Emilia Clarke's range

[MarieAntoinette]

I feel that movies or tv shows demand a different kind of performance from an actor than acting in a play on stage. Since film captures every little detail I guess that it would be harder to convince the audience that the emotions the actor displays are genuine. On stage you can use your voice and gestures, nobody (maybe except people sitting in the front rows?) are really upclose judging every facial expression of the actor.

[The BlackBear]

Then you have people who while "acting" don't even begin to look natural. Here is a very good comedic actor, Richard Ayoade, intentionally being a bad actor for a short lived show called Darkplaces: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvbEExv72eM .

Darkplaces is good, but I think he's much funnier in The IT Crowd.

[Roose Seal]

Then you have people who while "acting" don't even begin to look natural. Here is a very good comedic actor, Richard Ayoade, intentionally being a bad actor for a short lived show called Darkplaces: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvbEExv72eM .

That's because he wasn't putting on an act, he was putting on the truth.

[Gogossos]

I thought 'stage actor' was a positive term, ....

It is. Simon Russell Beale has been described as "the greatest stage actor of his generation", yet he has only a handful of works on film. I hardly think that's a negative thing. Being on stage is the most revered part of an actor's cv and yet on this thread people make it sound like it's hideous thing or something.

[Queen of Whores]

It is. Simon Russell Beale has been described as "the greatest stage actor of his generation", yet he has only a handful of works on film. I hardly think that's a negative thing. Being on stage is the most revered part of an actor's cv and yet on this thread people make it sound like it's hideous thing or something.

The type of acting between the stage and screen is and must be different, but Emilia is not displaying this well. No one was criticizing stage-actors.

[hollowcrown]

Stage acting requires a different set of skills than film acting - but loads of Shakespearen actors such as McKellen and Stewart are great on film. I just think Emilia is wooden in general.

[Domonju]

You know I wouldn't limit this to just Emilia Clarke. I think the performances from many of the actors have gotten worse as the seasons have progressed. Season 1 was the highlight season. Now as the show gets ever more popular, it seems that a certain level of complacency has kicked in.

Be honest, why has GoT made the news this year? Is it because of great acting? Peter Dinklage getting rave reviews? No. It's been all about whether Jaime did or did not rape Cersei.

But i don't think you can heap all the blame the actors for this. It is ultimately down to D&D. They OK all the scripts, they OK all the scenes, they OK the final product. This show is THEIR vision. Anything you see on the screen is what they ultimately thought would be the best to portray to the audience.

Granted, some actors can make even their subpar dialogue seem more interesting, but as a whole I believe that the material that is being produced has been getting weaker season after season.

I also believe that as the fantasy element within the story increases the show will get even worse because D&D just suck at fantasy. They become like Michael Bay disciples.

[PatrickStormborn]

As an aspiring actor I am very very nitpicky when acting is concerned so whoever told me that directors guide actors...umm, yes, I know that...everyone knows that. However a better director/writer for her character would tell her to show more emotion at the childrens death, the killing of masters and hearing the news of yunkai and astapor, but really...we are seeing an ice queen. And a better actress, would incorporate these things without having to hold the directors hand. :(

I mostly agree with this... But I think the problem is that the showrunners/directors want a specific Daenerys - a badass queen and little more.

We know that Emilia has read the books multiple times and even brings them onto the set with her. In the scene from the latest episode it's even possible to see exactly where she's taken influence from the book; the "turning away and speaking, turning back, turning away again" is what she does in the book, for example. And when Jorah tells her of the fall of Astapor, her expression is exactly the same as book Dany: she's totally unsurprised - it's just another Eroeh all over again. But the problem is that the show doesn't convey this - and although Emilia's performance is extremely important, nuances like this can't be conveyed by just acting alone. Would it have been hard for the showrunners to find an extra 30 seconds for this scene, during which Dany could explain how she feels. Why not reference the Lahazereen women who she tried (and failed) to save? Why not mention the Red Waste and how she couldn't protect her people (one of the reasons she doesn't march)? After they altered the Qarth storyline, why not mention her inability to save those who died there?

TL;DR... I think we can all agree that Emilia is far from the best actress on the show. She can be weak at times, but she can also be good. But I also think that Emilia brings it to another level - she knows the books, she understands the character. The directors and the showrunners should be using this to their advantage instead of ignoring it. IMO part of the reason her performance looked weak in this episode is because she was trying to convey more than the script was allowing her to. I know people have compared her performance to Iain Glen's, but that's not really fair - the writing allows him to convey everything he needs to (jealousy, pride/possessiveness, treachery, love). But what exactly did the script allow Emilia to convey? Self-doubt and Badass Queen. That's it. And that's all they've been going for since season two.

[Woel]

I really don't see why people pick this particular episode to complain on her acting. I think she conveyed a lot of emotion, although subtle, when getting the news from Yunkai and Astapor. Look for example how she turns away as to not show her reaction, which I think conveys a lot of restrained sadness and frustration. "My liberation of Slaver's Bay..." was maybe a tad too ironic for Dany's personality, but I think there is tiredness and grief in the way she delivers the line.

Regardless, I will admit that the last line with "I will rule" at the end was really cheesy, and that she sounds like she is in a commercial for Lancôme or something. It was a bad line, and the delivery was weird, but it is just one line of many. I can see how a final line affects how people view the scene as a whole, but I don't think it should.

I think a lot of this comes down to peoples' expectation on women. If we had a male character liberating Slaver's Bay and receiving news of how wrong it had gone, how would you expect him to react to those news in a serious meeting? Would you expect him to look heart-stricken and on the verge of tears? For some reason I don't think so.

[Theda Baratheon]

I mostly agree with this... But I think the problem is that the showrunners/directors want a specific Daenerys - a badass queen and little more.

We know that Emilia has read the books multiple times and even brings them onto the set with her. In the scene from the latest episode it's even possible to see exactly where she's taken influence from the book; the "turning away and speaking, turning back, turning away again" is what she does in the book, for example. And when Jorah tells her of the fall of Astapor, her expression is exactly the same as book Dany: she's totally unsurprised - it's just another Eroeh all over again. But the problem is that the show doesn't convey this - and although Emilia's performance is extremely important, nuances like this can't be conveyed by just acting alone. Would it have been hard for the showrunners to find an extra 30 seconds for this scene, during which Dany could explain how she feels. Why not reference the Lahazereen women who she tried (and failed) to save? Why not mention the Red Waste and how she couldn't protect her people (one of the reasons she doesn't march)? After they altered the Qarth storyline, why not mention her inability to save those who died there?

TL;DR... I think we can all agree that Emilia is far from the best actress on the show. She can be weak at times, but she can also be good. But I also think that Emilia brings it to another level - she knows the books, she understands the character. The directors and the showrunners should be using this to their advantage instead of ignoring it. IMO part of the reason her performance looked weak in this episode is because she was trying to convey more than the script was allowing her to. I know people have compared her performance to Iain Glen's, but that's not really fair - the writing allows him to convey everything he needs to (jealousy, pride/possessiveness, treachery, love). But what exactly did the script allow Emilia to convey? Self-doubt and Badass Queen. That's it. And that's all they've been going for since season two.

Yeah, even when marketing the show it's HEAVY on Dany being the badass woman and not a nuanced character of strong beliefs but with self doubt and frustrated sadness tied in. Ive been hesitant to just blame Emilia because I've been defending her acting all along but they need to alter this characterisation of dany soon because it's BORING and thats one thing dany as a character isnt, boring.

[sj4iy]

You know I wouldn't limit this to just Emilia Clarke. I think the performances from many of the actors have gotten worse as the seasons have progressed. Season 1 was the highlight season. Now as the show gets ever more popular, it seems that a certain level of complacency has kicked in.

Be honest, why has GoT made the news this year? Is it because of great acting? Peter Dinklage getting rave reviews? No. It's been all about whether Jaime did or did not rape Cersei.

But i don't think you can heap all the blame the actors for this. It is ultimately down to D&D. They OK all the scripts, they OK all the scenes, they OK the final product. This show is THEIR vision. Anything you see on the screen is what they ultimately thought would be the best to portray to the audience.

Granted, some actors can make even their subpar dialogue seem more interesting, but as a whole I believe that the material that is being produced has been getting weaker season after season.

I also believe that as the fantasy element within the story increases the show will get even worse because D&D just suck at fantasy. They become like Michael Bay disciples.

This is hyperbole if I've ever seen it.

[Cas Stark]

Yeah, even when marketing the show it's HEAVY on Dany being the badass woman and not a nuanced character of strong beliefs but with self doubt and frustrated sadness tied in. Ive been hesitant to just blame Emilia because I've been defending her acting all along but they need to alter this characterisation of dany soon because it's BORING and thats one thing dany as a character isnt, boring.

It might only be boring to us? The TV only viewers may not care that she's the badass fire queen all the time. But, sooner or later the utter stiffness and sameness of the recent performances where she has exactly the same demeanor and voice intonations no mater where she is or what she's taking about will register with the entire audience and this is especially true because she gets so much screen time. Bran doesn't necessarily need to be a great actor because he doesn't do much in terms of emotion...he slogs around the North, that's about it, much less demanding. Kit and Emilia's characters call for a lot more range.

[Theda Baratheon]

I always defended Kit as well, lol, and still think hes doing a good job.

[Cas Stark]

I always defended Kit as well, lol, and still think hes doing a good job.

He's improved a lot this season, maybe his feature film helped him w/his skill set. He, too, I thought was good in the first season, and then dropped in quality.

My other theory about the show and how some people's acting has declined or gotten glitcky since season 1 is that they had a lot more time with it and that with the disparate locations, logistics and everything else now in the later seasons...some of the basics...have suffered.

I can't either quite figure out how the "director" is directing everyone...is she really going from Croatia to Ireland to Iceland or are what we're really seeing is the second team doing the camera work and the director cutting at least some of the segments? Same with the wrting..we see all the time that GRRM wrote X episode but then it comes out that he didn't write "all" of the segements...which if they do this all the time no doubt accounts for a lot of the inconsistencies we see. But, I don't know, this is pure speculation.

[Theda Baratheon]

He's improved a lot this season, maybe his feature film helped him w/his skill set. He, too, I thought was good in the first season, and then dropped in quality.

My other theory about the show and how some people's acting has declined or gotten glitcky since season 1 is that they had a lot more time with it and that with the disparate locations, logistics and everything else now in the later seasons...some of the basics...have suffered.

I can't either quite figure out how the "director" is directing everyone...is she really going from Croatia to Ireland to Iceland or are what we're really seeing is the second team doing the camera work and the director cutting at least some of the segments? Same with the wrting..we see all the time that GRRM wrote X episode but then it comes out that he didn't write "all" of the segements...which if they do this all the time no doubt accounts for a lot of the inconsistencies we see. But, I don't know, this is pure speculation.

I've often wondered about the logistics of that as well due to all the different locations. I agree with you about Kit but I think season 2 saw a drop in a lot of actors abilities, which upon seeing their ability back again I can only really attribute to poor writing or directing. How many directors work on this show? I know they only list one director per episode but I dont think its true that there IS only one director considering all the different locations that can be found in one episode alone.

[Queen of Whores]

I think a lot of this comes down to peoples' expectation on women. If we had a male character liberating Slaver's Bay and receiving news of how wrong it had gone, how would you expect him to react to those news in a serious meeting? Would you expect him to look heart-stricken and on the verge of tears? For some reason I don't think so.

Are you joking with this comment? None of what I've read regarding this scene or Emilia's acting in general has come down to our notions on how the different sexes would react. You're the first person I've seen try to bring this up, and frankly it's ridiculous. You do realize a lot of the posters here are women as well, right? When they are also critiquing Emilia's performance your argument about perceptions of women kind of fall flat. This is not an issue of gender expectations, nor should you try to make it one.

[Banner Without Brothers]

Traditionally the difference between stage acting and small screen acting is that stage actors tend to make sweeping gestures and exaggerated facial movements so that the audience sitting in the theater can better see what's going on. This is usually known as ham acting or hammy acting and doesn't come over well on the small screen with close ups.Think Alan Rickman in Die Hard or Robin Hood or Lawrence Olivier in especially some of his early films. Just watch their faces, they're all over the place.

Wooden acting, barely changing your expression or tone of voice is like the opposite of stage acting. It's underplayed. It can I suppose be the result of a stage actor trying consciously NOT to do stage acting but I'd say it's more the result of laziness or not really being into the part.

[Cas Stark]

I've often wondered about the logistics of that as well due to all the different locations. I agree with you about Kit but I think season 2 saw a drop in a lot of actors abilities, which upon seeing their ability back again I can only really attribute to poor writing or directing. How many directors work on this show? I know they only list one director per episode but I dont think its true that there IS only one director considering all the different locations that can be found in one episode alone.

Yeah, it seems impossible that one "director" would be flying to every location and directing each segment. It has to be that the second unit is doing some/most of the shooting in at least some locations. It would be interesting to know how they work it though.

I thought almost everyone's acting in the NW segments dropped off when they went to Iceland, that was in hindsight a poor choice all the way around, probably not worth the expense and the toll it took on the actors.

And with Emilia, she was, I thought, a lot worse in season 2, then she was pretty good last season, and this season, eh, she's not bad, she sort of now is what she is, just very one notish. I rewatched her segment and it wasn't as bad the second time around, but still a bit jarring in several places and also really rushed for the level of importance of what they're conveying: her liberation campaign has gone to hell, that should be worth more than a handful of lines of dialogue.

[DaveyJoe]

The producers have stated that they try to have each director direct all of the scenes for their respective episodes. Sometimes scenes get shifted around in the editing process, but this helps maintain a consistent tone for each episode. So a production schedule might look like Alex Graves in one country filming all of his Night's Watch/Northern scenes of the season, then fly to the next location for all of the King's Landing scenes, and finally to the third location for all of the Essos scenes. It's just like a movie, where they shoot scenes out of chronological order.

[Gogossos]

At the risk of repeating myself, how else did people expect Dany to react in this scene? Smiling gleefully when told of Joff's demise? Outrageously flirting with Daario? And blowing her top at the news of the butcher king? That sounds like Viserys to me. I guess some of you are expecting to see the Mad Queen but I don't think that's the interpretation Emilia's going for.

We know that Emilia has read the books multiple times and even brings them onto the set with her. In the scene from the latest episode it's even possible to see exactly where she's taken influence from the book; the "turning away and speaking, turning back, turning away again" is what she does in the book, for example. And when Jorah tells her of the fall of Astapor, her expression is exactly the same as book Dany: she's totally unsurprised - it's just another Eroeh all over again. But the problem is that the show doesn't convey this - and although Emilia's performance is extremely important, nuances like this can't be conveyed by just acting alone. Would it have been hard for the showrunners to find an extra 30 seconds for this scene, during which Dany could explain how she feels. Why not reference the Lahazereen women who she tried (and failed) to save? Why not mention the Red Waste and how she couldn't protect her people (one of the reasons she doesn't march)? After they altered the Qarth storyline, why not mention her inability to save those who died there?

Basically, this. It's known Emilia is a consummate professional and one of the few "POV" actors to use the books to aid her performances. Now, tv/movie scripts don't tend to get published and read by millions, so an actor's performance becomes the only necessary interpretation of that character. But in a series like this, based on published books with multitudes of fans already in existence, the actor's interpretation is not the only one that exists. But as far as the tv show is concerned, it's probably the most important one, certainly the only relevant one in any case. So Emilia has studied the books, as much as the most ardent fan in here but her interpretation of Dany isn't the Mad Queen. She's nuanced and more muted, as PatrickStormborn has demonstrated. And I think that is jarring to some readers/viewers on this board, many of whom are wedded to the Mad Queen interpretation.

I really don't see why people pick this particular episode to complain on her acting. I think she conveyed a lot of emotion, although subtle, when getting the news from Yunkai and Astapor. Look for example how she turns away as to not show her reaction, which I think conveys a lot of restrained sadness and frustration. "My liberation of Slaver's Bay..." was maybe a tad too ironic for Dany's personality, but I think there is tiredness and grief in the way she delivers the line.

Regardless, I will admit that the last line with "I will rule" at the end was really cheesy, and that she sounds like she is in a commercial for Lancôme or something. It was a bad line, and the delivery was weird, but it is just one line of many. I can see how a final line affects how people view the scene as a whole, but I don't think it should.

I totally agree. Emilia's not wooden, or one note, as is the apparent popular opinion on this thread. Subtle, nuanced? Yes; with quite a range of complex/conflicting emotions portrayed in one scene. But it is a quiet scene, with no music until the very end, she's not angry at anyone or ecstatic about something. The "I will rule line" is essentially the same in the books - it shouldn't come off stilted or weird or arrogant because really there's tiredness, and humility in a way, when she decides to stay.