Daoust

I should mention, I haven't seen this movie yet, but when I heard there was a lot of sex in it, I did my dardest to learn about it.

I know some of you have seen it, and I'd be interested in your commentary. But I have a question about the movie. One of the characters, Sook Yin Lee, used to be a Much Music VJ here in Canada. She currently hosts a Saturday afternoon program on CBC radio called Definitely Not The Opera. Anyway, it is well documented that her character in the movie strives to acheive her first orgasm, which she does acheive by the end of the film. What I found interesting is that she readily admits that the orgasm she had was real, and aided by a feminine device.

My question. Is that acting? She really had an orgasm. Perhaps she added some of her own flavour to the scene, but she admitted she wanted the scene to be as real as possible. Is it cheating? Is it acceptable acting practice? I know nothing of the actors craft, so I ask out of naivete.

I know some of you will no doubt point to another thread we had here recently about real sex in the movies, and that one example of the Monica Bellucci movie where she gets raped, so assume I already know that bit of information. I would like to think my question and this thread is more about acting and what is acceptable acting practice.

__________________
I have faith in a few things - divinity and grace
But even when I'm on my knees I know the devil preys

sadistikdreams

I haven't seen the movie either, but...

I don't see much of a problem with her real orgasm as part of acting. I mean, look at porno. It's acting, isn't it? And they orgasm, at least the guys do.

Or maybe a more... PG example is crying. When directed to cry, some actors think of a very sad event that actually happened to them, so their tears are real, aren't they? Or, in the case of this one film I was reading about, one of the actors is crying over one of the other actors because he knew that the actor in real life was about to die. Once I remember what movie and actors this happened in, I'll replace that last sentance, since it doesn't really make sense out of context.

Charlatan

It all depends on what you think acting is...

Is acting just someone pretending or is it something more and nuanced?

To me a good actor is able to draw on any number of tools to give you a good performance.

When a dancer dances or a singer sings how do you know if it is real singing and dancing?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Glory's Sun

I've seen the movie and thought it was good. It wasn't great but good.

As far as the acting goes, I think it's authentic and actually added to the movie. She used her full umm.. assets to make a good performance.

*note* if you have a hard time with male/male and all out orgy sex.. don't watch it.. or actually you should watch it, maybe it will change your mind. :shrug:

SecretMethod70

You might want to head on over to Wikipedia and check out the entry on Method Acting. This is a common practice for actors. As Charlatan already pointed out, actors sometimes use sad things in their own lives as real life inspiration to cause their character to cry, and this practice extends to all other emotions as well.

Is using a vibrator to assist in giving your character an authentic orgasm acting? Definitely. That said, The Method is often used in a way which goes beyond what's necessary. Dustin Hoffman, who was a student of Lee Strasberg, seems to agree. He has said that The Method is a *tool* but should not necessarily be acting in and of itself. In other words, drawing on past experiences - be they sad, angry, jubilant, or something else - to more easily recreate the emotion for your character is a good thing. But one shouldn't generally need to re-create that feeling within themselves. Or, to put it slightly differently, The Method isn't necessarily about BEING sad when your character is sad, just about knowing what such sadness is.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Daoust

Neat input SM70.

Replicating the experience is method acting. Okay. And it doesn't matter what you have to do to replicate that experience, as long as you get 'into' it, then? Again, I ask out of ignorance. So what do method actors do when they can't replicated an experience, or don't want to, like for instance if they played a reprehensible character like a rapist or a child molester? I guess the idea is to get as close to the character as possible... Hmmm. Did I just answer my own question?

__________________
I have faith in a few things - divinity and grace
But even when I'm on my knees I know the devil preys

SecretMethod70

Well, see, that's the thing. A lot of Method Actors seem to feel as though replicating the experience is what Method Acting is. What Dustin Hoffman pointed out in a recent Inside the Actor's Studio interview is that The Method is drawing on experience to know HOW to act moreso than it is recreating that experience.

Nonetheless, this isn't an area where there's exactly a right and wrong. Many actors DO try to recreate the feeling of the character within themselves. And, as for your question, yes, the idea is to get as close as possible. Using your example, I'd point to the fact that we all have a dark side. Obviously, most of us are not child molesters, but being in touch with whatever your own dark side is helps to transfer it to a different character in a different situation.

A little anecdote regarding Dustin Hoffman and Method Acting, courtesy of Wikipedia (once again)...

In Marathon Man's most famous scene, Sir Laurence Olivier tortures Hoffman while repeating the seemingly non-sequitur question: "Is it safe?" The quote was voted as the 70th greatest quote in the history of film by AFI. To achieve his character's exhausted look in this scene, Hoffman deprived himself of sleep for two days. During the filming Olivier famously said to Hoffman "Try acting. . . It's much easier!" While this is widely believed to have been a joke about Hoffman's Strasbergian method, Hoffman himself, who for many years denied the story altogether, now claims that Olivier had been referring to how Hoffman had been partying too hard (the real reason he had deprived himself of sleep) as a way of coping with his depression and the pain of his divorce.

For scenes in which Hoffman was to appear breathless, he would run a half mile until the moment Schlesinger called "action".

I can only assume that his view has shifted more towards that of Sir Laurence Olivier in the 30 years since Marathon Man came out, based on what he said at the Actor's Studio. Incidentally, this story, and specifically Sir Laurence Olivier's attributed quote, was highlighted in some of my own acting training as an example of the extremes to which Method Acting can sometimes be taken.

There is no right or wrong way to act, but I do think the best actors are those capable of drawing on experience without needing to make themselves feel like shit, just to play a character who does.

Offtopic: can you believe Dustin Hoffman is nearly 70 years old!!!

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling