I don't need to see your eyes to know I'm arguing with a jerk.
A character with a visor was a mistake
- Thread starter You_Will_Fail
- Start date
First of all, I don't really appreciate being psychoanalyzed based on an opinion about eyes. Secondly, my statement is patently true: eyes are physically incapable of doing anything visual but rolling around in the socket, dilating and contracting; everything else you attribute to "the eyes" is in the surrounding parts of the face.
I never said that I could "explain by isolating individual muscles". The fact that the process of identifying expressions of emotion is "intangible" or hard to articulate doesn't change the underlying fact that all expressions, no matter how subtle, are caused by moving muscles.
Your quotes from directors and so forth about "the eyes", again, are not just in reference to eyeballs themselves, but to that area of the face. Only some of the parts we associate with eyes are blocked by Geordi's visor. It's very rare that an emotion would be expressed exclusively within that area, so by seeing the unobstructed areas we can infer what is happening beneath the visor as well.
Yay, absolutely meaningless bullcrap. Peter Jackson is an oscar-winning director, I'd take his opinion more seriously over an alleged voice actor who has apparently never heard of Silent films any day of the week.
I don't think I have anything more to say on the matter.
The fact of the matter is that the eyes are by far and away considered the most important feature of an actor with which they can connect emotionally with the viewer and express emotions with depth. As far as the world of acting is concerned, that is FACT not opinion.
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.
Peter Jackson's Opinion >>>>>>>> Anyone else's opinions here. Just accept that most of you don't know crap about acting and move on with your lives...jeez.
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
Voice acting can be dramatic acting dumbass, & I prefaced my statements by saying that pantomime is the only exception. Go back and read it
Basically, one film in the last 80 years is what your basing your entire position on. The art of acting has existed for hundreds, maybe thousands of years, & silent pantomime is but a small portion of it, smaller even than voice acting
Silent films are a brilliant medium, but the main reason they went away, is because reality isn't silent dipshit. In life, we convey ourselves the most with what we say & how we say it, & primarily art imitates life
Want proof? NOW I'M MORE INTENSE! SEE MY EYES? FUCK NO! That's because I'm saying it with words on a screen.... as my voice, but I imagine you got the message & intent anyhow
So, You Will Fail, are you suggesting that blind people should never be portrayed on the screen? That would seem to be the direction you're heading in.
BTW, some of us who love live theater get just as wrapped up in the "reality" of it as you do with movies/TV. Yes, I am aware that I am sitting in a theater, watching people on a stage. But no more so than at the movies, where I am aware that I am sitting in a theater, watching people on a big screen.
BTW, some of us who love live theater get just as wrapped up in the "reality" of it as you do with movies/TV. Yes, I am aware that I am sitting in a theater, watching people on a stage. But no more so than at the movies, where I am aware that I am sitting in a theater, watching people on a big screen.
"Getting the message" is hardly the same as being emotionally affected and connected to a character in a dramatic presentation
The fact remains that the eyes are considered the most important feature in dramatic acting in Film and TV. I've provided plenty of evidence to support this and I'm sure there's TONS more out there. If you can find an oscar winning director or actor saying that the voice is the most important feature when acting in a dramatic role, then I will eat every hat I own.
It's an important thing but it's not the only damn thing!
I had no problem whatsoever connecting with Geordi or reading his emotions even though I couldn't see his eyes I found other ways to connect with him as I do with anyone else I see or encounter whose eyes I cannot see.
Peter Jackson is also one director and film-maker out of the hundreds there are and have been over the course of making film. Eyes are important, sure, but it's not the only damn thing that makes acting and connecting with a person viable.
I mean, fuck, my heart is pretty important to my life but it'd be nothing without my kidney, liver, digestive system and brain. All play a role. Yes, none of them would work without the heart but without all of it the heart's purpose is meaningless.
To go along with your rant do you think an entire movie would work where you just see the actors' eyes. Just all eyes, eyes, eyes, eys. Like in "Charlie X" only everything is black except for the light around the eyes. Do you think that'd be an effective way for the characters to tell the story and sell their emotions?
You're being narrow-minded and focusing on one aspect and acting like we're all idiots for not agreeing with you.
Well, sorry, I didn't think the VISOR hindered Geordi/Burton in anyway as I was perfectly capable of connecting with him in spite of not seeing his eyes, keep in mind there's only so much you can do with that ball of goo in your ocular cavity. Most of the expression in the eyes is going to come from the lids, the brow, etc. Which Geordi can display. That was the point. To connect with him in spite of not seeing his eyes!
The eyes are not the only thing a person has to act with!
It's an important thing but not the ONLY thing.
But, go ahead, keep insulting everyone's ability to judge characters and actors and thinking you are the best and brightest person of them all and we're all just drooling morons incapable of seeing this major flaw in a character.
I ask you again what is more likely here that ALL of us are wrong and the one person, YOU, are right or that your are mistaken and laying too much importance on one small thing on an actor's ability to perform and there's more to the whole than just the eyes?
But, go ahead, keep living up to your name.
I had no problem whatsoever connecting with Geordi or reading his emotions even though I couldn't see his eyes I found other ways to connect with him as I do with anyone else I see or encounter whose eyes I cannot see.
Peter Jackson is also one director and film-maker out of the hundreds there are and have been over the course of making film. Eyes are important, sure, but it's not the only damn thing that makes acting and connecting with a person viable.
I mean, fuck, my heart is pretty important to my life but it'd be nothing without my kidney, liver, digestive system and brain. All play a role. Yes, none of them would work without the heart but without all of it the heart's purpose is meaningless.
To go along with your rant do you think an entire movie would work where you just see the actors' eyes. Just all eyes, eyes, eyes, eys. Like in "Charlie X" only everything is black except for the light around the eyes. Do you think that'd be an effective way for the characters to tell the story and sell their emotions?
You're being narrow-minded and focusing on one aspect and acting like we're all idiots for not agreeing with you.
Well, sorry, I didn't think the VISOR hindered Geordi/Burton in anyway as I was perfectly capable of connecting with him in spite of not seeing his eyes, keep in mind there's only so much you can do with that ball of goo in your ocular cavity. Most of the expression in the eyes is going to come from the lids, the brow, etc. Which Geordi can display. That was the point. To connect with him in spite of not seeing his eyes!
The eyes are not the only thing a person has to act with!
It's an important thing but not the ONLY thing.
But, go ahead, keep insulting everyone's ability to judge characters and actors and thinking you are the best and brightest person of them all and we're all just drooling morons incapable of seeing this major flaw in a character.
I ask you again what is more likely here that ALL of us are wrong and the one person, YOU, are right or that your are mistaken and laying too much importance on one small thing on an actor's ability to perform and there's more to the whole than just the eyes?
But, go ahead, keep living up to your name.
Most of what you supplied was either just reflecting on the importance of eyes, & not as the most important factor, artists exaggerating or waxing poetic, or just how their impact on screen acting is more heightened than in prior forms of acting, which is true
Here's some evidence to consider. Movie director Orson Welles accidentally mislead a portion of the U.S. population to believe they were actually under an alien attack, from listening to his radio broadcast
Since we use voices in film, then they must reflect in some way how we use them in reality, which is as the most important tool for conveying ourselves. Therefore, it's a logical conclusion that it must stand as such in the art reflecting it
I'll sum it up for you in one sentence, before I drop this & get some sleep
Our eyes may very well be the "windows to the soul", but our voices are.......... the goddamn door.
Don't believe me? Try being married, & not speaking up "But I was telling you with my eyes, Honey!"
Nighty nite
Here's some evidence to consider. Movie director Orson Welles accidentally mislead a portion of the U.S. population to believe they were actually under an alien attack, from listening to his radio broadcast
Since we use voices in film, then they must reflect in some way how we use them in reality, which is as the most important tool for conveying ourselves. Therefore, it's a logical conclusion that it must stand as such in the art reflecting it
I'll sum it up for you in one sentence, before I drop this & get some sleep
Our eyes may very well be the "windows to the soul", but our voices are.......... the goddamn door.
Don't believe me? Try being married, & not speaking up "But I was telling you with my eyes, Honey!"
Nighty nite
For God's sake, can you stop accusing me of saying only the eyes matter and nothing else. I'm just trying to prove that the eyes are considered the MOST important feature of an actor and that that opinion is actually the most commonly held one.
I happened to get that quote from Peter Jackson because of a recent interview re: TinTin and The Uncanny Valley (another expression of just how important eyes are in a movie). It doesn't mean he's the only director who thinks the eyes are the most important thing in an acting performance, I would wager the vast majority feel that way too.
Look as I said, if you can find an oscar winning director or actor who actually thinks that the voice is the most important feature of an actor when it comes to CONVEYING EMOTION (not information a la the Orson Welles broadcast you randomly brought up from nowhere) then maybe I'll take you seriously. But I've been talking all along about emotional connection and conveying emotion authentically with depth, nothing you've been saying has even related to what I've been saying for goodness sake.
I happened to get that quote from Peter Jackson because of a recent interview re: TinTin and The Uncanny Valley (another expression of just how important eyes are in a movie). It doesn't mean he's the only director who thinks the eyes are the most important thing in an acting performance, I would wager the vast majority feel that way too.
Look as I said, if you can find an oscar winning director or actor who actually thinks that the voice is the most important feature of an actor when it comes to CONVEYING EMOTION (not information a la the Orson Welles broadcast you randomly brought up from nowhere) then maybe I'll take you seriously. But I've been talking all along about emotional connection and conveying emotion authentically with depth, nothing you've been saying has even related to what I've been saying for goodness sake.
Post proof or it's not true.
One series of opinions from one notable Director of a series of mediocre films made 10 years ago hardly etches your cause into stone.
I, personally, do not find the eyes to be the "most" important as I feel I'm able to (and have) connected with characters in ways other than just their eyes. Again, I think the eyes are important just not the "most" important. I wouldn't say any feature is the "most important" as it's a collection of aspects from all over an actor's body and face. If you just had an actor standing there acting only with their eyes (and not the eye lids, brow, or anything around there) you wouldn't be able to connect much with the character.
To think of an example, Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump comes to mind. I can't think of many instances in that movie where I "connected" with him through his eyes. I more connected with him through all sorts of aspects in his acting from his voice, to the way he stood and walked, and overall facial expressions. When he asks near the end of the movie if his son is smart I feel for him just in his entire behavior not because of his eyes.
Eyes are important. But, to me, they're not the MOST important. Everything plays a role in the whole. That is my OPINION and anything you want to provide of evidence of your side of things or I can provide against it is, stil, someone's OPINION on what makes for good acting and film-making.
Ask Michael Bay and he'll tell you it's stereotypes, boobs and extreme-acting douchey behavior.
Ask Christopher Nolan and he'll tell you it's brooding looks and growly voices.
Whatever. Everyone is going to have their opinions on what works and doesn't work for them in film-watching and in film-making. There's no facts to be had here as there's no way to scientifically, and factually, prove one way or another who's OPINION is right. Anyone's statements are going to be that person's opinion.
Until you can show me someone with a white-labcoat and a clipboard who can provide formulas and data that conclusively prove eyes are the most important aspect acting and connecting with an audience and his data is consistent and works in 100% of situations (the definition of a "fact") I'm steadfast in my belief this whole "eyes are the most important" thing is all bullshit. For me. It's your opinion and that's all it is and all it will ever be.
Different strokes for different folks.
I don't need the eyes completely to connect with a person or a character, for me they're not the most important. Important, yes, but not the MOST important. Without them I'm quite capable of connecting with a character or a person.
One series of opinions from one notable Director of a series of mediocre films made 10 years ago hardly etches your cause into stone.
I, personally, do not find the eyes to be the "most" important as I feel I'm able to (and have) connected with characters in ways other than just their eyes. Again, I think the eyes are important just not the "most" important. I wouldn't say any feature is the "most important" as it's a collection of aspects from all over an actor's body and face. If you just had an actor standing there acting only with their eyes (and not the eye lids, brow, or anything around there) you wouldn't be able to connect much with the character.
To think of an example, Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump comes to mind. I can't think of many instances in that movie where I "connected" with him through his eyes. I more connected with him through all sorts of aspects in his acting from his voice, to the way he stood and walked, and overall facial expressions. When he asks near the end of the movie if his son is smart I feel for him just in his entire behavior not because of his eyes.
Eyes are important. But, to me, they're not the MOST important. Everything plays a role in the whole. That is my OPINION and anything you want to provide of evidence of your side of things or I can provide against it is, stil, someone's OPINION on what makes for good acting and film-making.
Ask Michael Bay and he'll tell you it's stereotypes, boobs and extreme-acting douchey behavior.
Ask Christopher Nolan and he'll tell you it's brooding looks and growly voices.
Whatever. Everyone is going to have their opinions on what works and doesn't work for them in film-watching and in film-making. There's no facts to be had here as there's no way to scientifically, and factually, prove one way or another who's OPINION is right. Anyone's statements are going to be that person's opinion.
Until you can show me someone with a white-labcoat and a clipboard who can provide formulas and data that conclusively prove eyes are the most important aspect acting and connecting with an audience and his data is consistent and works in 100% of situations (the definition of a "fact") I'm steadfast in my belief this whole "eyes are the most important" thing is all bullshit. For me. It's your opinion and that's all it is and all it will ever be.
Different strokes for different folks.
I don't need the eyes completely to connect with a person or a character, for me they're not the most important. Important, yes, but not the MOST important. Without them I'm quite capable of connecting with a character or a person.
... And yet you make the point about silent films. You can't have it both ways. If "look at silent films" is a valid argument, then so is "look at voice acting".
I connected with Odo because I could see his eyes.
Ok well that's fine as long as you accept that the eyes are commonly regarded as the most important feature of an actor. And if you don't then you frankly just need to read up more on the subject or at least google it for goodness sake. Its ok to not agree with the common consensus of "experts" but don't pretend that it doesn't exist.
I'm really over trying to even get what you're saying, you may as well be an alien as far as I'm concerned if you can't see the difference between emotionally connecting with what is quite clearly a real live person and connecting with an animated character.
A voice actor is quite clearly a real live person. And yes you can definitely connect that way. Ask anyone who's been in a long-distance relationship.
That post had no content. Please try harder.
I'll add that nobody said anything about animated characters either. What about radio shows? Let's get right to the bottom of it: Are you saying voice acting is a less legitimate form of performance than silent film acting, yes or no?
Quite clearly yes.
http://eqi.org/elit.htm
Non-verbal Communication
Studies show that up to 90 percent of our communication is non-verbal. When we communicate non-verbally our bodies are literally expressing themselves. When Shakespeare said the eyes are the windows to the soul he was implying the eyes are the best non-verbal indicator of our emotional and intellectual state of mind.
For example, we think of those who will not look us in the eyes as untrustworthy, dishonest, afraid or insecure. We think of those who have alert, expressive eyes as intelligent, energetic, and emotional. Our eyes have the power to judge, to attract, and to frighten. Through our eyes we can show: interest, boredom, disbelief, surprise, terror, disgust, approval, and disapproval. Many parents can bring their children to tears, for example, without saying a word.
http://www.hollywoodactorprep.com/test/tag/acting-emotion/
http://borgus.com/hitch/hitch2011.htm
Emotion comes directly from the actor's eyes. You can control the intensity of that emotion by placing the camera close or far away from those eyes. A close-up will fill the screen with emotion, and pulling away to a wide angle shot will dissipate that emotion.
http://voices.yahoo.com/dramatic-acting-tips-supporting-genuine-drama-with-10881179.html
Throughout this time, I've had the pleasure of working with some of the most talented individuals in the entertainment industry, and while each of these actors has a unique acting style there was one thing every performer had in common - they knew how to translate true drama through their eyes.
Acting in a dramatic film or stage play can be tricky, as many actors believe they can deliver a dramatic scene or monologue by simply adding inflections within their voice; however, giving a truly believable performance full of conviction and realism requires far more than utilizing your vocal chords.
I want to you to think about some of the great dramatic films of our time. The performances in these films are cultivated throughout years of training and expert talent; however, each actor was able to convey true drama by supporting the drama of a situation within their eyes.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51289527/2/CONCENTRATION
Sight plays a significant role for the actor because of the eyes. I know it iscliché, but the eyes are the mirror to the soul—and the path to honest acting.Through the eyes, the actor not only lets the other actor in, but lets theaudience gain an entrance as well.
I'm not insane people (ok maybe a bit for actually arguing something so BASIC with people), the opinions I've expressed throughout this thread are the most common opinions found in acting/drama circles regarding acting. And once again, I find it extremely unusual that so many people on here don't seem to be aware of these commonly held facts.
Uh what are you talking about?
That is fairly presumptuous. None of the quotes you posted exactly mirror what you are saying, you are just assuming that they would agree with you. I have yet to hear Peter Jackson's opinion of whether Geordi's existence was a mistake. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with what's being said in your quotations. I already addressed this earlier:
