|
Post by rasalghul on Jan 2, 2006 17:24:05 GMT -5
I just wanted to say that because I think sometimes we may pay too much attention to the characters portrayal by the actors.
I say this since nobody except the executive producers know what the whole story is. As the actors are also completely ignorant of their characters' whole backstory, they cannot really react to the events as if they're Jack, Locke or Kate.
I don't say there's bad acting but I think that the director may sometimes lack information to tell the actors how to play a scene, because we/they still don't know who the characters really are.
My best exemple of character would be Locke. A lot of our interpretations/theories point to the fact that he knows more than he says. Of course, he's a complex character and most of the time, he seems to understand people (Boone, Walt) better than the average guy and he may have the looks, the face expressions of a man who knows. But the only facts we have about him is that he's more experienced because he's older than practically everyone.
And what about Kate, some people may have been disappointed by the fact that she seems to be a real, tough badass as she has been portrayed in the first season but when her real crime was revealed, it was almost as if the murder was some kind of self-defense by proxy !
As conclusion, some mysteries in Lost may come from the fact that the acting can be misleading !
|
|
Laura
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by Laura on Jan 3, 2006 16:15:07 GMT -5
You have a good point there I never thought about it, but you are right in many cases. I've heard that the actors weren't given anything in the beginning, but I've also heard that the actors who play the tailies have been given some information. I think the actors in this show are really incredible. The last few shows have been just mindboggling - the last few minutes of Collision was incredible. The look on Sayid's face as he held Shannon's body as Jack walked by, and the looks Jack and Echo gave him and Shannon's body, and then the eye exchange between Jack and Ana Lucia. No words, just eyes and body language. Everyone of them deserves awards for that episode. (This scene was the end of Collision, right, not The Other 48 Days?) And the struggle inside Kate as she kissed Jack and then realized she could never be good enough for him (in her thinking) so she went to Sawyer knowing he was like her mom's abusive husband, and the tenderness as she realized he was a victim as much as she was. And the scene from Abandoned - Shannon and Boone and Sayid - it was one fantastic scene after another. And the scene between Eko and Locke about the film. And Jack's facial expressions as he watched Kate and Sawyer as he had to heal Sawyer. The Sun/Jin reunion and the Rose/Bernard reunion and Micheal and Vincent. Even the faces of the extras and the cast at the funeral where Sayid's pain was so strong. I could go on and on and on. These actors are brilliant. And so are the rest of the cast. So yes, I think we base alot of our impressions on their fantastic acting and alot of them probably know next to nothing about their characters reality or where the show is going. But I think they know more than we do. I also think the writers develope the story based on the acting to some extent. . I also think, however, that we base our theories more on the storylines and mythology than on the actors portrayal. I think most of it is on the storyline and the "clues" along the way. So while I agree with you in part and I think we must all keep any eye open for what we assume from the actors' talent, that most of the theories are based on mythology and the research and the brainstorming we all do from the pieces of the storyline puzzle thrown our way.
|
|
|
Post by Annie on Jan 3, 2006 16:26:55 GMT -5
Yes, Terry O'Quinn said in an interview if he had known Locke had been in a wheelchair before the crash, he would have probably run differently in the first episode. The producers didn't decide until later that Locke was going to be paralyzed.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 3, 2006 22:05:20 GMT -5
Good read. I'm going to pull out the DVDs and take another look at this.
|
|
|
Post by evilgus on Jan 7, 2006 23:23:34 GMT -5
I agree. Also, am I the only person who found Kate killing that butthole dad to be a lot less serious than callously dropping the guy who helped her in the bank job? That was real badass.
|
|
|
Post by Annie on Jan 8, 2006 12:32:41 GMT -5
For sure.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Campbell on Jan 8, 2006 18:09:34 GMT -5
I agree. Also, am I the only person who found Kate killing that butthole dad to be a lot less serious than callously dropping the guy who helped her in the bank job? That was real badass. Killing her dad may have been her first murder. The betrayal by her mother and the rejection by her other dad I think pushed her into becoming what they seemed to be labeling her as. From there it was a downhill slide that she wasn't always in control of.
|
|
|
Post by Annie on Jan 8, 2006 23:24:38 GMT -5
Yea, but her Military dad, Sam Austen, seemed to think she had "murder in her heart" like he could see it coming. Torching the bio-dad probably was the first, but then it unleashed the monster within. Kate is still an enigma to me. I tend to think we need to heed the Marshall's words a bit. There's more to her than the two crimes we are aware of.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 9, 2006 0:38:13 GMT -5
I tend to think we need to heed the Marshall's words a bit. There's more to her than the two crimes we are aware of. She has killed at Least 4 people (Dad, Friend, accomplices in Bank {not the guy talking to her}), Evaded Police, Comitted Arson, Robbed a bank. I'd say she's dangerous
|
|