Woody Allen as Dr. William Harford?

Started by ElPandaRoyal, September 22, 2003, 07:25:22 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Finn

the thought of Woody Allen in this movie may sound strange, but maybe not so ridiculous. after all, i never thought Robin Williams could do really serious drama, but he does it beautifully. but i'm very happy with tom cruise and nicole kidman together. it makes it more believable and more personal since they really were husband and wife.
Typical US Mother: "Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words."

AK

Quote from: Sydneyi'm very happy with tom cruise and nicole kidman together. it makes it more believable and more personal since they really were husband and wife.

And i always thought they were perfect cuz they seem fancy and cold* quite like the roles needed to be...


* in good way, of course.

jokerspath

Quote from: FernandoI don't remember ever reading that he had Ford in mind, I do however remember that he made up the name of Dr. Harford with Harrison Ford's name. Do you remember where you read about this?

Its spoken of a few times in Frederic Raphael's "Eyes Wide Open: A Memoir of Stanley Kubrick."  Forgive me if the author or title are slightly wrong...or worse, if I've misread the text...

aw
THIS IS NOT AN EXIT

mutinyco

"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Gold Trumpet

Glad Allen never got the role. He simply can't act. He can write and direct, but he can't act. Benefit of the doubt is given to him simply because he can say lines clearly and walk at the same time. His acting is a mess of hands moving in all directions to scare birds away. His speech is just his normal speech, a mess of neurotic disorders to fit every meal of every day during the week.

Harrison Ford would be have been proper in a sense he never seems to have much personality, as with Cruise's character in EWS. Harrison Ford just seems to typify average good looking American man. His movies usually are mundane dramas and action films and he only does little in all. Ultimately he still wouldn't have worked because he doesn't convey the first impression sexual image that Cruise does and has to display through out EWS.

I'm not sure how he saw Martin in the role either. Though, since it was the early 80s he had him pegged as starring, his vision and purpose was likely a lot different.

~rougerum

mutinyco

Back then he saw it as a sex comedy. He loved The Jerk.

Wasn't it a sex comedy anyhow?...
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Gold Trumpet

Quote from: mutinycoWasn't it a sex comedy anyhow?...

Yea, but without any spirit.

~rougerum

Alexandro

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetGlad Allen never got the role. He simply can't act. He can write and direct, but he can't act. Benefit of the doubt is given to him simply because he can say lines clearly and walk at the same time. His acting is a mess of hands moving in all directions to scare birds away. His speech is just his normal speech, a mess of neurotic disorders to fit every meal of every day during the week.


~rougerum

Completely desagree. Woody Allen CAN act, he's not Al Pacino, but he actually can act. The fact that he is, as he says, a very limited actor, doesn't mean he can't convey emotions and feelings that are human. Acting is not becoming someone else, is just being able to be in the situation so the audience believes it too. He was wrong for that part in EWS, but he's been right for most of the parts, if not all of the parts, he has played in the last 40 years...

mutinyco

IF WOODY HAD PLAYED DR. BILL HE WOULD'VE LEFT HIS WIFE FOR THE LITTLE GIRL AT RAINBOW COSTUMES!!!!!!
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Gold Trumpet

Fernando,
I still don't buy Woody Allen as an actor nor that definition of what an actor is. In Allen's case, he is essentially playing himself through out his movies. His limits of an actor mean that, he, himself, given the role, could likely only seem believable for a few roles when just playing himself. The duty of an actor is to seem believable as a character when stretching your talent. Allen is just stretching believability in order to rationalize that he could play the role.

Also, in his movies when he is on screen with others, he is so wound up in many cases that it completely goes against the tone of the movie. His energy and minor movements are so furious that he seems to have energy of everyone else in the scene combined. Just mute the TV and watch him interact in a movie with other people. Its the same routine over and over again and continually out of touch with how everyone else is acting. It's not to say he is always the only neurotic in the scene everytime, because he is not. He's just doesn't do it as an actor would at all and its easy to see it is because he's not an actor, he's just himself.

~rougerum

Alethia

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetFernando,
I still don't buy Woody Allen as an actor nor that definition of what an actor is. In Allen's case, he is essentially playing himself through out his movies. His limits of an actor mean that, he, himself, given the role, could likely only seem believable for a few roles when just playing himself. The duty of an actor is to seem believable as a character when stretching your talent. Allen is just stretching believability in order to rationalize that he could play the role.

Also, in his movies when he is on screen with others, he is so wound up in many cases that it completely goes against the tone of the movie. His energy and minor movements are so furious that he seems to have energy of everyone else in the scene combined. Just mute the TV and watch him interact in a movie with other people. Its the same routine over and over again and continually out of touch with how everyone else is acting. It's not to say he is always the only neurotic in the scene everytime, because he is not. He's just doesn't do it as an actor would at all and its easy to see it is because he's not an actor, he's just himself.

~rougerum

yeah, but he's never tried to be anything but that, so why the complaints?

Fernando

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetFernando,
I still don't buy Woody Allen as an actor nor that definition of what an actor is. In Allen's case, he is essentially playing himself through out his movies. His limits of an actor mean that, he, himself, given the role, could likely only seem believable for a few roles when just playing himself. The duty of an actor is to seem believable as a character when stretching your talent. Allen is just stretching believability in order to rationalize that he could play the role.

Also, in his movies when he is on screen with others, he is so wound up in many cases that it completely goes against the tone of the movie. His energy and minor movements are so furious that he seems to have energy of everyone else in the scene combined. Just mute the TV and watch him interact in a movie with other people. Its the same routine over and over again and continually out of touch with how everyone else is acting. It's not to say he is always the only neurotic in the scene everytime, because he is not. He's just doesn't do it as an actor would at all and its easy to see it is because he's not an actor, he's just himself.

~rougerum

I guess you meant Alexandro given the fact that he defended him as an actor, I only gave links proving SK once thought of him, but now that we're talking about it, Allen himself has claimed that if he hasn't acted for other directors is because he hasn't been asked, and the reason he gave about it is because he's only able to play two kinds of rolls, the intelectual or a smuggler (Small Time Crooks). So, in a way you're right, he has a limited range but he admits his limitations as an actor, and sure he doesn't have the acting skills of De Niro or Dustin but watch him is great.

Gold Trumpet

Ack, sorry Fernando, name is way too similiar.

and Eward, the second paragraph is why for the complaints.

~rougerum

ElPandaRoyal

QuoteHe was wrong for that part in EWS

Well, he would be wrong for the part if he had played the same one that was written for Cruise. We're talking about Kubrick here. I mean, had he chosen Woody Allen to be in the movie, he'd written the part a bit differently, don't you agree?

Anyway, beeing a great Woody fan and all, I have 0 complaints here. Loved 'Eyes' and loved Cruise in the movie.
Si