Why was Brooks' scene in Far Beyond the Stars overacting?
- Thread starter indolover
- Start date
- Status
I agree. It was perfect. People that criticize it thinks it is over dramatic in the context of the show. However, when is a real nervous breakdown in context with the rest of reality? You'd notice if someone was breaking down. Plus, Brooks, like Stewart, approach acting from a more theatrical standpoint, where moments are a little broader. No one criticized Stewart for overdoing "There are four lights!" When I watched this with a non-Star Trek fan he said commented on that scene in particularly, saying that it was a great bit of acting.
For a long time I've been wondering how a nervous breakdown constitutes as over-acting. Perhaps it's just a draw back of an actor "Acting" it, but then has the person being critical ever had one to know what is overacting and what isn't?
I think it was a very powerful scene and with the context, Brooks played it off well.
I think it was a very powerful scene and with the context, Brooks played it off well.
The first few words of his breakdown, "I am a human being" was enough to sum up his entire frustration and feeling.
If he had gone off about just the story from beginning to end, maybe it could be seen as overacting.
But he started off with all his frustration first and I think that made it very effective...
If he had gone off about just the story from beginning to end, maybe it could be seen as overacting.
But he started off with all his frustration first and I think that made it very effective...
I completely agree! I am always very confused by the criticism that scene gets, as I consider it one of DS9's most powerful moments!
As someone with mental health issues myself, I'd say Brooks' acting is spot on - the sheer amount of raw emotion he puts into that scene is SO powerful!
And like tomalak301, I've also been wondering how a nervous breakdown constitutes over-acting? There's a reason they call it a breakdown...
Agreed. Benny reached a point where he finally snapped--to put it bluntly--so he wasn't holding back anything, IMO, and neither did Brooks.
Agreed. I think Brooks' breakdown in FBTS (and Stewart's 'there are four lights') was a very powerful piece of acting. How do people expect a guy having a nervous breakdown (or a guy being tortured) to act?
I think it's perfect, but perhaps for a slightly different reason than has been mentioned above. Avery Brooks is a theater actor first and foremost, and what he does in this scene is the kind of thing that theater actors have to do all the time, namely perform a scene that is convincing emotionally but also a "speech" that is bigger than a particular character's emotions at one particular moment in time.
To use a commonly known example, you can't perform "To be or not to be" in a totally naturalistic manner and have it work. Yes, you can convincingly perform the emotions of an individual contemplating suicide, but you also have to make the speech work as poetry, which of course nobody really pronounces naturalistically in deep depression while thinking about putting an end to one's existence. It's a character feeling specific emotions, and at the same time it's the universal experience of any or every human being who has ever been in that position: that is what the "speech" and the poetry is attempting to capture. One human being and all human beings.
This is how Brooks approaches his breakdown in Far Beyond the Stars, and this is what makes it perfect imo: it's not just Benny Russell talking, it's every human being who has been the object of that type of prejudice. You cannot destroy an idea. That's ancient knowledge. It's Benny talking, and Sisko talking, and all their ancestors talking.
So, while I do find the scene convincing as a mental breakdown, what I enjoy most is how Brooks is able to capture the emotion while at the same time rising above that particular moment in time to make it clear that there is more going on than simply Benny Russell not being able to publish his stories. That, after all, is the whole premise of the episode: You are the dreamer and the dream.
To use a commonly known example, you can't perform "To be or not to be" in a totally naturalistic manner and have it work. Yes, you can convincingly perform the emotions of an individual contemplating suicide, but you also have to make the speech work as poetry, which of course nobody really pronounces naturalistically in deep depression while thinking about putting an end to one's existence. It's a character feeling specific emotions, and at the same time it's the universal experience of any or every human being who has ever been in that position: that is what the "speech" and the poetry is attempting to capture. One human being and all human beings.
This is how Brooks approaches his breakdown in Far Beyond the Stars, and this is what makes it perfect imo: it's not just Benny Russell talking, it's every human being who has been the object of that type of prejudice. You cannot destroy an idea. That's ancient knowledge. It's Benny talking, and Sisko talking, and all their ancestors talking.
So, while I do find the scene convincing as a mental breakdown, what I enjoy most is how Brooks is able to capture the emotion while at the same time rising above that particular moment in time to make it clear that there is more going on than simply Benny Russell not being able to publish his stories. That, after all, is the whole premise of the episode: You are the dreamer and the dream.
Nice phrasing. I was alluding to this in my post. You were simply more eloquent.
You're right, after re-reading your post I see that you were making a similar point. I must have missed it while skimming down the page initially.
I don't think it was overacting. I think there are times when maybe he has overacted (example: When he was confronting the Klingon lawyer who was prosecuting Worf), but in the case, the intensity was appropriate to the situation.
This scene, hands down is one of the most powerful pieces of acting in the entirety of Star Trek, it really highlights the depth of Brooks as an actor and shows his versatility in defining characters
Look at it this way, Benny Russell and Captain Sisko are two parts of the same person, Obviously in FBTS we're meant to see the Sisko in Russell...
In DS9's pilot episode "Emissary" we see Sisko trying to explain Linear Existence to the Bajoran Prophets, the scene in which Sisko is forced to confront his memory of Jennifer's death while the Prophets ask him "Why do you exist here?" was another one of the most powerful moments in DS9 and it was this level of acting that Brooks recaptured for FBTS
I don't know why people criticise the scene in FBTS... The entire episode is excellent, we see the entire cast at their best
Look at it this way, Benny Russell and Captain Sisko are two parts of the same person, Obviously in FBTS we're meant to see the Sisko in Russell...
In DS9's pilot episode "Emissary" we see Sisko trying to explain Linear Existence to the Bajoran Prophets, the scene in which Sisko is forced to confront his memory of Jennifer's death while the Prophets ask him "Why do you exist here?" was another one of the most powerful moments in DS9 and it was this level of acting that Brooks recaptured for FBTS
I don't know why people criticise the scene in FBTS... The entire episode is excellent, we see the entire cast at their best
You all have it entirely wrong. Read the literature. The first and last thing that goes through a person's mind when he or she is suffering a nervous breakdown is "Underplay it, old bean. Keep it subtle."
(
)
(
)
I can't let one of these thread pass without being the naysayer. I've been told a million times that it should be praised if for nothing else than the fact that it was a realistic nervous breakdown from people who have seen a nervous breakdown. I don't care. I have seen people break down crying, trembling, yelling, screaming and completely losing their shit on film, on TV, and in real life, and I have never seen that occur the way it did in "Far Beyond the Stars". It is the single worst piece of acting I have ever seen in any Star Trek series or film and I've seen them all.
I found it appallingly corny and it killed the episode for me. I like every other minute of the episode except for that scene. I can never watch it again because of that scene. It's one of those things that gives me goosebumps because it is so bad. The stuff Brooks does with his facial expressions, body language, and voice in that scene just seems so fake to me. I understand the meaning of the scene, but what Brooks did just never came across as natural to me. I was completely immersed in the episode's fictional story and world, and then all of a sudden this series of huge gestures takes place, making me feel like I'm watching an actor flailing about, making a fool of himself.
As I said in my scathing review on IMDB, it reminded me of the end of "First Blood", where Stallone's whimpering is so incomprehensible and forced, it completely ruins what should have been a moving, cathartic climax. Patrick Stewart's weary cries at the end of "Chain of Command" and any time Edward James Olmos wept on "Battlestar Galactica" were examples of scenes that I thought conveyed the same sort of emotional state much more convincingly.
I found it appallingly corny and it killed the episode for me. I like every other minute of the episode except for that scene. I can never watch it again because of that scene. It's one of those things that gives me goosebumps because it is so bad. The stuff Brooks does with his facial expressions, body language, and voice in that scene just seems so fake to me. I understand the meaning of the scene, but what Brooks did just never came across as natural to me. I was completely immersed in the episode's fictional story and world, and then all of a sudden this series of huge gestures takes place, making me feel like I'm watching an actor flailing about, making a fool of himself.
As I said in my scathing review on IMDB, it reminded me of the end of "First Blood", where Stallone's whimpering is so incomprehensible and forced, it completely ruins what should have been a moving, cathartic climax. Patrick Stewart's weary cries at the end of "Chain of Command" and any time Edward James Olmos wept on "Battlestar Galactica" were examples of scenes that I thought conveyed the same sort of emotional state much more convincingly.
Jeffrey Combs: "Avery was spectacular. There was a scene toward the end where he falls apart with the camera right in front of his nose. It was just riveting."
You don't argue with Jeff Combs. Enough said.
You don't argue with Jeff Combs. Enough said.
Well, I might, at least theoretically speaking
I agree with him here, and certainly he is more of an authority on acting than I am, but there's room for dissenting opinions. A lot of people love what Brooks did in this scene, but some people are turned off by it. So it goes. Even with my limited experience with stage acting (college and amateur productions), I know you just give your best take on a scene or on a certain emotion, and sometimes it connects with the audience, sometimes it doesn't.
Yeah, I've read all those quotes and I've seen the featurette on the DS9 DVD where all the actors praise that scene and Brooks's acting and say the episode should have won tons of awards. I respect them all as actors, but I think they were way deluded there. Just because they're clearly smart people doesn't mean they're always right. It definitely deserved technical awards (i.e. production design, direction, make-up, costuming, etc.), but not for awards for acting.
This reminds me of the producers and writers of "The Simpsons" saying stuff like, "the best is yet to come", "the show is as good as it's ever been", "there's no end in sight", and "I can see it going on for ANOTHER twenty years".
Obviously they've been brilliant in the past...the first eight seasons are proof of that. It doesn't change the fact that if they mean those statements, they're deluded. The show hasn't been consistently good since 1998, has been awful for over ten years now, and cancelling it now would be a mercy killing.
This reminds me of the producers and writers of "The Simpsons" saying stuff like, "the best is yet to come", "the show is as good as it's ever been", "there's no end in sight", and "I can see it going on for ANOTHER twenty years".
Obviously they've been brilliant in the past...the first eight seasons are proof of that. It doesn't change the fact that if they mean those statements, they're deluded. The show hasn't been consistently good since 1998, has been awful for over ten years now, and cancelling it now would be a mercy killing.
"Deluded"? No offense, Too Much Fun, but aren't you the guy who thinks "Amok Time" is a bad episode of TOS? Someone with tastes that diverge so far from the mainstream (even if it is just the mainstream of trekkies) should know that terms like "deluded" are a little absolutist and condescending when applied to matters of taste.
(And I know what it's like to have tastes that diverge from the mainstream: I love the movie Alien and loathe Aliens. I don't think the many people who prefer Cameron's film to Scott's are delusional. I just think they have lousy taste.)
There is a corny scene in the episode, btw: it's when Brock Peters' street preacher emerges from the shadow to tell Benny things are about to get bad fast and then ominously backpedals into the shadows instead of, I dunno, turning and walking away like a real human being. If that's one of the "every other minute(s)" of the episode you like, methinks the term deluded could easily be hurled in both (or all, really) directions.
EDIT: You are "right" about The Simpsons, though.
(And I know what it's like to have tastes that diverge from the mainstream: I love the movie Alien and loathe Aliens. I don't think the many people who prefer Cameron's film to Scott's are delusional. I just think they have lousy taste.)
There is a corny scene in the episode, btw: it's when Brock Peters' street preacher emerges from the shadow to tell Benny things are about to get bad fast and then ominously backpedals into the shadows instead of, I dunno, turning and walking away like a real human being. If that's one of the "every other minute(s)" of the episode you like, methinks the term deluded could easily be hurled in both (or all, really) directions.
EDIT: You are "right" about The Simpsons, though.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
