Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Frey Pies

Emilia Clarke

Recommended Posts

Well, it's no use all of us reiterating the same arguments over and over again. I've seen subtlety when required, I've seen fiery confidence when the scene (or books) called for it, I've seen fear way back in S1; I've seen a lot of variety in her performance, what more do you guys want? Maybe what sounds "off", "wooden" or "weird" just boils down to accent and it might not be agreeable to your ears for that reason. Otherwise, saying Emilia can't act, well I don't accept that, based on what I've seen. Of course I'm not trying to impose my opinion on everyone here but at the same time I'm not going to agree to opinions that I find incorrect.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, she's just got cast in what should be a really great role:

http://www.thewrap.com/emilia-clarke-nicholas-hoult-will-go-down-together-as-bonnie-and-clyde/

Michael Sucsy is directing the adaptation of Jeff Guinn’s non-fiction book about the young criminals

“Game of Thrones” star Emilia Clarke and “X-Men” actor Nicholas Hoult will play bank-robbing duo Bonnie and Clyde in Michael Sucsy’s “Go Down Together,” TheWrap has learned.

Sucsy is attached to direct from a script by Sheldon Turner (“Up in the Air”) and David Auburn (“Proof”), who adapted Jeff Guinn’s non-fiction book “Go Down Together: The True, Untold Story of Bonnie and Clyde.”

“Go Down Together” is a revisionist take on the legend of Clyde Barrow and femme fatale Bonnie Parker, young lovers who left at least seven bodies in their wake as they robbed banks throughout the Depression-era South.

Hoult’s casting had been recently rumored, while Clarke is newly linked to the project, which has been in development for several years.

I think this should be a good demonstration of her skill, her co-star is great, the writer and director are great. It'll be a good test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you people never seen good actors struggle with crappy material before?



I've seen a lot of good acting from Emilia Clarke in this series. She got stuck with frickin' dreck in episodes 4 and 5 this season. You know, those melodramatic turns were in the script or mandated by the director for sure before she delivered the unsupported melodramatic line "I will do what queens do. I will rule." There's just no way to save that material, I don't care who's acting.



The problem is not Emilia Clarke, the problem is that they dumped all the moodiness and self-questioning from the book character and left Danaerys one-dimensional. Hopefully they only dumped it temporarily because (1) they didn't have much time this year for that plot strand, because it generally ain't that fascinating, and (2) they judged it more important to paint Dany as a Great Conquering Queen to (and again I say hopefully) set up the contrast when they bring in the uncertainty and emotional flightiness of the book character later on.



I'm optimistic because episode 6 Dany was a lot more like book Dany. And IMO Clarke nailed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG, she looks nothing like Bonnie, this is ridiculous. But by the way, the tile of this future film is from Bonnie Parker's poen "The story of Bonnie and Clyde"

"Some day they'll go down together;
And they'll bury them side by side;
To few it'll be grief
To the law a relief
But it's death for Bonnie and Clyde."

They actually were not burried side by side, Bonnie's mother made sure of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe what sounds "off", "wooden" or "weird" just boils down to accent and it might not be agreeable to your ears for that reason.


No. It's wooden because it's wooden. The "accent not agreeable to your ears" argument is just bizarre.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It's wooden because it's wooden. The "accent not agreeable to your ears" argument is just bizarre.

You have an odd confidence in your perceptions. Mine are very different from yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the one accusing others of being thrown by someone's accent, it's your confidence in knowing what and how others perceive that is odd and presumptuous.



I speak six languages and have worked with people from all over the world; accepting accents is not a problem for me. If an actor is good they don't even have to speak a language I understand to get an emotion across well.



Emilia is wooden. That's not accents, that's a deficiency of acting skill.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the one accusing others of being thrown by someone's accent, it's your confidence in knowing what and how others perceive that is odd and presumptuous.

I speak six languages and have worked with people from all over the world; accepting accents is not a problem for me. If an actor is good they don't even have to speak a language I understand to get an emotion across well.

Emilia is wooden. That's not accents, that's a deficiency of acting skill.

You're confusing me with someone else. I've said nothing about accents.

I'm talking about your stating your opinion as if you're certain it's correct. You did it again when you replied to me just now.

There are a lot of people who have posted in this thread who obviously disagree with your opinion. We may be wrong, and you may be right. But you absolutely do not know for a certainty that you are correct, and your assertion of the absolute correctness of your opinion is not convincing, to put it mildly. If you want to convince somebody of something, tell them why you think it, not just that you're right and they're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the assertion that it's the script making Dany seem corny/stiff/whatever rather than her acting.

A poor craftsman blames his tools.
The fact of the matter is that really skilled actors can successfully get across their character's thoughts and feelings without dialogue at all, and 'bad' dialogue can be overcome by flexing your acting muscles and compensating for it.

I'm sorry, but the line 'I will do what queens do. I shall rule' is not a hammy atrocity. It could be said in so many different ways. Her inflection made it hammy. The hardness, the aloofness, her expression (which many people see as haughty or smug) are what gave it that quality. Yes, actors are given direction. However, actors are also given agency to bring their own thoughts and interpretations to a scene. If Emilia had an issue with the turning around being melodramatic, or had her own ideas about how to deliver the line she could have simply discussed it with the director. Directors can and do listen to actor's suggestions, especially in TV shows that have been going for years where the actor has a very firm grasp of the character.
All she would have had to do is soften her expression, change the inflection slightly and that line could have come across in a completely different way. I promise you, Peter Dinklage and Nikolaj and Charles Dance all bring their own ideas to the table and talk to the director about making changes if they feel they need to be made, and they have ALL had some pretty hammy dialogue at times. It's unreasonable to claim that Dany and only Dany suffers from poor writing.

I understand that everyone has their own opinions of what constitutes a good performance, and that's fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm just trying to give my perspective. I was an actor myself and my experiences inform my viewpoints.

Are the lines ridiculous sometimes? Yes, absolutely, but they can be delivered in such a way as to mitigate that. I am not saying Emilia is a bad actor, she's not. She has shown herself to be capable of nuance and subtlety but she needs to employ it more frequently. Nobody here has said she's a bad actor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching the scene over and over and over and over... and I don't see what anyone means by hammy except for one part, which she thanks Hizdahr for his father's work on the pyramids which I took for sarcasm. I even listened to it without watching and it doesn't seem bad. Can a harsh critic of hers do a line by line breakdown of the supposed problem?



In season two when she speaks to the Spice King, that seems more like what the problems here are describing. This last episode seems fine. Her facial expressions are great.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching the scene over and over and over and over... and I don't see what anyone means by hammy except for one part, which she thanks Hizdahr for his father's work on the pyramids which I took for sarcasm. I even listened to it without watching and it doesn't seem bad. Can a harsh critic of hers do a line by line breakdown of the supposed problem?

I'm not a harsh critic and I think she does a fine job most of the time (and like I mentioned before, what is she supposed to do if her supporting cast is written in the background, of course all the pressure is on her).

But you described the problem yourself, the fact that we even have to discuss if it was sarcasm or not is a good indication. There is subtlety and there is not knowing what the actor was actually going for. An actor is supposed to make us feel a certain way through his whole presence, body language and not only the delivery of his lines.

With Emilia (and she's not the only one or the worst in this show) I sometimes actually can see the script in my mind as she seem to convey emotions on cue e.g. "now comes the line where I have to be angry". And again if she has a supporting cast that doesn't say really that much it's difficult to get the emotions flowing in a natural way and it ends up with being obvious action and reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the assertion that it's the script making Dany seem corny/stiff/whatever rather than her acting.

A poor craftsman blames his tools.

The fact of the matter is that really skilled actors can successfully get across their character's thoughts and feelings without dialogue at all, and 'bad' dialogue can be overcome by flexing your acting muscles and compensating for it.

I'm sorry, but the line 'I will do what queens do. I shall rule' is not a hammy atrocity. It could be said in so many different ways. Her inflection made it hammy.

You know David Benioff & D. B. Weiss wrote those lines. When I heard her dialog , and she had just told Ser Jorah something like "I am staying in Meereen" and Ser Jorah says something like "and do what?" , I would have cut the "I will do what queens do"... I would have just had her say (after a few beats) "rule". I don't know why Michelle MacLaren didn't turn to Dave or Dan , one or the other is always on set, and say "Well that was awkward dialog". Even in run though of the script I don't know if Clarke would have picked up on it but MachLaren sure should have, well Dave or Dan had a tin ear when writing it!

They must have shot that scene many times and I have to wonder if there was a better take?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think some people expect too much from Emilia. Compare her story to the others in the show; hers is the only one where her supporting cast is limited to just being a supporting cast to her.



In King's Landing, Tywin, Jaime, Cersei, Tyrion and Margaery (and previously the Queen of Thorns) are all much more than supporting characters; at the Wall the primary focus has always been on Jon, but Sam isn't just his supporting character, and the threat of the wildlings and the Others means that the story at the Wall can never just be limited to Jon; whoever Arya is with on the show usually ends up getting a lot of focus (Jaqen, Tywin, the Brotherhood, Sandor); Littlefinger gets about the same amount of attention as Sansa does, and the same goes for Theon and Ramsay; Melisandre and Davos are a huge part of Stannis's story (which is exactly how it should be). Bran and Brienne's storylines are perhaps slightly different, but they get relatively little screentime and the interaction they have with other characters is always of significance.



With Dany, on the other hand, she's completely the focus of the entire eastern storyline. She has an interesting (and talented) supporting cast, but they're all devoted to her, and the scenes themselves are devoted to her (even when she isn't present - e.g. the scene between Grey Worm and Missandei sheds light on their characters, but ultimately it's about Dany's conquest of Meereen).



She obviously had a more positive reception in season one when her supporting cast included Illyrio, Drogo, Viserys, Mirri Maz Duur, Irri, Doreah, Rakharo, the Wineseller, etc, and when she shared some of the focus with Viserys.



Her Astapor scenes were generally positively received, as were her scenes against the Yunkish envoy and the leaders of the Second Sons - clearly antagonistic supporting characters are also important. Not including the Astapor and Qartheen envoys in episode 5 to deliver the news about Astapor and Yunkai was a HUGE mistake IMO.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She obviously had a more positive reception in season one when her supporting cast included Illyrio, Drogo, Viserys, Mirri Maz Duur, Irri, Doreah, Rakharo, the Wineseller, etc, and when she shared some of the focus with Viserys.

Viserys, Drogo and more Jorah definitely took some load of her.

I think most people agree that Peter Dinklage is one of the top tier actors the show has, but there was one scene in Season 3 where he was alone with Shae and she's simply sub-par. Even he couldn't save that scene (and came across cheesy as well), which shows that the supporting cast does indeed matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're confusing me with someone else. I've said nothing about accents.

I'm talking about your stating your opinion as if you're certain it's correct. You did it again when you replied to me just now.

There are a lot of people who have posted in this thread who obviously disagree with your opinion. We may be wrong, and you may be right. But you absolutely do not know for a certainty that you are correct, and your assertion of the absolute correctness of your opinion is not convincing, to put it mildly. If you want to convince somebody of something, tell them why you think it, not just that you're right and they're wrong.

The accent comment should have been directed at Gogossos, my mistake.

However, I haven't stated my opinion with any more absoluteness than some others in this thread. That I didn't litter my post with enough IMHOs, IMOs and IMOBIHOs and a bunch of other ridiculous acronyms to keep you happy is too damn bad; it's not my job to cater to you. The accent comment by that other person is still bizarre.

She obviously had a more positive reception in season one when her supporting cast included Illyrio, Drogo, Viserys, Mirri Maz Duur, Irri, Doreah, Rakharo, the Wineseller, etc, and when she shared some of the focus with Viserys.

Her Astapor scenes were generally positively received, as were her scenes against the Yunkish envoy and the leaders of the Second Sons - clearly antagonistic supporting characters are also important

True. She has had some good and great moments and some of my favorites of the series are hers from season 1. Unfortunately this season in particular has exposed some weaknesses. She and Pedro had an identical line: "Take off your clothes." When he delivered it, it was smoking hot. Unfortunately from her it was a sexless clunker. (It doesn't help that she and the actor who plays Daario have zero chemistry while Pedro could generate chemistry with a brick.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...