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

[zar]

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".

...

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.

Well, if you think Avery Brooks was trying to portray the same thing that Patrick Stewart was portraying in Chain of Command, that's probably why it seems so horrible. It is a different emotional state, and both types of breakdowns do happen in real life...

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Exactly. And, much as I like Stewart, I saw his RSC training shining through in that scene--he was more visibly "acting," though he was acting well. Brooks, by contrats, jettisoned all vanity for the duration of that scene. I was embarassed for Benny, which is just the feeling (along with fear and pity) that witnessing such a break elicits.

 

[CaptainStoner]

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.

And some people don't like jazz. That doesn't mean it isn't any good.

 

[flemm]

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.

LoL, well, I can see disagreeing with them, but I'm pretty sure they're not deluded Many people disagree with you about this scene. Insisting they are all deluded doesn't speak very well for your own clarity of perception.

The Simpsons comparison makes no sense since DS9 was doing much of its best work around this time, the episode is widely acclaimed (whatever you might think of it), and, regardless of any of that, people like Jeffrey Combs didn't stop being good actors when this episode aired

 

[Nightdiamond]

I don't know if it deserves an award for the acting, only that the scene was effective enough.

The episode came out of left field for what we usually see in a Trek series, and somehow managed to stand out even until now.

 

[Kelso]

I've never had any problem with the scene, or with Brooks as an actor. Still one of my fav. Trek eps.

 

[Galileo7]

I don't know if it deserves an award for the acting, only that the scene was effective enough.

The episode came out of left field for what we usually see in a Trek series, and somehow managed to stand out even until now.

Agree, it was such a different episode. Avery Brooks delivered the frustration of twin realities he was enduring.

 

[indolover]

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 disagree, but that's life, everybody has different opinions.

Benny's reaction was fully understandable. He simply reached breaking point and couldn't cope again with the obstacles and oppression of his society. I think in that context, Brooks got the performance spot on.

 

[Too Much Fun]

"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.)

Interesting. I agree about the first two Alien movies, actually. I can watch the first one over and over again and still love it, but the last time I saw the second one, I was really disappointed. I didn't mean to imply any criticism of Jeffrey Combs. I really admire the guy. Not only is Weyoun one of my favourite DS9 characters/performances, but I've just gained a whole new appreciation for Combs as an actor from watching his work as Shran on "Enterprise" and "Re-Animator" is one of my favourite horror movies, due in large part to his delightful performance. I also loved his voice work on "Justice League Unlimited".

When I talk about delusion, I don't mean to condescend to other Star Trek fans. I'm referring more to the actors. My point in bringing up their interviews and "The Simpsons" is that people are often biased when looking at their own work and the work of their colleagues. They might be unable to look at it as objectively and fairly as people looking at it from the outside can. To use a more on topical example, Patrick Stewart has said he thought "Star Trek: Nemesis" was a "wonderful movie", "I don't understand why people didn't like our movie", and "I'm proud of everything we did on film". When you've done the work yourself or watched someone else do it right in front of you, I can see how it's easy to see it all through rose-coloured glasses. You see people working hard in front of you and it's hard to imagine how that wouldn't be enough for what they've done to impress and satisfy audiences.

I'm sure Brooks was trying his best and everybody could see it, but I simply don't agree that he succeeded at plausibly conveying what he was supposed to convey. It felt too theatrical and forced to me. From where I'm sitting as a viewer, that "Far Beyond the Stars" scene was ridiculous. That scene (and I forgot to mention last time) Sisko's monologue at the end bothered me because I found them really phony, but I did enjoy the rest of the episode. And yes, I am aware of how my opinion of "Amok Time" strains my credibility. I think there are a few people who agree with me about "Far Beyond the Stars" (all curiously absent from this thread for some reason), but I haven't met any Star Trek fan who doesn't love "Amok Time", and that continues to baffle me.

I still think it's one of the lamest, silliest, and least dramatically effective episodes of "Star Trek" (with the exception of the ending), but if the rest of you can enjoy it, good for you. I really wanted to. I like the Spock character a lot and going to his home planet and seeing what it looks like and how its traditions are is a fascinating idea that I was excited about. I just hated the way it was done.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

It's funny: the breakdown does start out on shaky ground. Brooks delivers "Go ahead and call them!" in a manner that had me worried. By the time he was fully into it, though, I was sold--we may laugh at "It is real!" taken out of context but in the scene, it had me transfixed. When he literally collapses, he whimpers in a way that conveys total vulnerabilty and emasculation--that's what I mean when I say it lacks the vanity I see in other performances. Stewart's scene in "Chain of Command," good as it is, doesn't come close. OTOH, Olmos slobbering all over Bamber's hand in BSG surpasses it.

FBTS is not a perfect episode--I agree the final monologue is somewhat weak in execution and writing and there are moments, like the one I mention above, where it feels like an after-school special. But the breakdown scene worked for me.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

As I said in my scathing review on IMDB...

Oh dear.

All I know is, this is my favorite episode of DS9.

 

[Nightdiamond]

At times there seems to be so much debate over this one, that I went back to watch the scene again.



On YouTube, it gets a lot of comments and some exchanges, some of them similar to the ones that have been posted on this site before.

Some of the claims over there were, it was overacting, or that it was an 'angry, in your face' episode.

Generally, the viewers seemed to have been affected by it.

I guess there are reasons not to have been affected by this scene, for some, maybe the acting simply didn't do it enough for them.

 

[tomalak301]

Doesn't that make a memorable episode though. Whether you like it or hate it, it's the polorization that makes it a highlight, and for that, I think Far Beyond the Stars did it's job. I for one think this is one of DS9's best episodes (Not as good as my favorite, which was The Visitor, but I'd place it in the top 5) but whether you liked it or didn't, it had an impact and that's the important thing.

 

[admiral_reliant]

Alot of the acting in Star Trek has been accused of as being wooden, the actors can't act very well etc etc, but when we see genuine quality acting, some people say its over-acting.

I think there was plenty of opportunity for such performances in many episodes that just didn't happen, and that's a shame.

With that said, I personally don't think the acting was bad at all on anyone's part.

For me, some of the best performances were the "Four Light", "Benny Losing It", Picard and Robert finally making peace in "Family", Sisko's grief in "Emissary" plus many more.

 

[Nightdiamond]

tomalak301: Doesn't that make a memorable episode though. Whether you like it or hate it, it's the polorization that makes it a highlight, and for that, I think Far Beyond the Stars did it's job.

Yep, the controversy is evidence of it being memorable. Most of the comments like the performance, but you'd be surprised....

admiral_reliant:

Alot of the acting in Star Trek has been accused of as being wooden, the actors can't act very well etc etc, but when we see genuine quality acting, some people say its over-acting.

I think there was plenty of opportunity for such performances in many episodes that just didn't happen, and that's a shame.

With that said, I personally don't think the acting was bad at all on anyone's part.

For me, some of the best performances were the "Four Light", "Benny Losing It", Picard and Robert finally making peace in "Family", Sisko's grief in "Emissary" plus many more.

Agreed, I remember that scene between Picard and his brother where he broke down. His brother bullied him to his breaking point, then comforted him. Effective.

Duet was another one, a Cardassian acts downright evil, then breaks down, gets the same reaction generally.


Let's face it, there's going to be risks with the acting and story when you have dramatic scenes like these.

They don't happen when you play it safe with the script.

If it made you think about it at least twice, then it probably got you!

 

[Deckerd]

Exactly. And, much as I like Stewart, I saw his RSC training shining through in that scene--he was more visibly "acting," though he was acting well. Brooks, by contrats, jettisoned all vanity for the duration of that scene. I was embarassed for Benny, which is just the feeling (along with fear and pity) that witnessing such a break elicits.

I really enjoyed this whole story but I have to say I was embarrassed for Avery Brooks in this scene. Everyone's experiences are different but I have actually witnessed a couple of breakdowns and they are nothing like that, so what he was doing was conveying the idea of a breakdown rather than trying to show what actually happens. As to the other actors praising him; that's showbiz.

 

[Too Much Fun]

YES! Finally someone who sees it the way I did! I liked those other breakdown scenes. Harris Yulin's performance in "Duet" was riveting from start to finish and the aftermath of that mud fight in "Family" was one of the most moving scenes I've ever watched. I just generally don't care for Brooks's dramatic/emotional acting. It always feels false to me, except in "The Visitor".

My favourite performances of his are the ones where he acts crazy or funny like in "Facets" or "Our Man Bashir". I prefer when he's acting creepy or wild to when he's trying to play it serious. I just think he does the former more naturally and convincingly.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

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.

Exactly. It LOOKED like theater.

When you act for the stage, you CAN'T be realistic because the people in the back row have to be able to see and hear you. Exaggeration is acceptable in that venue. It doesn't work on TV, though, which is supposed to look far more like real life. With TV, you can catch even the tiniest details, so if you overdo a scene, it's absolutely glaring.

And I totally agree with the Patrick Stewart and Edward James Olmos comparisons--they're light-years better. I remember even thinking that, when I saw for the first time Adama's breakdown when he finds out about Tigh's secret, just HOW much more believable it was. In fact, that was also the genius of Marc Alaimo, even in episodes like "Waltz" or "Covenant": there were moments when he had to do something dramatic, but everything else was so, so subtle that when it did come time to lay it on thick, he wasn't taking the "volume" all the way from an 8 to a 12. He'll go from a 3 to a 10, but when he hits that level, he's not totally busting the "ham and cheese" gauge.

Even if a person WOULD go into histrionics like that IRL, the fact remains--it just does not play well on camera the way it does on stage and you should know your medium better than that, if you're an actor.

 

[flemm]

It doesn't work on TV, though, which is supposed to look far more like real life.

Here I disagree: TV does not look more like real life. It looks like TV. The emotions we see acted on TV are not more like real emotions than the ones acted on stage. We are just more used to the television style than the theatrical style because we see more TV than theater. Generally speaking, a lot more.

What we see on tv reads as normal, not because it is closer to reality, but because it is the version of non-reality that we are used to seeing. TV acting is in fact inhibited in ways that are extremely unrealistic. People do not express emotions purely with their faces, for example, as is so often the case on tv.

I do agree to an extent with the idea that theater acting demands expansive gestures, while tv tends to reward more minute variations in expression, but neither is inherently closer to "real life."

There is of course the very complicated question of how and when people model their behavior on their performance medium of choice. In our culture, tv undoubtedly has more impact on how people behave than theater, whereas in a culture where theater is the dominant performance art, the opposite would be true. But regardless, if generic television acting strikes us as close to reality (when in reality it is often extremely unrealistic), that is a matter of our perception that this style is normal, not an inherent quality of the medium.

I do think the rather polarized opinions about Brooks' acting is related to the fact that he employs a more theatrical style that feels jarring and exaggerated to some, while others find it engaging and distinctive.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I do agree to an extent with the idea that theater acting demands expansive gestures, while tv tends to reward more minute variations in expression, but neither is inherently closer to "real life."

If you look at older TV and movies, stuff from the 70s and back, then I would agree that TV acting is unrealistic. Even when TOS aired this was the case.

However, the tendency has been towards far greater realism--as though someone simply had a camera watching REAL life, which is obviously a different aim entirely than being on a stage where people on the back rows can't see you unless you exaggerate. These days, if you do that in TV or in a movie, you look like an idiot or like you came out of a kid's show, a soap opera, or parody. Those are the only places where non-realism is acceptable.