Why was Brooks' scene in Far Beyond the Stars overacting?

If you had a camera watching real life, it would look nothing at all like what you see on a television drama. Nothing. "Realism" in that sense is an illusion: basically what it means is that a particular acting style or representation of reality is widely accepted as normal, or has succeeded in convincing a large audience that it is depicting reality in an accurate manner.

Older tv shows look less realistic to us now largely because our perception of what is normal or acceptable has changed. In a few decades time (or potentially much less), what we perceive as "realistic" will seem outdated, forced, potentially comical and/or bizarre.

 

I think one of the reasons people hate on this scene is that theyre looking at it the wrong way. This isnt the way Capt. Sisko would appear while having a nervous breakdown. Benny Russell is a completely different person, really. He's quiet, not very authoritative, and is used to a life of being a second-class citizen. His opinions dont matter, especially at his job. This is not the mighty Benjamin Sisko breaking down, it is a quiet, shy man used to minding his own business, having a very awkward, public meltdown. Thats how I saw it anyway.

 

Perhaps you have to get into the spirit of the scene and episode also.

It might be harder to feel the scene unless you take in everything.

For example, the part where Benny says "It's reallll!"-- maybe it does seem hammy to some.

Then again, from his point of view, everyone has been telling him what he can't be or ever be, because of who he is.

So he has to give up his dream or even his imagination because of it?

So now insisting that it is real, takes on a whole new meaning.

 

Oh dear...let's please not dangle the bait out there. I may be of the minority opinion here, but the last thing I want to see is for this thread to degenerate into one of those fights for real...

 

^^ FOR REEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Well, I love this episode and I love this scene. If you think it's over-acting well, you're welcome to your opinion, but I disagree.

 

I always thought it was because Mr Brooks felt so strongly for the "brown" people as he called them, so it was an episode he was verypassionate about. I see racism at my work at Pizza Hut of MD all the time against brown people its sickening.

 

I am a dunce when it comes to judging actors (I even created a thread asking ppl to help me better discern good from poor acting.).

One thing I can say, however, is that Brooks's acting is one of my favorite parts of DS9. I know he, like Stewart, tended to have quite a flair and put a rather theatrical stamp on their characters. But I love it. And I don't even really like FBTS *that* much. Whenever Brooks is on screen, he is amazing. I love it when he goes "overboard". His idiosyncratic delivery is cool. Same with Stewart (eg, "Come!").

I think the three TNG-era captains did a great job acting and making their characters unique (yeah, I know this is a DS9 forum and many don't care for Mulgrew's Janeway, but I liked her unique style).

DS9 would probably have been a great show because of the premise, coherent storylines, and in general good acting/characters. But Brooks's presence, IMO, made it an *amazing* show. Can you imagine DS9 with a different Sisko?


I think casting did a pretty good job with all the captains (Shatner's notorious theatrics notwithstanding), though I'm not well qualified enough to give a decent opinion on Bakula's Archer, for I only saw the first two seasons, 3/4 of the Vulcan arc, In a Mirror..., and TATV; I missed most of season four and all of season three.


I know this thread about a particular scene in FBTS, but don't you think Brooks was key to the whole series?

 

Archer was definitely the best looking captain with clothes off.

 

I think that's a product of the time the series was made. Look at Travis: he was sculpted like a body-builder or an NFL cornerback/safety on HGH.

That's one reason why I liked the TNG-era shows: the people looked (with certain obvious exceptions) looked a tad more realistic. Most everyone in Enterprise was in incredible shape, except for Phlox.

 

The women on TNG certainly looked more realistic than anything in the nineties and noughties, right up until Christina Hendricks sashayed onto Firefly. Jewel Staite was bouncy too but she was told to put on weight for her character.

 

That MIGHT be explainable by ENT being set in a time when only the absolute elite would've been in space, let alone on the Warp 5 mission. Kind of like how the earliest NASA astronauts were selected.

 

Good point. Also: we could ascribe it to being set earlier, before people began to care less about superficial things (though unfortunately, it only seemed to apply to males. That's like it still is largely today: even though it's becoming increasingly common to see men who looked inhumanely sculpted, it's still possible for normal looking men to be on TV. When was the last time you saw an unattractive/overweight/etc. female newscaster or even political commentator? Quite unfair, I think. I wish they'd stop presenting us with wholly unrealistic people on screen — though in some films/shows for dramatic reasons they'll have unattractive females. But not main characters or on the news etc.)

One *minor* disagreement: Archer did not strike me as the best and brightest or most suitable as a CO.

 

Candy Crowley, 2001. I believe she was on CNN covering the disputed election, in Austin. They always made her stand at an angle. Damn superficial...especially since she was DOING HER JOB WELL.

Oh, and it looks like her career is still advancing.

As for Archer...I lay that one at the feet of the casting director. Scott Bakula should NEVER have been in that role...he would have done better playing somebody else.

 

I agree: I, too, think Bakula should not have been cast as the captain. Maybe he would have made a good XO or MACO CO. I'm unfamiliar with him aside from ENT, but he seems like a fine actor — just not quite suited for Earth's first Starfleet long-distance representative.


About Candy Crowley: I know of many commentators but haven't heard of her. I think that helps validate my notion that, even smart and capable women, unless they look much more attractive than average, don't get many opportunities for mainstream TV exposure (unless they're playing a character who's supposed to look unattractive for dramatic reasons).

Ok, sorry: I'm getting this a little off-topic!


Edit: I just looked up Crowley. She's not *that* unattractive, just a little more average-looking. And it does go for men, too: studies have indicated taller men with good hair (I exclude physique because you *can* control that, to a degree) make more money and do better, on average, than their shorter, less "great-hair" counterparts. It seems it's fine to discriminate against such superficial things. Oh well: c'est le vie!

 

Yeah, this.

It's a great episode, but Brooks isn't a great actor - and it shows in that scene.

 

Someone commented about Mulgrew. She is a fine actress with incredible ability. I remember her as a kid from Remo Williams, where she played a competent military major that was attractive but not a sexpot. She carried her character with other traits such as her professionalism, determination and stubbornness. As a Trek captain, she was a good choice overall, with the ability to speak the Lingo and carry the emotions that were necessary. The fact that I find her voice unappealing after a while is only a matter of my personal taste, and my overall problem with the character a mere reflection of Voyager's awful and rather forced premise.

Brooks was awesome in Far Beyond the Stars. He was breaking down. People don't act "neat" when they break down.

 

How can you even say he was overacting? He was simply amazing and that was, IMHO, the most powerful scene in all of DS9.