Rather than continuing to make typos
I'm going to reply to someone's rant on Twitter here, where I'm not limited to 140 characters at a time.
First, the dialogue up to this point.
They said: "I thought he acted like John McClane. And since I'm not BFF's with Bruce, can't say I know what "being Bruce Willis" is like." in response to someone saying that Willis just acted like himself in his performance in the newest Die Hard movie.
So I posed this question: "Since you raised the issue, perhaps you can explain what's different about Bruce Willis' perfomances as: McLane versus "Greer", "Red", "Mosley", "Truelove", "Hartigan", "The Tulip", "Stamper", and "Hardy" except that some are good and some are evil. But all are very similar."
Which drew this response (obviously ghost-written): "First, I didn't say he acted different from his other ACTION roles. Second, and more importantly, I shouldn't need to tell a "movie critic "that action roles by their very nature do not require artistic variety, so your comment lacks argumentative substance. Action movies are a form of non-cerebral entertainment, and they have need for a style in which Bruce Willis excels. Simply put, there's a reason why Daniel Day Lewis wasn't offered any of the roles you mentioned. So I reiterate: "Anyone who criticizes Bruce Willis's acting in an action movie doesn't know what the hell they're talking about."
To which I responded (although I'm going to come back to this): "Since you raise the issue of film-critics with your apparently ghost-written tweets, let's see what critics say. The film and Willis' performance are being universally panned by the critics. 17% fresh rating on http://Rottentomates.com . It is "Superman IV". It is "The Next Karate Kid", "Jaws: The Revenge". Probably the last in a franchise and definitely worst in quality. When an actor plays the same character in every role, it's no longer acting. Action movies don't have to be bad. The Gubinator made good action movies and bad action movies. But none of what he did in any of them was "acting". That you and your ghost-writer can't grasp the difference between performing and acting is clear."
Which elicited this (again ghost-written): "At least my ghost writer can form original opinions and doesn't have to always hide behind critics' reviews."
At last, there's the whole story, cut and pasted. Now I can respond without having to try to do it in 138 character blurbs, trying and failing to properly number them as I go along. Let's start with the personal. I've been called a movie critic in quotation marks, a clear indication that this person doesn't think I'm a real film critic. I write for a website that doesn't make money. But clearly some people in the movie industry think I''m a real critic. I go to screenings for critics. I am offered interview opportunities with the writers, directors and actors in the movies I review. I write articles as well as film reviews. So the insult of being called a movie critic in quotation is strong and I find it offensive.
Then I'm also accused, by a ghost-writer, of being unable to form original opinions. The same person who in debating this issue with me writes that I should be expected to understand something that isn't understood by the people who study and write about film, and then accuses me of hiding behind the opinions of critics. That's not just illogical, it's ridiculous. As well as also being insulting.
Now people, especially people who are supposed to be friends, can have intelligent discourse about things like film and differences of opinion are just that. This exchange, that has rapidly escalated out of control, was caused by a question that was not phrased as an attack. It was a legitimate question. Let me re-state it for clarity. If an actor plays the "same" character in every different role they play, is that acting, or performing?
You can't call what Jason Statham does the same kind of "acting" that Daniel Day-Lewis does. Nor is what Day-Lewis does the same thing that Sylvester Stallone does. Stallone proved he can act when he did "Copland". But "Rambo" and his other action characters show no "range". There is no depth of character. The stars of action films are the fights, the pyrotechnics and yet there can still be great performances in action films. Chuck Norris has been an action star all of his career, and yet in "Code of Silence", he stepped up his performance by an order of magnitude. Steven Seagal made "Under Siege" and "On Deadly Ground" within a few years of one another and one was great while the other sucked out loud. Was it his acting? NO. He doesn't act. He performs.
Like it or not, Bruce Willis doesn't act in action films. Like other action stars he performs. He fights, shoots, cracks one-liners and looks pained in doing it all. When he does a film like "Moonrise Kingdom" or "Nobody's Fool", he has proven he has mad acting skills. But they were not on display in "A Good Day to Die Hard" and to quote the ghost-writer, anyone who tries to claim that what Bruce Willis did in that film was acting "...doesn't know what the hell they are talking about."
This was just added to the dialogue, but I'm not sure if it was ghost-written or not because of the grammatical error: "And criticizing BW in an action movie is like panning Streep or DDL in a dramatic role. You can do it but you're reputation is gonna suffer."
Really?
This is from the Wall Street Journal's film critic, Joe Morgenstern: "Bruce Willis is back as John McClane, once an intrepid police detective but now a busybody parody of his younger self."
"From Ian Buckwalter at NPR: It's difficult to tell if the mildly bemused air Willis carries with him through much of the movie is a character choice or just smug satisfaction that he's actually getting away with getting paid for this.
Neither of their reputations are going to suffer for criticizing the performance of Bruce Willis in this film. Nor will mine. As to criticizing either Streep or Day-Lewis in a dramatic role, just because they are among the finest dramatic actors of their generation doesn't mean they are perfect or haven't given weak performances. Day-Lewis was panned by several critics in "Nine", although it was more mis-casting than his performance. The reviews for "The Seduction of Joe Tynan" are long gone, but Streep's performance was neither memorable or anything more than barely adequate. No less than Sir Laurence Olivier, who was universally admired by almost every critic was roundly panned for his TV movie version of "King Lear".
Now I've been insulted, angered and forced to spend a lot of my free time dealing with something that was only supposed to be a question. I'm hoping it ends right here. Before someone says something that might be regretted later. I'm tired. I'm cranky, and best left alone. But if someone's going to take more shots at me, the odds are very, very good I'll fire back. And I really don't want to be forced to do that.
First, the dialogue up to this point.
They said: "I thought he acted like John McClane. And since I'm not BFF's with Bruce, can't say I know what "being Bruce Willis" is like." in response to someone saying that Willis just acted like himself in his performance in the newest Die Hard movie.
So I posed this question: "Since you raised the issue, perhaps you can explain what's different about Bruce Willis' perfomances as: McLane versus "Greer", "Red", "Mosley", "Truelove", "Hartigan", "The Tulip", "Stamper", and "Hardy" except that some are good and some are evil. But all are very similar."
Which drew this response (obviously ghost-written): "First, I didn't say he acted different from his other ACTION roles. Second, and more importantly, I shouldn't need to tell a "movie critic "that action roles by their very nature do not require artistic variety, so your comment lacks argumentative substance. Action movies are a form of non-cerebral entertainment, and they have need for a style in which Bruce Willis excels. Simply put, there's a reason why Daniel Day Lewis wasn't offered any of the roles you mentioned. So I reiterate: "Anyone who criticizes Bruce Willis's acting in an action movie doesn't know what the hell they're talking about."
To which I responded (although I'm going to come back to this): "Since you raise the issue of film-critics with your apparently ghost-written tweets, let's see what critics say. The film and Willis' performance are being universally panned by the critics. 17% fresh rating on http://Rottentomates.com . It is "Superman IV". It is "The Next Karate Kid", "Jaws: The Revenge". Probably the last in a franchise and definitely worst in quality. When an actor plays the same character in every role, it's no longer acting. Action movies don't have to be bad. The Gubinator made good action movies and bad action movies. But none of what he did in any of them was "acting". That you and your ghost-writer can't grasp the difference between performing and acting is clear."
Which elicited this (again ghost-written): "At least my ghost writer can form original opinions and doesn't have to always hide behind critics' reviews."
At last, there's the whole story, cut and pasted. Now I can respond without having to try to do it in 138 character blurbs, trying and failing to properly number them as I go along. Let's start with the personal. I've been called a movie critic in quotation marks, a clear indication that this person doesn't think I'm a real film critic. I write for a website that doesn't make money. But clearly some people in the movie industry think I''m a real critic. I go to screenings for critics. I am offered interview opportunities with the writers, directors and actors in the movies I review. I write articles as well as film reviews. So the insult of being called a movie critic in quotation is strong and I find it offensive.
Then I'm also accused, by a ghost-writer, of being unable to form original opinions. The same person who in debating this issue with me writes that I should be expected to understand something that isn't understood by the people who study and write about film, and then accuses me of hiding behind the opinions of critics. That's not just illogical, it's ridiculous. As well as also being insulting.
Now people, especially people who are supposed to be friends, can have intelligent discourse about things like film and differences of opinion are just that. This exchange, that has rapidly escalated out of control, was caused by a question that was not phrased as an attack. It was a legitimate question. Let me re-state it for clarity. If an actor plays the "same" character in every different role they play, is that acting, or performing?
You can't call what Jason Statham does the same kind of "acting" that Daniel Day-Lewis does. Nor is what Day-Lewis does the same thing that Sylvester Stallone does. Stallone proved he can act when he did "Copland". But "Rambo" and his other action characters show no "range". There is no depth of character. The stars of action films are the fights, the pyrotechnics and yet there can still be great performances in action films. Chuck Norris has been an action star all of his career, and yet in "Code of Silence", he stepped up his performance by an order of magnitude. Steven Seagal made "Under Siege" and "On Deadly Ground" within a few years of one another and one was great while the other sucked out loud. Was it his acting? NO. He doesn't act. He performs.
Like it or not, Bruce Willis doesn't act in action films. Like other action stars he performs. He fights, shoots, cracks one-liners and looks pained in doing it all. When he does a film like "Moonrise Kingdom" or "Nobody's Fool", he has proven he has mad acting skills. But they were not on display in "A Good Day to Die Hard" and to quote the ghost-writer, anyone who tries to claim that what Bruce Willis did in that film was acting "...doesn't know what the hell they are talking about."
This was just added to the dialogue, but I'm not sure if it was ghost-written or not because of the grammatical error: "And criticizing BW in an action movie is like panning Streep or DDL in a dramatic role. You can do it but you're reputation is gonna suffer."
Really?
This is from the Wall Street Journal's film critic, Joe Morgenstern: "Bruce Willis is back as John McClane, once an intrepid police detective but now a busybody parody of his younger self."
"From Ian Buckwalter at NPR: It's difficult to tell if the mildly bemused air Willis carries with him through much of the movie is a character choice or just smug satisfaction that he's actually getting away with getting paid for this.
Neither of their reputations are going to suffer for criticizing the performance of Bruce Willis in this film. Nor will mine. As to criticizing either Streep or Day-Lewis in a dramatic role, just because they are among the finest dramatic actors of their generation doesn't mean they are perfect or haven't given weak performances. Day-Lewis was panned by several critics in "Nine", although it was more mis-casting than his performance. The reviews for "The Seduction of Joe Tynan" are long gone, but Streep's performance was neither memorable or anything more than barely adequate. No less than Sir Laurence Olivier, who was universally admired by almost every critic was roundly panned for his TV movie version of "King Lear".
Now I've been insulted, angered and forced to spend a lot of my free time dealing with something that was only supposed to be a question. I'm hoping it ends right here. Before someone says something that might be regretted later. I'm tired. I'm cranky, and best left alone. But if someone's going to take more shots at me, the odds are very, very good I'll fire back. And I really don't want to be forced to do that.
posted by me at 8:59 PM
<< Home