- Home
- Buzz
- Game
- Tony's Picks
- Ask Tony
- In the News
- Tony's Blog
- Video
21:35:18
clearing the eyeline
Actors on camera often have a hard time when they notice anything or anyone besides fellow actors. This is understandable, as concentration is often the most important, and difficult to achieve, of the actor’s tools.
Clearing the area behind the person or point in an actor’s field of view is usually the A.D.’s responsibility, and should be done as discretely and as often as possible, not just when asked for, but as a matter of good manners. Not many actors ask for this courtesy, and it’s often perceived as primadonna-ism—but only by those who have never tried to perform in front of cameras, lights, crew, and passersby. If you're working with an actor who is ultra-sensitive to this problem, they'll let you know it.
WARNING: THIS LINK CONTAINS GRAPHIC LANGUAGE Why you should clear the eyeline
15:35:03
Here's another dirty secret: you can turn to any page of a script and know if you're in good hands. Let's call it the “Allstate effect”. That's all that matters; are you in good hands? You know what you're in for. It's like the concept of one drop of the ocean: it contains all of the elements of the whole. And any one page of a script, like one page of a novel, contains the talent, taste and skill of its writer.
One more verboten confession: I walk out of movies. Any time they're boring or inept. Or I pause the DVD and don't go back. I've watched the first 15 minutes or half or, or whatever, of lots of movies. At some point, you know when you're in good hands or not. A lot of people treat going to a movie like it's a sacrament: you've gotta go the distance to get the blessing at the end. I've actually heard people claim they've never walked out of a film...as if their heavenly reward depended upon it.
Have you ever noticed that bad movies, bad music, bad poetry, never get better? A movie might start out leisurely, or calmly or quietly...but not badly...and gain momentum, recover, engross. But I don't cut it slack for long. I think a bad movie is bad for the soul; corruptive; depressive. And I'm not talking about subject matter; I'm talking about execution; talent; taste; effect. It's more than a waste of time...although what could be worse to waste?
11:39:06
Nope.
Oh, wait...I forgot; there is: it's speculating about why someone will or did win one. The idea that the Academy membership is making a statement, or that there's a secret reason someone will win; an ulterior motive. This is usually couched in a phrase like “The Academy sent a message” or some such nonsense. Okay, now and then there's a sentimental favorite, or a kind of make-up award given to someone who's lost out too many times, someone who's dying; someone who's been up to bat too many times to strike out one more time. But, it's an election, folks. That's how elections function.
Look at it this way:
There are roughly 6,000 members in the Academy. We're virtually never in the same room at the same time...and when we are, it's only a few hundred of us at some screening. Academy screenings aren't like going to your local movie theatre. You have to get there in time to stake out a good seat, and that's where you pretty much stay. Maybe you chat with a neighbor or two or three. True, you might talk about the movies you've seen and liked. But in all the 35 years I've belonged, I've never asked a member how they're going to vote, nor have I been asked.
Consider the odds. Once the nominations are in (5 in most categories), the numbers are pretty daunting. Assume a perfect split of votes - that's 20% (about 1200) per candidate. That's the minimum amount of votes it takes to win. That's a lot of people to influence, especially if you need - as the conspiratorialists would have it – to persuade someone to vote against their better instincts or personal preference. Why - to say nothing of how - would anyone do that?
Now the Golden Globes are another matter. With a mere 85 members, and assuming the same perfect split among the members, all it takes is 18 votes to select a winner. Okay, so maybe I'm positing a very unlikely, perfect split; let's go the other way: say that fully half the membership votes for 4 of the candidates. That leaves a landslide victory of only 43 votes to crown the winner. 43 journalists...not professional actors/directors/writers/producers, etc. All of whom know each other very well and see each other often.
Hmmm. It's kind of boring to look at it that way, too, isn't it?
16:06:29
When I first set foot on a sound stage, just two months out of college, I was struck by the strange language that everyone was speaking. I didn't let on that I didn't understand it, but I paid particular attention to it and did my best to figure it out before anyone realized how clueless I was. Fortunately, I was so obviously inexperienced - and the crew and director, Bud Yorkin, were all so considerate - that it didn't take long before I started to understand the chatter surrounding me. Grips went out of their way to keep me from getting in their way. The camera crew took the time to show me some of the basic rules of their road. And Bud Yorkin kept me from embarassing myself in front of one of the biggest stars in the world, Frank Sinatra and one of the greatest actors in America, Lee J. Cobb. That was the beginning of my fascination with the subject of MOVIE SPEAK...a title that doesn't quite capture what I hope the book does.
I'm still learning. And I hope readers will feel free to add to my knowledge and to the list of words, phrases and manners that have thrived for so long in our work...as well as correcting any mistakes. It's largely an oral history; there's never been, as far as I have been able to determine, a book about the etymology of the language. In effect, my research has been my profession: over 45 years of on-set listening and asking...and reading obscure books, looking for hidden nuggets of movie-lore and language.
I look forward to hearing from you. Just leave me a buzz and don't forget to play my game...MovieSpeak game that is :-)
