I can gather except to make sure you don't fall asleep from it's suffocating monotony.  The story is at best incoherent and at its worst schizophrenic.

My best guess as to why the film is so awful, is that the director Zack Snyder wanted to make one film, the studio wanted to make another film and the producer wanted to make a yet another film.  I can only hope that none of them wanted to make THIS film.

In conclusion, this film is a wasted opportunity.  A great collection of acting talent along with an iconic character and storyline were not enough to make Man of Steel even remotely entertaining or interesting.  Superman Returns was an even more horrible Superman film from 2006, followed seven years later by the atrocious Man of Steel, so if history is any guide we won't have to wait very long for another horrendous Superman film.

The bottom line is that Man of Steel is more like Man of Steal…Audiences Money.

If you at the studios have any interest in making another Superman film, I ask that you please contact me.  I have a lot of ideas which may or may not be any good, but lucky for me lack of good ideas has never stopped you from making a Superman film before.  You have my number and my rates are reasonable....for now. 

©2013

Requiem for a Heavyweight : James Gandolfini

James Gandolfini died on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 in Rome at the age of 51. He is best known for his three-time Emmy winning performance as mafia boss, Tony Soprano, on HBO's "The Sopranos". 

I had the good fortune to watch the entire run of "The Sopranos" recently so the brilliance of Gandolfini's performance is very fresh in my mind.  James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano was one of those rare cases where the perfect actor is cast to play a character that is perfect for him.

The character of Tony Soprano could have been a cookie cutter caricature in the hands of a lesser actor.  Gandolfini, on the other hand, took a tired, old cliche and breathed fresh, new life into it.  Gandolfini was a mountain of a man,  at 260 pounds he was a physically imposing presence, and he was comfortable projecting his powerful presence on screen, but what set Gandolfini apart was that he had expressive, sensitive, child-like eyes.  You could sense his insecurity, sensitivity, his hurt and inner wound with just a look from those eyes.  When he turned in a flash into a hulking, raging menace, it was all the more effective because he was a hurt, confused little boy just a moment before.  His Tony was, in fact, a giant child, both physically and emotionally.  He was at once combustible and yet lovable, and always dangerously at the mercy of his appetites. 

The complexity of the inner life of Tony Soprano is what made the character so fascinating, so beloved and the show so successful. The contrasts between Tony's child-like soul, sometimes wounded and other times sweet and playful, and his violent and cruel actions made for as dynamic a character as there has ever been on television. 

Tony Soprano was, like many of us, a man at war with himself, with his conscience and with his sense of duty to his family and his "family".  That battle played itself out in every relationship he had, from his wife and kids, to his therapist and gumares, to his mother, uncle and sister and finally to his mafioso friends and enemies alike.  Gandolfini's innate talent, skill and commitment to craft are what made it possible for us to relate to a mafia boss on a human level.  Tony was one of us, with all the strengths we wish we had, and the weaknesses we wish we didn't.    

As an actor, James Gandolfini was what we all should aspire to be, he was successful because he was a master craftsman who loved his craft and honed it.  He didn't play the game, he wasn't a publicity hound, he didn't marry a movie star, he didn't inject himself into the maelstrom of our celebrity culture.  He simply worked hard to develop his skill and talent, and then he put his head down and went to work.  When he went to work he brought to life a character that is as good as anything we have ever seen on television and has changed the medium forever by opening the door for more morally and emotionally complicated characters.  

The world of acting is a lesser place with the loss of the heavyweight talent and artistry of James Gandolfini.

The Great Man Theory and the Dangers of Deification: Part 2.

I have gotten a little feedback from my earlier post about the great man theory and the dangers of deification.  Here are a few comments from some clients and friends. The first comment is maybe the most important, a friend mis-read the title and thought it said "The Great Man Theory and Avoiding the Dangers of DEFECATION." I shudder to think of the myriad of dangers defecation poses for the actor. My main piece of advice in this area is something I tell all my clients, from beginners to big stars....Don't shit your pants! It is a simple piece of advice but it can take you a long way in this business, or any other.  While there is a chance your career can bounce back from a pants-shitting, you are better off not risking it and avoiding shitting your pants at all costs.

The other question I got was, "what are some examples of some actors who fell into the trap of deification?" (not defecation).  I am usually pretty hesitant to criticize actors even if they are big time well known stars.  The reason being is that actors, even big stars, may not have all that much power when it comes to the performance we see on the screen.  If it is terrible, it may be the fault of the director, of the script, of meddling producers, you name it.  Also, I just like actors so I don't like to attack one of my own tribe.  With that said, I do think there is value in critiquing a performance in order to learn something from it as opposed to indulging in shadenfreude.

A generalized good example of deification can be seen in virtually every portrayal of President Kennedy.  Lots of actors have played the role, and everyone of them gets stuck trying to impersonate the former President.  His speech is so distinct that actors get lost trying to imitate it and they end up playing the public JFK as opposed to the private Jack Kennedy.  The other issue with films about Kennedy is that filmmakers and audiences have deified him as well so they don't push for or want a nuanced performance, they want JFK to be a simplified hero because of his tragic death.  This is understandable and as I said in the previous post on the topic, the same is true of Martin Luther King Jr.  People are old enough to remember King and Kennedy or have seen video of them, so portraying them in a unique, honest and artistically complex way is nearly impossible because of the audiences expectations, and therefore the producers and directors expectations as well.  While a film about the less respected parts of their lives, like their womanizing, would be very interesting, it wouldn't get made because it would feel disrespectful to two tragic heroes of the American myth.  So we end up with one dimensional performances in generally simplistic films. 

Speaking of historical figures, let us take a look at the Academy Award winning performance of Daniel Day-Lewis in Steven Speilberg's "Lincoln".  You may be wondering how Daniel Day-Lewis is mentioned in a posting about failures in acting?  Let me say up front, Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor walking the planet today, and he did deservedly win an Oscar for his portrayal of Lincoln.  The issue though is deification, and while Mr. Day-Lewis wasn't guilty of it, Mr. Speilberg most certainly was. Day-Lewis' performance was pitch perfect.  He created a truly unique Lincoln, with a higher pitched voice than others who have played him for example, and an emotional and human frailty missing from other actors attempts at the part.

 Where the film fails, and I think it fails spectacularly (or miserably depending on your perspective), is in Speilberg's handling of the material.  For instance, Daniel Day-Lewis has zero control over the soft lighting that framed Lincoln like a halo whenever he was on screen.  He also had no control over John Williams' score that would soar like a valiant American eagle whenever Lincoln so much as entered a room or opened his mouth.  Day-Lewis had no control over Tony Kushner's trite screenplay, nor over Doris Kearns Goodwin's book upon which it was based.  Daniel Day-Lewis could only control his own performance, and he did it wonderfully, but he couldn't control Speilberg's worship of Lincoln and hence his turning the film into the canonization of St. Lincoln.  The film fails because while Day-Lewis created a living and breathing very human Lincoln, the rest of the cast and Speilberg and his creative team, undermined his performance by treating his Lincoln as if he were the dead Abe Lincoln resurrected and giving him the reverence and doe-eyed fawning that scenario would deserve.  None of us have seen Lincoln alive nor heard his voice and Daniel Day- Lewis was able to build Lincoln from his own creative genius.  Sadly, Steven Speilberg's creative genius seems to be only of use when sharks, dinosaurs or aliens are involved, and thus we are left with the wasted performance of a master actor in a self-righteous mess of a movie.

One performance that was scuttled due to deification cannot be blamed on the director.  The film was "Ali" (2001) directed by Michael Mann and starring Will Smith as the heavyweight boxer and self proclaimed greatest of all time.  

Will Smith is a major movie star and one of the biggest box office draws of all time so his playing the greatest of all time felt like a perfect fit.  "Ali" seemed to be an attempt on his part to try and garner more respect as an actor as opposed to a movie star.  He did receive an Oscar nomination for his performance but that may have had more to do with Hollywood politics than it did with his performance.   Will Smith is not only a movie star but also a rapper and had a hit tv show, "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" so he is someone who is known for oozing charisma.  He's made a phenomenal career out of his charisma.  Yet, when playing Muhammed Ali, one of the most charismatic men of the last century, Smith became wooden and dull.  He fell into the trap of deifying Ali, which is an easy trap to fall into since Ali is such an amazing man.  Smith wanted Ali to be the coolest man on the planet, but Ali wasn't cool, he had an inferno of rage blazing within him.  Rage against the injustice of racism he grew up under in Louisville, Kentucky.  Rage against the establishment that wouldn't recognize his greatness due to his religion (The Nation of Islam) and rage against the government that sent thousands of young men to die in a far off land for a fight that made no sense.  Ali was a cauldron of rage.  He may have channeled it into charisma, humor and his athletic prowess...but it was the rage that fueled him.

Smith's performance fails because he refused to see the complexity that made Ali so charismatic and electric.  Ali wasn't the charm, the smile, the rhyming poems or the  tomfoolery.  Ali wasn't a 'nice guy'.  He was a rough, tough badass of a  man.  Ali had a side to him that was nasty, mean, brutal and menacing.  Ali physically tortured opponents like Floyd Patterson whom he intentionally didn't knock out so he could inflict more harm to him round after round because Patterson refused to call Ali by his Muslim name.  He racially attacked and humiliated a friend, Joe Frazier, who gave him money when he wasn't allowed to fight due to his refusal to serve in the military.  He called Frazier an 'uncle Tom' and said he looked like a gorilla. This is vicious, brutal stuff but it's what also made Ali the greatest of all time.  He was a merciless assassin who would carve up his prey and brutalize them into submission.  Ali certainly is a great man, but what made him great wasn't the surface stuff but rather the internal life that propelled him to that greatness.  

Will Smith was creatively overwhelmed trying to play Ali.  When an actor of inferior ability and imagination comes up against a part demanding complexity and skill they either do the hard creative work and rise to the occasion, or they don't.  Will Smith didn't and we were left with a wooden, lifeless performance that fell flat and was an injustice to the complex greatness of a man like Ali.

Another reason Smith may have felt restricted in how he could play Ali was that Ali is still alive, and maybe in the back of Will Smith's head he was thinking to himself, "What will Ali think of this?".  Like millions of other people, Smith reveres Ali, and rightfully so, but that type of deification may have been what held him back from giving a more dynamic and complex performance.

Part of the struggle for an actor like Will Smith is that he is a movie star first and foremost and that is different from being an actor.  Being a movie star can be a wonderful thing for your wallet but a terrible hindrance to the actor's creative spirit.  But that is a topic for another day.  

I hope these few examples helped show what the dangers of deification can look like and help you to avoid falling into them.  The main lesson is this, when playing a great man (or woman), do not deny their shadow, their inner darkness.  Embracing the shadow of a great man (or woman) will help you create a more complex character and give a more nuanced performance.

My apologies to Will Smith and Steven Speilberg if my critiques offended.  I genuinely meant no personal harm as I understand you both to be two of the nicest and most generous people in the business.  You have my number if you'd like to discuss this posting.

The Great Man Theory and Avoiding the Dangers of Deification

The "Great Man Theory" is, in very basic language, a 19th century idea that history is driven by the actions of great men.​  Deification is simply the act of making a god out of someone or something.  You may be asking yourself, what does the great man theory and deification have to do with acting?  Well, let's take a closer look and find out.

As human beings and actors, one of our great weaknesses is our psychological need to make gods of our great men and women.  We project all sorts of positive attributes and noble motivations onto our 'great men' in order to give us something to aspire to and believe in.  History has proven that this is never a good idea as 'great men' always prove themselves to more 'man' than 'great'.  ​Yet the great man theory is the dominant theory of history taught to us from a young age in school and popular culture.  We learn that Columbus discovered America, George Washington founded the United States, Abe Lincoln freed the slaves and Elvis invented rock and roll.  We want a simple narrative and the great man theory gives it to us without getting us mired in any complicating details.

Similarly, in drama, whether it be film, tv or theater, we are told to find a simple narrative in order to tell a story. ​ We are constantly told by the gatekeepers of our culture that the audience want to be told simple stories with an easy to follow and understandable narrative.  As actors though, we want to flesh out our characters and give them depth, dimension and human complexity well beyond what any surface story would allow.  Our yearning for this creative human complexity is directly at odds with our culture's alleged demand for narrative simplicity.  So if we are fortunate enough to get to play a historically famous character, a 'great' man or woman, how do we swim against this tide of simplicity and create a character of depth and dimensions well beyond the typical one note portrayals given to us in history?

To start, we must set aside our personal feelings or beliefs toward the character.  This is where we risk deification.  Actors must avoid making gods out of the people they play. Why?  Because gods are one dimensional and boring.  Gods have no dramatic tension.  They are perfect.  On the other hand, people are interesting because of all of their flaws and foibles.  Actors are supposed to show the human condition, not the ​divine condition.  If we admire the 'great man' to the point of deification, we are falling into the trap of simplicity that strangles our imagination and creativity in the crib.  Deifying 'great men' is just as damaging to our creative approach as demonizing them. 

In order to better understand how to create a complex character out of a great man of history, let's take a look at some great actors taking on the challenge of playing 'great men'.​

Let's start with Ben Kingsley's Oscar winning portrayal of Gandhi.  Gandhi was famous the world over for being a revolutionary figure who kicked the British out of India through non-violence.  Playing Gandhi as a saint would certainly play to the audiences expectations and maybe even be accurate according to the script, but as a genuine portrait of the man Gandhi, it would be inaccurate and, frankly, one note and boring.  

In order to give the character dimension and depth, the actor needs to create a lush and vivid inner life that can drive the characters actions in their outer life.  Ben Kingsley is as good an actor as there is, so ​when he portrayed Gandhi he didn't focus on his gentleness, kindliness or saintliness, the script already highlighted those things.  Ben Kingsley dug deep into Gandhi and didn't find a soft, sweet and gentle love at his center, but rather he found a burning anger.  Gandhi was angry at the world, at racism, at the injustice of Imperial Britain, at man's inhumanity to man and finally at violence itself.  Kingsley has said that Gandhi is the angriest person he's ever played.  Now, he couldn't bring this deeply felt core of anger out in ways that weren't on the page of the script (having Gandhi punch someone in the face wouldn't fly), he had to be in the world like Gandhi was in the world, a man of peace.  The lesson from Ben Kingsley and Gandhi is this: external peace does not mean internal peace.  In fact, the opposite is almost always true.

Kingsley's Gandhi was invigorated and driven by this internal anger.  It drove him through the film and made him incredibly dynamic and charismatic.  Playing a historical man of peace is difficult, there has never been a very good portrayal of Martin Luther King for example, although that may have more to do with audience expectation and deification by both writers and directors than the lack of an actor to accurately play him,  Kingsley however, gives us the blue print for bringing a vibrant inner life to a man of peace.  It is to play to his internal opposites.

Denzel Washington's portrayal of Malcolm X is another example of a great actor bringing life and dimensionality to what could have been a performance undercut by deification.  Denzel Washington, along with Spike Lee's script, made Malcolm into more than just a noble and defiant civil rights leader.  Denzel played Malcolm X as a real man, one who was constantly growing and evolving, be it physically, emotionally, intellectually, politically or spiritually.  It is a truly beautiful performance which shows Malcolm in all his humanity and frailty, from his unconscious rage and desperation, to his righteous anger and defiance, to his disillusionment and finally enlightenment.  What makes Denzel's Malcolm so interesting is that he struggles, not just against outside forces, but against his own inner weakness and insecurity.  A lesser actor would have made Malcolm into a strong, charismatic leader who never doubted himself or his mission, the pop culture Malcolm we see on t-shirts.  Denzel avoids that trap by not making him fearless but rather filled with a complicated fear and self doubt.  Malcolm's courage in the film (and life) is accentuated by the fact that Denzel lets us see that Malcolm is afraid, but acts in spite of his fear.  Malcolm is at times on unsteady ground and unsure of himself, but he moves forward despite those fears and that gives the film and the portrayal the powerful dramatic tension that would have been lacking with a lesser actor (and director).

Val Kilmer's portrayal of Jim Morrison in "The Doors" is another great performance by an actor who easily could have fallen into the trap of deification.  Morrison is a legend, therefore Kilmer could have been expected to play him as the icon of cool that most perceive him to be.  Instead, Kilmer, informed by Oliver Stone's script, makes Morrison into a tragically flawed anti-hero that we watch self destruct.  Kilmer creates such a full portrait of Morrison by letting us see him not as just the cool, sexy rock god, but also as the cruel asshole, the creep, the drunk and finally the fool.  Both Kilmer and Stone should be applauded for the honesty of the Jim Morrison they put on film, for both were self described fans of The Doors and idolized Jim, but they didn't let their idolization (which is merely a different form of deification) get in the way of creating a full, dramatic and human character.  Kilmer's Morrison is fascinating not because he is a rock god, but rather because, as Morrison says of himself in the film, "I see myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being, with the soul of a clown, which forces me to blow it at the most important moments."  The fact that Kilmer's Jim is aware enough to know this about himself yet is incapable of doing anything about it, makes him an absolutely captivating and heart breaking character.  It would have been a terrible mistake and a creative crime to make Jim Morrison nothing more than the guy on the album cover.  Thankfully for us, Kilmer (and Stone) gave us the real Jim or at least a real man playing the part of Jim Morrison, which, in a weird way, is exactly what Jim Morrison was doing all along.  Kilmer masterfully removed the public mask of Jim Morrison and showed the human being behind it, and the film and the audience were better for it.

​These three examples show us that the key to playing a historically 'great man' is to embrace and cultivate opposites.  Gandhi's anger, Malcolm's fear and Morrison's clown are examples of creating a dynamic internal life of opposites in order to give a character's outer actions complexity and depth.  The secret inner life of a character allows the actor to be engaged on a level beyond a simplistic approach based on surface actions and gives us the chance to bring our own unique creative imagination to any character, no matter how famous and well known they may be.

On Grief and Acting: Revelations From Hamlet in the April of My Discontent

Actors are often called upon to portray grief, but what should the actor do when they are actually grieving and being called upon to act?  Anyone who has suffered through the death of a loved one knows that it is a devastating and disorienting experience.  It can be even more difficult for the actor who must be able to access their emotions in order to do their job.  So let's take a look at how the actor can try and work through, or at least survive, their grief.

Grieving is an entirely individual experience, no two people go through it in exactly the same way.  That being said, there is one statement that rings true for all people who grieve...'you will never be the same' or, said another way, 'you will never come out of it the way you went in'.  As much as we'd like to return to normal, we won't.  We may return to "a" normal, but it will be a new normal.  The world will never be quite the same as it was before death came knocking because you won't be the same.

Life has an energy to it, it vibrates at a certain frequency.  We are totally unaware of this in our everyday lives.  We wake up, have breakfast, go to work, talk to people, go through our day and don't think twice about any of it because we are in the flow of life.  When someone we love dies, that all changes.  We are knocked out of kilter with the universe.  The world seems a foreign and sometimes foreboding place.​  We see people going through their day to day existence and want to shake them, to wake them up from their obliviousness.  Don't they know the world has ended?  Life goes on around us, yet it has stopped for us.  This life swirling around us only accentuates the lifelessness of our deceased loved one.  

A good example of this is Hamlet.  Everyone thinks Hamlet is insane, he acts so bizarrely and is so out of the flow of the everyday existence of those around him.  Hamlet is not crazy.  He is grieving.  Grieving can look crazy to those not doing it, but it seems perfectly rational and normal to those in it's grips.  For instance, if you are grieving, you may be riding the subway and thinking about your dead loved one and crying for your loss, and then a moment later laughing when you recall a joyous or funny moment together with them when they were alive.  Your erratic emotions and actions will most assuredly make your fellow train riders think your insane, but your not, you are grieving.  

Grief dramatically alters your perspective on your surroundings and life and sets you adrift away from the current of normalcy.  Hamlet cannot shake his grief for his dead father, the king, and is angry at the ease with which others have shaken theirs, namely his mother.  He ponders suicide to end his life, "to be or not to be", but ends up contemplating the deeper meaning of death and the afterlife, "Ay, there's the rub, for in that sleep of death what dreams may come", a common topic that continually haunts the grieving.  When he sits poised ready to murder his praying uncle who has murdered Hamlet's father the king, Hamlet hesitates because he thinks of his uncle's eternal soul and that it would go to heaven due to his being killed during prayer.  Hamlet's insight into the afterlife overrides his thirst for noble vengeance.  This seems crazy to 'normal' people, but quite rational to those in the throes of grief.  Hamlet is in tune with death, the afterlife and grieving, but out of tune with the rationality and normalcy of the rest of the world.  So it is for those in grief.

The stages of grief that I have observed are this:  first, we think about and mourn the physical pain and suffering that our loved one has gone through in their death.​  Our grief is a form of empathy, we imagine what our loved one was thinking and feeling when death came, and we hope they weren't afraid or that they didn't suffer. 

After that, the second stage of grief I've observed comes upon us.  This is where we mourn for ourselves, for what we have lost.  In short, during the first stage we are thinking about them and during the second stage we are thinking about us without them.  In this second stage we focus on the empty hole in our lives where the loved one used to reside.  We mourn the time we won't have with them, the conversations lost, the dreams never realized.  I have found that this stage can take many forms, such as regret over things not said or of things said, or it can take a form of denial, where the survivor fully expects the deceased to knock upon their door in the form of a visitation.  In this stage, the deceased still seems somehow alive, even if only in the thoughts, dreams, memories and feelings of the person who mourns.  In this stage some people can have an overwhelming need to talk about their feelings and experiences with others, while other people may go inward and be incapable of talking about their pain.  There is no right or wrong way to go through this stage, only the way that is comfortable for the aggrieved.  This stage has no set time table, it can go on for weeks, months, years or in some circumstances, even a lifetime.

The third stage is the most frustrating, for it is where we mourn the loss of our mourning.  This sneaks up on us.  We realize we are no longer grieving and we yearn for the grief to return.  The grief had in some ways taken the place of the lost loved one.  We felt closer to them in our grief, but when the grief fades, we feel the loved one fading as well.  In many ways, this is the most painful of the stages of grief because it is where we must decide to actually let the loved one go and move back into the world.  It is the last goodbye.  It isn't a 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' and move on type of thing, but rather, it is an admission that life does indeed go on, as well as our submission to it.  It is also the most important stage of grief because it acknowledges life.  Death is a part of life.  We cannot deny it and we cannot ignore it.  Even though our culture certainly bends over backwards to do so.  We must acknowledge it and respect it.  

This brings me back to the actor.  Actors are often taught, or asked to use their personal history in order to tap into emotion.  People have all sorts of opinions on this approach to acting.  I say the same thing I always say, use what works for you.  But I have one caveat to that.  While the death of a loved one will bring forth tidal waves of emotions, from anger to sadness and everything in between, my advice to any actor getting back into the swing of things after grieving is this:  never, ever use the death of a loved one to fuel your performance.  Don't substitute your dead loved one for your scene partner in a death scene.  Don't substitute your dead loved one to invigorate a scene where you get to say all the things you wish you said to them.  Don't do it.  It is disrespectful to the dead, their memory and to your experience and you'll end up regretting it.  It cheapens them and the experience you went through.  The emotions are within you, you have them, you've experienced them, you are alive with them, you are a cauldron of emotion and you don't have to envision the dead or replay a bedside farewell to call up those emotions.  That memory should be sacred to you and you should treat it with the reverence it deserves.  Instead, use your imagination to call up those emotions.  If you must use this substitution technique then use your imagination and substitute someone who is still living.  I only say this because, as much as you may love acting and have dedicated your life to it, you will regret exploiting precious memories of a dead loved one for a scene in a movie, play or tv show.  It is cheap, and it will deaden those emotions and those memories that are so precious to you and you will never be able to get them back.

​​There are countless schools of thought and theories of acting.  As an acting coach, I don't try and impose my approach onto a client.  Instead, I adapt to the client's method in order to facilitate their best performance.  With that said, I would always try and avoid using such a deeply personal experience as grief to elicit an emotional reaction in a scene.  I know that there are many who would disagree with me, but I think the emotions can be called upon without the exploitation of the sacred experience of the actor, simply by using other techniques, such as the use of breath or the actor's imagination rather than their direct experience.

I have seen grief affect different actors in different ways.  I have seen actors walk away from acting because it just seems foolish to play pretend after going through a terrible loss.  I've seen actors ​find direction and focus and rededicate themselves to the craft after losing a loved one.  I've seen actors take years off from acting to try and regain their balance, and I've seen actors dive into working non-stop for years on end without a moment's break.  We all do what we can to get through it, or in some cases, to avoid it.  The truth is you can only delay grief for so long.  It always comes, and often times, the longer we delay it, the harder it hits us.

​In our everyday lives we yearn for deeper meaning, to connect to something beyond ourselves and our mundane lives.  But when grief hits us, we ache for the mundane.  We wish for nothing more than to talk about nonsense, to watch junk tv, to zone out and disconnect from the powerful river of emotion and meaning surging through us.  We desperately want to think of something else, to run from the beast devouring us, but we can't.  The beast is hungry and relentless.  Those of us who have grieved know this.  Those of you who haven't will find out soon enough, for the beast never sleeps.  My only advice to those new to grief is this:  know that life goes on, even when we don't want it to.  Also know that you aren't crazy, but the world is.  And, finally, go and read Hamlet.  You will feel less alone.

©2013

Empathy and Down's Syndrome Part Two: Recommended Viewing

A brief follow up to my last post. I want to strongly encourage you to check out a documentary titled "Curveball" by Philadelphia based director, actor and acting teacher Bryan Fox. The film follows a little league baseball team comprised of physically, mentally and emotionally challenged children.  It is a well-crafted film that I found deeply inspiring, insightful and moving.  On a personal note, I found the film to be life changing in how dramatically it altered my perspective. 

​http://www.curveballthemovie.com

And if you happen to be an actor in the Philadelphia area, you would be wise to seek out Bryan Fox as an acting teacher or coach.  He is as good as it gets.  His ability as a teacher knows no bounds, and he is just as good at acting and directing as he is at teaching and coaching.  Obviously, I hold him in high regard and urge any and all Philadelphians to take advantage of the chance to study with him.

​The final viewing recommendation is to watch this segment from the ESPN program "Outside the Lines".  It is about Garrett Holeve, a young man with Down's Syndrome and his literal and metaphorical fight.  It is a wonderful opportunity for the actor as viewer to be aware of when you are feeling sympathy as opposed to empathy with this young man and his family's choices.  As I stated in the earlier post, empathy is the much better path for the actor to take.  Here is the link to the 13 minute long video.  I highly recommend it.

​http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=9091876

Irishness, cultural memory & the curse of St. Patrick's Day

What does Irishness, cultural memory and the curse of St. Patrick's day have to do with acting? Well, let us begin with this statement: the key to great acting is specificity.  Be specific in action, intention and character and you can bring life to any part no matter how big or small. The converse is also true, generalities will suffocate any part in the crib, from Hamlet to the third extra on the right, leaving it lifeless and limp.  St. Patrick's Day is a celebration of the  generalities and dumbing down of what it means to be Irish,  and that is the 'Curse of St. Patrick's Day'.

Irish characters in film and television for decades consisted of little more than the kind hearted policeman, priest or nanny who oved to drink, sing or put up his/her dukes, all with a charmingly lovely Irish lilt to their sing song speech.  These characters had as much depth and complexity as an Irish Spring soap commercial.  This image of this rosy cheeked lad or lass has been the defining one of the Irish for the majority of time that film has existed.

St. Patrick's day celebrates this version of Irishness.  As the saying goes, 'everyone is Irish on St. Paddy's day'...yeah...well, not so much.  Wearing a green Notre Dame shirt and drinking yourself silly doesn't make you Irish, no matter what the culture at large may think.  Irishness is not an idiot puking on their "Kiss me I'm Irish" pin in the gutter, trust me.

We, the Irish, are just as much to blame as anyone for our own misrepresentation.  We Irish, and by 'Irish' I also mean Irish-Americans, embrace and celebrate our own self-destruction.  Drunkenness is not something to hang your hat on, especially when the Irish culture is rich in so many other ways. Yet we do celebrate drunkenness anyway with an uncanny pride.  Have the drunken fools chugging their green beers ever read James Joyce?  George Bernard Shaw? Samuel Beckett? William Butler Yeats?  Odds are they haven't, and would never associate Irishness with those writers, or with any intellectual endeavor.

hich brings us to the point, what is Irishness?  Irishness is deep, dark and complex. Hell, Freud once said of the Irish,  "This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever."  If you've stumped Freud you've got to be pretty complicated. So what makes the Irish so complex?  Well, Irishness is defined in part by over four hundred years of occupation by a foreign power and the helplessness, shame and anger that come with occupation.  Irishness is massacres, famines, insurgencies, civil wars, sectarian violence, hunger strikes, brutal discrimination and segregation and near cultural extermination.  In contrast, Irishness is also defined by staggeringly great works of art, intellect and spirituality.

Want to know true Irishness? Read the plays of J.M. Synge or Sean O'Casey, or read the novels of James Joyce or the poems of Yeats.  Read about the rich history of the place and it's people, from the Celts to St. Patrick and St. Brendan all the way to Michael Collins and Bobby Sands. Want to know the experience of Irishness in America?  Read or see any of Eugene O'Neill's plays, but check out "Long Days Journey Into Night" and "Moon for the Misbegotten" in particular.  Or if you just don't want to read, watch a Jim Sheridan film, try "In America" or "In the Name of the Father".  Or watch "Hunger" by director Steve McQueen or "Bloody Sunday" by Paul Greengrass.  These will teach you more of what Irishness is than any St. Patrick's Day parade or crowded Irish pub.

This brings us back to acting and specificity.  What do we as actors do f we are in a position where we are playing an Irish character?  Well, if the writer and the director both understand what true Irishness is in all its complexity, then you'll be allowed to build a rich, complex character devoid of any stereotypes or generalities. But  what should an actor do if the writer and director just wants them to be a stereotypical Irish lad or lass straight from central casting?

his is what you do, you fill the general with the specific.  You build an internal life which is as rich as the Irish and their culture and history. If you are told to play a smiling, rosy cheeked, kind hearted cop/priest/maid, use true Irishness and Irish cultural memory to make the motivation and inner life more vibrant.  For instance, use the cultural memory of four hundred years of foreign occupation that has taught the Irish to keep their true thoughts and feelings to themselves while projecting a joyous exterior to the world in order to keep their occupiers at arms length.  So the cheery cop/priest/maid with a heart of gold actually has a hidden and much more vibrant inner life with which to keep the actor and their actions alive and engaged.  If you are playing a stereotypical drunken, brawling Irishmen, tap into the fire within that character that makes the Irishmen fight to prove himself and his manhood in an attempt to break free of the cultural shame and humiliation of being a second class citizen in his own country.  If you are asked to play the stereotypical kind hearted, fun loving, witty Irishmen(or women), then feed that choice by tapping into the insecurity and low self worth of a poor, hard working people with the burning and desperate need to be loved by everyone they meet. This will help you 'raise the stakes' of your actions and be a driving force through your creation of the character.

These are just a few suggestions to get an actor to realize that there is much more than meets the eye when you have to play a stereotype.  Sadly, ore often than not, that's exactly what we are asked to play, but it is up to us to give depth, meaning and complexity to these parts.  The actors greatest challenge is to give specificity to generalized writing and direction.  Using the cultural memory and rich history of a characters nationality, religion or race is a great way to engage our imaginations and tap into different textures and colors when bringing a character to life.

So, have a happy St. Patrick's Day, but instead of wearing green and getting drunk, shake off that curse of St. Patrick's Day and go read a book by a great Irish writer, or read about Ireland's history, or go watch a film by a great Irish director or with great Irish actors.

 Now go forth and celebrate the tradition of the Irish in all its wondrous complexities.

Slan.