In Reply to: Dui and Tinear... posted by EBerlin on January 10, 2008 at 07:37:44:
The other actresses JG mentions in his post had immense talent and it's a bit silly to mention her in the same breath. Besides, he says she's a character actress yet she's the lead in the film in question.
I haven't seen "Sherry" because I saw MG several years ago as a secretary who is in a strange relationship with her boss and in that erotic role I didn't find her so.
It's relatively easy to portray characters with over-the-top characteristics, i.e. drunks, autistic, crazy, because one can "act" so much. Far harder to play "regular Joe" where nuance is everything.
Anyhow, it's probably impossible to appreciate a leading woman in a film where she's a romantic interest if the viewer finds her unattractive. That's not, I know, the subject of this discussion but it's more of what I meant though poorly expressed.
JG had his points, as did you this time around.
My head is bowed.
I erred.
I shall repent.
I will watch Gyllies' full oeuvre.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Okay, I just don't like Maggie! - tinear 13:11:43 01/10/08 (6)
- RE: Okay, I just don't like Maggie! - jamesgarvin 14:46:33 01/10/08 (5)
- Ah, the encyclopedic approach, yet again. - tinear 17:02:47 01/10/08 (4)
- RE: Ah, the encyclopedic approach, yet again. - jamesgarvin 11:53:04 01/11/08 (1)
- Well, you want to redefine terms when called on it. A leading - tinear 13:23:06 01/11/08 (0)
- A question about the hourglass... - mpathus 22:48:52 01/10/08 (1)
- Logic would dictate she did all she could but... - tinear 04:28:20 01/11/08 (0)