ROMANTIC INTERLEWD

This was done really quick and dirty, just for fun. It's a minute and forty seconds long.

Boy, how did I ever get along without an isight camera?

A PORTFOLIO PIECE FOR A DRAMATIC ACTOR

Here's (above) what they call an "Actor Demo Reel." YouTube is full of them. The Hank Harris example I used here is far better than most and yet it still disappoints on some level, (actually, the first example on the reel isn't so bad) and I was curious
to understand why.

The answer it seems to me is that Harris geared himself up to play the kind of "post-modern" roles that TV offers now. Post-modern man perceives himself as a statistic, a victim, a cork on the waves of social and psychological forces. That's so different than the way people perceived themselves in the golden age of fiction when it was believed that man possessed free will and was on the Earth to undergo a trial, and when people still believed in good and evil.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhoaSrrA6YQ


But it also has to do with tapping into weird, supernatural forces. Harris is always believable and appealing in the parts he plays in the demo, but is that all there is? Didn't Margaret Hamilton transcend "believable and appealing" when she played the Wicked Witch of the West in "The Wizard of Oz?" Wasn't Peter Lorre more than simply scary and convincing in "Stranger on the Third Floor?" How about Garbo in "Grand Hotel?" It seems to me that it's an actor's job to bring to the project a pre-existing character of great power and iconic significance.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoyEHyB4MnQ&feature=related


Then there's technique. It seems to me that a good actor lays down a tone and a rhythm that other actors can bounce off of. Actors playing a scene are like musicians in a jazz combo. They're laboring to create sounds that combine into a beautiful, satisfying whole. In my opinion you can learn more about this from the great character and supporting actors than from the stars.

I admit that I don't know anything about dramatic acting. If I did I'd probably have a lot more respect for what Harris did in the demo.


NOTE: In order to publish this post I had to delete my two previous ones dealing with solo dancing and Jim's sense of film. I started this post before I began the others (then saved what I'd done as a draft) and now, when I try to publish it, it will only post beneath the others where it won't be seen. The only thing I could do was to delete the top posts. My deepest apologies to commenters on the two deleted posts.

"THE LATE-NIGHT INTRUDER"

Wow! Here's the video I did with Jim Arnold, the amazing guy who did the YouTube video I posted about called "Robber's Apprentice." We never actually met, this whole video was done via emails and shared Quicktime footage. What an age we live in!

Next time I'll put up some of Jim's raw footage. You won't believe how skilled this guy is!

BTW, the video might look compressed on some computers. I don't know why that happened, but if you click on it the right way it should take you to YouTube where you can see it in a normal format. If you hear two soundtracks at once just ...well, just fiddle with it. it'll turn out OK.

RUBE GOLDBERG: GENIUS (PART 3)

Just fooling around on the net I found myself once again immersed in the bottomless well of creativity called Rube Goldberg. Forget the mature Goldberg who did all the invention drawings; I'm interested in the young artist who did his best work before 1925.

Twins are funny and two twins getting hit on the head at the same time (above) are funnier still. Nobody in Goldber's universe stays in center screen very long. The world around funny people is funny too.  Weird people are always passing in the foreground and background.

Goldberg's generation knew that  suits with tails (above) are funny.  Even normal business suit jackets had a high, tight-fitting waist line that flaired out below the waist and had a big center cut in the back...perfect for interesting back shots.

Nobody in Goldberg's strips looked dignified from the back.

Goldberg was fond of kibbitzers who stood around commenting on other people (above). Sometimes a ridiculous number of kibbitzers and loafers would show up.  They'd lean against walls, help themselves to your chewing tobacco, and argue with each other, all the time making sarcastic comments about you.

Notice the twins at the window.  Twins with beards are God's gift to cartoonists.

   

The Olive Oyl head (above) is a great template for funny characters of both sexes. I love little, beady eyes on a ball with a low nose and mouth. Goldberg correctly adds to the effect by giving men suit jackets made with Cliff Sterret-type drapery patterns.

This (above) is from my favorite Goldberg period. He seemed incapable of doing a drawing that was less than hilarious. Nobody in the Goldberg world of that time fit the chairs and vehicles they used. Even their clothes didn't fit. People were always out of sync with their enviornment but they were all so obsessed with what they were doing that they didn't seem to notice. 

Goldberg eventually did more normal kinds of strips like the one above, but you get the feeling that he considered them to be a burden.

I wonder if he was influenced by the plague that overtook silent live-action comedies in this period. Even before the invention of sound films the studios began to show disdain for gag shorts. They increasingly turned out comedies that told a story and more or less followed the rules of dramatic story telling.  Why the studios chose to commit comedic suicide is beyond my understanding.

SOME LEFT-OVER PICTURES

I just threw away a lot of unpublished pictures I've been saving, mostly ones from old photo essays. Here's a few that I decided to keep.

Here's (above) Uriah Heep or maybe Ichabod Crane.



The Farm Hand Too Often Kicked by Mules (above).



The Romance Reader (above).


The Nudist (above).


Cowboy Bob (above).

The Critic (above).





The Evil Puppet (above).


The Smoker (above).

THE HORRIFIC STORY BEHIND "THE ROMANCE READER"

I was disappointed to see that Theory Cornerites didn't seem to like "The Romance Reader", but, truth to tell, I didn't really like it much myself. I didn't exactly dislike it, but it just didn't grab me. I spent half the day worrying about this and I thought I'd share what I came up with.

Well, there were lots of flaws in the execution, but that's inevitable when you blog frequently. No, the thing that really bugged me was that my facial expressions were beginning to be repetitious. Close repeated expressions are fine but you have to earn them by doing whole-body stuff. Videos that are all expressions are like a cake that's all icing. It's just too much! Aaaargh! A painful lesson, but a necessary one. I'll see what I can do about it. I can't stop making videos in front of the computer because it's too much fun, but I'll try to widen the repertoire.






Talking about lessons learned, I thought you might be interested to know the painful, horrific story about the making of the romance film. Brace yourself, it's not for the squeamish.

My original idea was for a sketch about a romance reader who compulsively eats liquid-filled chocolates while she's reading. She's so absorbed in the book that she doesn't notice how sticky she's getting till it's too late. She tries to wipe off the goo and only succeeds in spreading the stickiness to her face and hair, the book...everything. Her hair sticks to the book and it begins disintegrate as she tries to peal apart the sticky pages. As the song ends we see her dirty and dishevelled and covered with sticky, raggedy kleenexes and book pages, but amazingly she's still absorbed in the story! I was really happy. It seemed like a fun idea.



Well, little did I know that it was the idea from hell. Those liquidy chocolates you saw in the video were real, and they really were sticky. I mean REALLY, REALLY sticky...sticky as in made with equal parts of super glue and molasses! I got 15 for a dollar and I wondered how the store could afford to sell them so cheap. Now I know. They destroy every room that they're in, and you have to spend forever in the shower to get the stuff off. The keyboard I'm typing this on is still sticking to my fingers. Half the things on my desk are still stuck together, and there are stains on my carpet that just won't go away. Those chocolates were nasty!!!!!!

(I'd be curious to know what happened to these destructive chocolates after I threw them in the trash. Maybe the curse continued with a new set of people, like in Stevenson's "The Bottle Imp.")

Now you see the problem. I started filming and was amazed to find that the chocolates from hell really were as bad as I was portraying them. I had to keep turning off the computer when I realized the stuff was oozing onto the floor and all over my pants (sorry to disappoint but I had guy clothes on under the old lady gown). I accidentally spilled and stepped on the chocolates and that led to no end of problems. Finally I had to stop filming and tack on a phony ending just to finish it.

Now, I know what you're thinking...that I'm a wimp because a real actor would have allowed everything to get covered with goo for the sake of the film. If you write me a comment with that idealistic opinion, I hope you'll accompany it with a check for my carpet cleaning.

Anyway, now you know the saga of the romance story. I learned a lot in the making of this video, mostly about coming up with ideas that are actually do-able.

THE ROMANCE READER

I'm posting this for Forgettable, the genius who did "Robber's Apprentice," which I posted about last week. We're doing a YouTube video together and I thought he'd need to see the type of character I was thinking of doing.

There are a lot of flaws in this video, but it was a great learning experience and I wouldn't have missed it for the world!