Friday, October 19, 2012
An exclusive clip of Ridley Scott terrorizing the hell out of the Prometheus crew
io9.com: Watch Ridley Scott go old school and just scare the heck out of his actors in attempt to capture genuine fear on film. We've got an exclusive behind-the-scenes look at the director's efforts to shock actress Kate Dickie, who played Ford, the ship's doctor.
It's both diabolical and wonderful at the same time. Say what you will about the plot of Prometheus — the practical sets, creatures, and landscapes were astounding. And it's pretty great to see a big-time director going back the basic "scare the shit out of the actor and catch it on film" trick. No need for green screen, just shoot a giant Hammerpede out of a dummy's mouth. Magic!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Nothing like genuine fear to illicit a realistic response out of your actors. But then, isn't that kind of cheating? I mean, of course directors want to get their movies to seem as believable as possible, and I applaud him for his creativity and success at pulling off both a good plan and an enjoyable practical joke. But what's the point in being called an actor if you're not going to actually act? Shouldn't someone who is being paid to pretend... Be able to pretend? Why couldn't the actress pull off a look of genuine fear without being terrified in reality? Although this is an enjoyable video clip, it brings up some interesting questions about the true nature of "actors."
I agree with Emma on this one. However, I think this is a little more pathetic on the director's side of the scheme. Although the video was enjoyable and a little bit funny, I couldn't help but think about how I would feel if I was the actress who was in the dark about the gross thing flying at me in the middle of a scene. First, I would feel a little bit betrayed and uncomfortable. As an actor, it is important to feel as if you are working in a safe environment. How could you feel safe if your director is hiding things from you? I would also feel a little bit offended, as if my director did not think I had it in me to show genuine fear. Yes, there may be nothing like genuine fear, but I think there are certainly better and safer ways to bring about emotions in an actor than to hide things from them behind the scenes.
That is terrible and wonderful at the same time. To get the snake thing to pop out of the mouth is really disgusting and shocking and now we will be able to see a realistic response to that. Scott is not the only director that challenges actors in a "realistic" way. Cianfrance also used a similar way of directing some scenes in "Blue Valentine". He told one of the actors a piece of information but no one told the other actor. 1000 takes later, Ryan Gosling finally got the information that he needed from Michelle Williams. I think that practices like that add another dimension for the actors. It can be really helpful and if a director wants to give them that time or has that time. So, it might be fruitful to go ahead with that type of directing.
Alfred Hitchcock, one of the most prolific directors in film once said, "These are bagpipes. I understand the inventor of the bagpipes was inspired when he saw a man carrying an indignant, asthmatic pig under his arm. Unfortunately, the man-made sound never equaled the purity of the sound achieved by the pig."
Hitchcock acknowledges that the recreation of something isn't as successful or 'pure' as the original or natural occurrence; whether it be an asthmatic pig or scared actor. A concept that Ridley Scott also understands judging by his choice to evoke genuine fear in this shot. It's the same reason that unscripted scenes occasionally make it into the final cut of films, the reactions and emotions are of such a vastly different caliber that the means justify the end. It's not to say that the actor is incapable of 'acting' but rather true emotion can't be taught.
This is quite facsinating. Normally when reading the various comments, I tend to side with one point of view or the other. However, I am honestly tied on this issue. Because yes, I do feel that actor's are getting paid to act, however there is something to be said for raw footage. My question is, what if during that take the actors in the scene said or did something out of character or even out of the world being created? I know another take would have to have been taken. And in that take, would it have been the same? It would have been interesting to know if they did this take again. (5)
I think that genuine fear captured on film is a very good way to get the audience to respond to the scene. However, I agree with what everyone seems to be saying about the poor actress. If I were her I'd be a little upset about the fact that my director didn't have enough faith in me to let me act the part. I also think that is doesn't matter how great an actor is; nothing can beat the actual emotion and directors everywhere should be prepared to do this if they ever have to work with Kristen Stewart. (That girl NEVER shows emotion).
For some reason I find this hysterical. I love the genuine reaction the actor gives. Although this is the most genuine form of acting (none at all), it seems like if you wanted to do this style for every shot there would be no point in hiring real actors at all.
If not exactly ethical, this is pretty freaking funny. I don't see why not to do this, I mean the actors were probably really happy about it because they didn't have to fake fear and the director got what he wanted. Everyone won. But the real moral of this story is that really nothing could save Prometheus it was one of the worst made movies I have ever seen, so even tricks on the actors could not have saved this cheap, boring, stupid imitation for Alien.
Post a Comment