A character with a visor was a mistake
- Thread starter You_Will_Fail
- Start date
Exactly.
Geordi wouldn't have been the same character without his disability. One of his challenges was to lead a productive and satisfying life despite his blindness. Lavar Burton's challenge was to portray Geordi effectively despite the visor. I'd say they both succeeded quite well.
Stage actors can't rely or even count on their eyes to sell emotions because only the front rows are close enough to read them. They must count a lot more on overall facial expressions and body language to sell the emotions.
And since this is Star Trek let's talk about Spock, whose expression and eyes very seldom convey anything except where he's looking and some intensity. Nimoy himself pointed out that he eventually realized that he was conveying Spock's emotions through everything but his face...like swallowing when the Captain was in trouble, etc.
If the OP finds the VISOR a barrier to connecting with Burton's performance, that's understandable, but let's not go so overboard as to say that it's an impediment to a good actor's ability to connect with an audience.
And since this is Star Trek let's talk about Spock, whose expression and eyes very seldom convey anything except where he's looking and some intensity. Nimoy himself pointed out that he eventually realized that he was conveying Spock's emotions through everything but his face...like swallowing when the Captain was in trouble, etc.
If the OP finds the VISOR a barrier to connecting with Burton's performance, that's understandable, but let's not go so overboard as to say that it's an impediment to a good actor's ability to connect with an audience.
Except that "opinion" is also pretty much held by everyone involved in the acting business, doesn't that say something?
Because they were clearly more interested in conveying a "disabled character with a sci-fi twist" than thinking about how that character will connect with the audience. And we're hardly talking Oscar-worthy producers here anyway.
That's why "stagey" acting is not suited to TV/film.
Except I don't think it is going overboard at all. I generally feel that having obscured eyes is a huge impediment to connecting with an actor or a person in general.
True, but do you have difficulty identifying and connecting with characters in plays when you're not seated in the front row?
Which brings us back to asking you how you connect with real-world blind people who wear dark sunglasses? Ray Charles, how do you connect with him and his joy as he played his music?
People have also pointed out that there are other ways to connect with people other than their eyes and that eyes are not the end-all, be-all way to do it. People have also pointed out to have no problems connecting with Geordi with his VISOR.
It's not going overboard to to think having obscured eyes is in impediment, it indeed is. Which, well, was the fucking point! It's something blind people have to live with every day, hell people with a glass-eye may have a hard time "connecting" with people as some may find it hard to look them in the eye(s). The point with Geordi was to connect with him through the VISOR.
People admit that eyes are important in conveying a performance and in connecting with a character, people have also said it's not the only way to do it. But you're here acting like it's eyes or nothing at all.
I agree, the producers of TNG weren't worthy of an Oscar. Not due to any lack of ability or skill on their part but due to the fact the Oscars are reserved for movies and not TV shows. But the programs that award work in television saw it fit to nominate or award TNG numerous times.
If people are saying they're freaked out by my apparent "obsession" with eyes. I'm ten times more freaked out by the inability of so many people here to grasp how important they are in acting. It baffles me that people are talking in such clinical terms about certain muscles in the face expressing certai emotions...its like they can't tell the difference between appearing to an express an emotion by moving the appropriate muscles and actually being believable and SELLING that emotion by committing fully by not only doing the simple things (facial muscle movement) but also by using their eyes.
It actually worries me that so many people here would probably be completely unable to ascertain whether someone is faking their emotions because they're only looking at the basic things. "Oh his mouth is curled up! He must be happy". "Oh he's gritting his teeth, he's angry!". If that's all that was needed for an actor to fully sell the emotion they're meant to be displaying, Garret Wang would have won a frickin oscar by now
Already a play has a disadvantage anyway by the very fact that its so clearly not happening as its all on a stage in front of me. Film offers the illusion of reality as well as much more intimate portrays of characters, so I can definitely connect much deeper with a character on film than one in a play.
Music is music, emotion in music is expressed through the notes and the voice. Regarding people wearing sunglasses, blind or not, I don't think I would as quickly connect with them as I would with someone who has visible and expressive eyes. I've said it before but eyes are called the windows to the soul for a reason. Eye contact is important, and it seems absurd to me to suggest that you could connect as well to someone who completely avoids eye contact with you, as you could to someone who engages you eye to eye as you interact and talk to eachother.
Because some people here frankly seem to have very limited emotional intelligence to be quite honest, perhaps its a common trait in many sci-fi fans and goes hand in hand with lesser social skills, I don't know. Just look at Zar's post
That's frankly not normal as I see it. He fails to grasp that the eyes do actually express emotion and there's something intangible about them that can't be explained by isolating individual muscles and how they move. Frankly his way of thinking is completely alien to me and definitely at odds with the common consensus in acting.
I don't know what thread you've been reading, but I thought I was starting a fairly innocent thread expressing the extremely reasonable point of view that having a character with obscured eyes was a mistake, since eyes are so important in connecting people as well as expressing emotion. And the responses I got seemed to say I was crazy for even suggesting that eyes were that important in either inter-personal connection or acting.
Eyes are not the be-all and end-all of acting, but I firmly believe they are by far and away the most important tool an actor has to convey emotions with DEPTH (not just mimic emotions shallowly) and I share that opinion I'm sure with pretty much everyone in the business.
Rene Auberjonois is the perfect example of this, he spoke volumes with his eyes and was capable of expressing emotions far more deeply and convincingly than Burton ever would have been able to with his eyes obscured by that metal hairband.
This^
It was apparent to me that he specifically would be challenged by such a character condition, having relied so heavily on eye expressiveness until then
Frankly, I find it to be somewhat of a tendency on the show, given that they chose a comedic actor to play completely emotionless as an android. Unfair to say either of those decisions were a mistake, considering how well it worked & how much it highlighted the versatility of those two actors
Well, I've come to the conclusion, gentlemen, that we're all clueless, drooling, idiots who don't know anything about connecting with other human beings. We've no idea what we are talking about.
Thank the Makers that we've got this enlightened and intelligent gentleman in You_Will_Fail to show us the light.
Teach us and guide us, friend.
Show us the true ways of connecting with people. Let us be the flock to your shepherd.
We were once lost but now we can find the path of realism and begin to see this man on this show from 25 years ago as an emotionless blank slate who we can have no connection to.
Let us see him as the blank sheet that he is. Teach us to judge people only on their eyes and the depths within them and how we've been wrong woe these many years.
Thank the Makers that we've got this enlightened and intelligent gentleman in You_Will_Fail to show us the light.
Teach us and guide us, friend.
Show us the true ways of connecting with people. Let us be the flock to your shepherd.
We were once lost but now we can find the path of realism and begin to see this man on this show from 25 years ago as an emotionless blank slate who we can have no connection to.
Let us see him as the blank sheet that he is. Teach us to judge people only on their eyes and the depths within them and how we've been wrong woe these many years.
Well yeah, fact of the matter is, if you do say that eyes are not the most important tool in acting, expressing emotion or connecting with someone then you ARE categorically wrong. Its as simple as that.
Incorrect. The voice is the most expressive tool of an actor, in every type of acting but pantomime. If such weren't the case, then voice acting would never had existed on radio or in narration. You don't even need to see them to get their acting performance
Just ask James Earl Jones or Morgan Freeman which they value more. Their entire career success is rooted in their speech
No. Don't listen to him.
Teach us your wisdom You_Will_Fail!
Teach us your wisdom You_Will_Fail!
Face facts that if you don't agree that the eyes are by far and away the most important tool in acting, then you're in the minority.
http://movies.about.com/od/theadventuresoftintin/a/steven-spielberg-peter-jackson-interview.htm
Peter Jackson:: "Well, when you’re casting a movie and when you’re shooting a film, the eyes are the most important feature of any performer, really. I mean, any great actor literally knows exactly how to use their eyes, and even as a filmmaker I love shooting huge close-ups because it's those eyes that mean so much to me.
http://www.ace-your-audition.com/auditions-for-film.html
In fact, when the camera is rolling, only you and your scene partner exist. Everyone else disappears. The crew, the director, the producer, the camera man, everyone. They all disappear.
How do you, the actor, accomplish this? You hang on to your scene partner's eyes. The most important facial feature on film. (After all, the eye is the window to the soul.)
http://www.baronbrown.com/actingmanual.html
Using the Eyes
Just as the moment of reaction is the most important feature in film acting, the eyes are the most important organ of response. With this in mind, the actor can have a sense of using their eyes effectively. By the same token, lapses in concentration are most profoundly reflected in the eyes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/movies/awardsseason/rooney-mara-and-meryl-streep-on-preparing-for-their-roles.html?pagewanted=all
But it was remembering where not to look, she said in a recent phone interview, that proved one of the biggest challenges. “It was really hard,” she said, “because listening is the most important part of acting, and a lot of people listen through eye contact. You always feel like you weren’t giving enough to the other person. It definitely took some time to get used to that.”
http://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainmenttags/bollywood/actors-expressive-eyes-and-without
Eyes are a lethal weapon in the armoury of actors. Those who don’t know how to — or refuse to — act with their eyes end up delivering mediocre to lousy performances
http://ezinearticles.com/?Eye-Acting---Clarifying-Inner-Thoughts-and-Feelings&id=6841577
In film and television, the eyes are the main focal point of the audience. More than any other facet of acting, they determine the internal workings of the character. They also determine the target of intentions and feelings. In addition, they help define the mental state of the character.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6841577
---
It has to be said that some of you are just flat out CLUELESS about acting or what makes a good performance. But what does Peter Jackson know anyway? He's just a hack compared to the industry experts Trekker4747 and Mojochi
By no definition is it an "agenda". Sometimes you just have to call people out for being straight up wrong and stop trying to convince them. I've proven ample evidence that the eyes are considered the most important feature in an actor. Its fine if you feel that you connected with Geordi despite his obscured eyes, but pretending like eyes don't express emotions or that eyes are not an actor's most important tool is actually just ignorant and downright incorrect. Anyone who thinks that has an opinion that is completely at odds with the consensus in the dramatic community and needs to recognize that.
I'm fed up of trying to convince people of commonly accepted facts regarding emotional connection and acting, its like I'm in the frikkin Twilight zone here. So I thought I'd just lay it out pure and simple.
I'm fed up of trying to convince people of commonly accepted facts regarding emotional connection and acting, its like I'm in the frikkin Twilight zone here. So I thought I'd just lay it out pure and simple.
Peter Jackson is not an actor. He's a movie director. Movies being a dramatic format which show people on a screen. Therefore he speaks within the context of his medium
I never said eyes were unimportant. All the body is important, for an actor on stage or screen. However, every emotion or reaction can be done with the voice alone, & has been done as such for generations. It begins with the way you speak, & everything else is a "Sell" just like Levar Burton spoke about in relation to his character.
I am a voice actor. No one ever sees my eyes, & that's good because they're kind of squinty, & don't "Sell" well on camera, but I can still act
You are familiar with the word ACT, in this context, right? To behave, represent, or feign with one's person. How better to do that than to spout it from your damn lips?
I never said eyes were unimportant. All the body is important, for an actor on stage or screen. However, every emotion or reaction can be done with the voice alone, & has been done as such for generations. It begins with the way you speak, & everything else is a "Sell" just like Levar Burton spoke about in relation to his character.
I am a voice actor. No one ever sees my eyes, & that's good because they're kind of squinty, & don't "Sell" well on camera, but I can still act
You are familiar with the word ACT, in this context, right? To behave, represent, or feign with one's person. How better to do that than to spout it from your damn lips?
You are so absolutely clueless, it hurts.
Its an accepted fact that the eyes are the most important feature in DRAMATIC ACTING (who the hell said anything about "voice acting"). Holy shit, how can someone be so obtuse.
EDIT- And are you trolling or WHAT? Ever heard of a Silent Movie? Jesus Christ...
Its an accepted fact that the eyes are the most important feature in DRAMATIC ACTING (who the hell said anything about "voice acting"). Holy shit, how can someone be so obtuse.
EDIT- And are you trolling or WHAT? Ever heard of a Silent Movie? Jesus Christ...
Make up what other people were arguing? Agenda. Those are the facts. You're just pissed that your opinion of Geordi in a visor being a "mistake" wasn't met with ovewhelming support (quite the opposite). The voice-actor argument is compelling one. As is the one regarding live stage productions. And you accuse others of being ignorant.
No it isn't, its ridiculous. I'm talking about actual dramatic TV/film acting. "The Artist" just won best picture and we're talking about how the voice is the important feature of an actor!? LOL WHAT?
So by that logic you could have an actor "act" his way through a movie with completely soulless, blank, dead eyes but as long as his voice is animated, his performance could be lauded. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.
