Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

It's weird because she plays a larger part than Mutt - without the father issues she has: interiority! a sidekick! a sidekick with interiority, for a bemusing 5 seconds! And when she's got stuff to work with, she's good, but the rest of the time she's just paid on a wry-smiles-per-minute basis.

i enjoyed this, but was bracing myself for the ending - all of the reviews i saw made it sound like things go completely off the deep end into ridiculous schlock. but i thought it fit fine in the context of the series? i mean its extremely fantastical, but for a series where Indy has previously met & conversed with a knight from the crusades, been subject to voodoo mind control, and had God literally come down from heaven and smite his enemies, this one didnt feel like some crazy departure.

Indy 3 has better lines ("Goose-stepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them!" and "I find that if I just sit down the problem resolves itself").

new one could have used a Stoppard pass.

I found this film quite satisfying, especially the ending.

It's definitely in the top 3 IJ films, maybe top 2.

Strikes me that Ford doesn't act much. A lot of action, running, grouching - but not much of what you would really want a good actor to do (conversation, expressions, emotion) - even by the standards of A NEW HOPE or RAIDERS.

PW-B seems to me the risky crux of this film. She's irritating, she seems almost embarrassingly limited in mostly reprising her other famous role here, she smirks and smiles when things should be serious. Yet, as correctly noted above, she's in the film almost throughout. I think it's best or necessary to accept these limitations and irritations and posit that, as something different from the rest of the franchise, she brings a certain spark that does help it keep going to the end.

I consider action, running, and grouching acting imo.

His grouching is flawless, even by his very high standards!

This is not, I think, the first time that someone has smirked and smiled their way through a serious situation, even within an Indiana Jones film.

It was pretty funny that his reaction to the entire astronaut parade was "who gives a shit"

Truth be told, I think Ford is underappreciated as an actor. For a while, he was the closest thing we had to Gary Cooper, even moreso than Kevin Costner (who used to get a lot of those comparisons) and it was all in the face. Cooper was unrivaled in close-up, especially in his older years, and the anxiety and the distress that was naturally there in his aging features (and which spoke volumes in the right context) was something Ford had. I don't think Ford did enough films that really took advantage of that, and when he tried, those attempts rarely got enough notice. (Witness may be the lone exception. It's too bad he turned down Syriana and Traffic, what a resurgence that would've been.)

I almost want to say The Fugitive is the best example of his talents because it was a widely seen movie that amazingly got a lot of acclaim for an action film, but Tommy Lee Jones gets all the attention. To be fair, Jones is great, but Ford's role was challenging in a very different way - it's a lead role where the character has to avoid interaction or even just to be seen. So as an actor, he's really left to his own devices, but he carries it remarkably. It's almost a silent performance where 99% of that performance is just in the face and his body language, and he's great, there's not a moment where he doesn't seem like somebody who's carrying a lot of anguish without being obvious about it.

otm. i rewatched The Fugitive recently after many years and found myself floored by Ford's performance. i never really thought of it as an acting vehicle for Ford before, but seeing it through that lens, he pulls off some extraordinary stuff in it.

I have a memory of watching The Fugitive opening weekend and my cousin leaning in to whisper, "This guy's a hell of an actor." Burt Lancaster said a similar thing in 1981 when he wondered why Ford wasn't nominated for an Oscar.

I can believe that Ford may be a very good actor - which is why I'm somewhat disappointed that he isn't given more substantial acting to do in this film.

I think the secret to his acting is it’s not flashy and seems unsubstantial to the point people think he’s just being Harrison Ford, but that’s not at all true

Americans who think art should look difficult and require Method-y research condescend to star actign.

as an actor, I'm not going to disparage whatever inspiration actors use to create their performance, but internally, I hate method acting simply because people who subscribe to it often falsely suggest to other people that it's the 'only' way to act authentically, and a great, growing number of people use it to justify abusive behavior on set/on stage. ("I'm sorry I hurt you, but I need to be this character on and off stage, and that's what he would have said or done").

Ford's "How are you?" ad lib in Star Wars still cracks me up

method = rockism obv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-6X2H7pCo

I think the best part of Ford interviews is the revelation that he is funny, even goofy at times, but his sense of humor isn’t really that of any of the characters he’s played.

as an actor, I'm not going to disparage whatever inspiration actors use to create their performance, but internally, I hate method acting simply because people who subscribe to it often falsely suggest to other people that it's the 'only' way to act authentically, and a great, growing number of people use it to justify abusive behavior on set/on stage. ("I'm sorry I hurt you, but I need to be this character on and off stage, and that's what he would have said or done").

― linoleum gallagher (Neanderthal)

My non-scientific theory: Adler, Strasberg, et. al. developed the Method so that actors could feel better about a profession they thought was unmanly or something. Plus, actors love nothing so much than to prattle on a talk show about how much RESEARCH they did for the part; showing your work is an American phenomenon.

this is akin to my lazy rockism quip, yes, it's about making your ephemeral trade important and yeah of course that ties into work, machismo etc

xpost lol....yeah totally.

In 2018 I played Samuel Byck in Assassins. Obviously I knew all about who he was and what he did by that point, but there was a brief moment where I was seduced by the dumb Jared Leto way of doing things so I wound up listening to the only known recordings of Byck and trying to mimic his voice, and after two days I stopped myself and said "who the fuck knows or cares what Byck sounded like? That's a parlor trick, not acting", and I just used my own voice. wasn't doing the 'staying in character even backstage' nonsense, was cracking fart jokes minutes before going on stage most nights. and won an award anyway.

so there, Method!

hurray!

i realise i'm sidetracking a thread i'm not bothered about so sorry i shd take it elsewhere but this is fun

https://aurorasginjoint.com/2017/08/05/the-a-b-cs-of-robert-mitchum/

You're not hijacking -- this is important.

neanderthal, the mimicking of someone’s voice, attempting a particular physical style that’s not your own, etc is pretty far from anything described as The Method ime. the most famous part of The Method is about summoning up emotional memories from your own personal experience as a tool for understanding how the character you’re playing might react to something - which is kind of the opposite of what you’re describing (effacing yourself in service to a character)

everybody’s got their own way and my impression is that Ford doesn’t have much or any training at all but i’m probably just basing this on the famous story of him being a set carpenter and only accidentally an actor (i suspect it was less accidental than he has allowed the myth to indicate)

i don't think there's a good/bad dichotomy between method and any of the other tools actors use, the mistake is ascribing goodness to one and badness to others. also especially in screen acting the actor's performance is tied into the other aspects of production: camerawork, editing etc

anyway in short if your argument is privileging one kind of thing over another it's a stupid argument, i'm sure my lack of interest in the ongoing Indiana Jones saga is fuck all to do with whether Ford nails his part or not

trust me, I know what method is! we had a Meisner studio adjacent to ours for months during a production where I heard the weird exercises they were doing. my comment on trying to mimic the voice was more to respond to Alfred's comment about bragging about the 'research' that was done. my comment about 'fart jokes before going on stage' was to point out I didn't sit there delving into my emotional memory bank to locate the feelings for Byck (mostly because I have nothing relevant for what that dude was feeling). i was just able to turn the feelings on and off internally like a light-switch when I was on-stage. many actors are! it's valid, but it's often devalued for Method approach. especially Meisner with the "living truthfully" exercises they do.

to Noodle's point, I've worked for directors who insisted that if you weren't using the Method approach you weren't really in character, which used to infuriate me, mostly because it only works for some people. and for some people it is harmful because it causes them to dredge up harmful memories and damages their mental health. one friend broke down crying after a production of Closer for that exact reason.

Ford I think makes good choices and knows how to balance warmth and comedy deftly, without trying to steal scenes or pull focus. and is good at showing grit.

Ford’s especially great in Frantic iirc

I cant recall any memorable performances from the late 90s till Bladerunner 2049

He definitely phones it in “Crystal Skull”

I’m glad he seems to be “back” even if the stuff he’s appearing in is still middling

GET OFF MAH PLANE

ok I guess that's not evidence for my side so much

i know you know what you're talking about Neanderthal precisely because you're engaged with it, that's where the "method or nothing" line looks so dumb

Interesting to see Mitchum brought up here because having read that Lee Server bio of his he was almost always openly disdainful of the "craft" of acting, which certainly makes him look cooler than a lot of the self-serious thesps but there was also something sad about it for me, like at root he couldn't handle the idea that this was a decent job for a Man to have despite being so self-evidently superb at it. Harrison Ford from what I see whenever he pops up in media junkets and such - and I'll admit I haven't followed too closely - seems to me very much in that tradition, and again that's refreshing on some levels ("who gives a fuck" def the correct take to have about Star Wars in 2023), a bit sad on others.

Overt dismissal is as bad as wheezing on and on about how difficult acting is.

i.e. not good for the profession

for some people it is harmful because it causes them to dredge up harmful memories and damages their mental health

yes totally - your own emotions can get v uncontrollable v fast

have you ever read "a practical handbook for the actor"? it's from people who studied at mamet's atlantic theatre company and i think you'd like some of what they say. eg don't worry about "being the character". if you're playing abraham lincoln, put on the hat and beard and people will believe you're abraham lincoln, we're all adults here. what people want to see is what YOU bring to the part

i was gonna go further into the Mitchum thing to say yes he's been used as an outspoken critic of craft for a long time but it's more complex than that, the links and quotes on that page i linked are more complicated than simple "method bad/natural character good"

reading thru he's not saying this, or can't be quoted saying this, it's about ways of performing rather than dismissing the job of performing

in short i wouldn't give much credence to the most quoted Mitchum lines about acting any more than i would give credence to any other famous person quote swilling around the net

Oh I def didn't mean that he was saying anything about method acting, the kind of self-important Acting Mitchum was fond of deflating didn't start with the Method.

The quotes I'm thinking of are not "swilling around the net" tho, they come from a deeply researched biography, albeit one I read 10+ years ago and don't have on hand to quote from.

sorry Daniel i haven't read the biog so i'm not saying Mitchum wasn't prone to posturing about this stuff. i was thinking that he's the go-to example for other people who wanna posture about it and the truth is probably more complex, like it always is. it was intersting reading things where he definitely wasn't completely dismissive of the job of acting

Mitchum of an appropriate age would've been a perfectly good Indiana Jones btw

I have nothing relevant for what that dude was feeling

i doubt this tbh - and you say you were able to turn him on/off like a lightswitch so there's something in there

that book i mentioned talks about using "as ifs" - you use something from your own experience, or that you can easily imagine, and say "you know, if AS IF i was trying to convince an airline employee to let me on the plane after the gate was closed" and that's enough of a goose to your sensibilities to let your body and mind feel it.. like.. ahh yep, that's the vibe i need

the affective memory thing is famous because it's controversial (now as then) and prob the root of the DDL-style immersion we now mean when we say method, but all the other stuff that came from stanislavsky (relaxation, focus, deliberation, the "magic if") now seems so obvious i think we forget someone had to think of it

much virtue in if

yes totally

Tracer that feels much closer to my understanding of what the Method is than the extreme examples that are celebrated by fans of lads behaving badly

I always cringe when I hear about stuff like Jared Leto's method approach to the Joker of all things...every performer needs to find the approach that works for them, which makes sense simply because every individual is going to be different emotionally and psychologically with very different life experiences, but unfortunately the inherent nature of method acting makes any misguided practice of it especially appalling.

Even with the best practitioners, it's pretty unsettling to me. I remember years ago Philip Seymour Hoffman mentioned on a talk show (probably Charlie Rose) that acting to him was "pretending to have feelings that aren't really there," and I have a vague recollection that he framed it as an explanation as to why acting to him was not only difficult but risky or potentially damaging. It wasn't something he wanted to elaborate, and I remember it being a quick, rushed answer, but it was a disturbing concept. I never forgot it, and when he died years later, it was hard not to think about it - I think the New Yorker even did a profile that seemed to link his craft with the turmoil he had gone through over the years.

It's even possible he said "create" or "imagine" feelings rather than just "pretend" which would be more disturbing...it's been so long and I only saw it once, so my memory of it may have changed. Wish I had a copy so I can get it right.

I imagine the pressure to perform is harder as a screen actor because if you are doing a stage production and one day think to yourself "fuck, I'm in over my head here", yeah, you could get savaged in the press, and yeah, some vids might show up on Youtube, but in a movie, your shit performance is preserved in amber for everyone to see and clown endlessly. not to mention some of the punishing circumstances people are put into on set.

so I can see perhaps doing everything possible to give yourself an edge there, including pushing yourself over the edge mentally speaking.

Also, all Leto's method acting stuff leads to incredibly irritating and unconvincing performances. In BR 2049, for example, he kills the film dead every time he appears.

i'm probably a "but that's the point!" guy more often than is tolerable but BR2049 really does test this to its limit: no no that's the point of course the impotent scion of a corporate god would be callow and pretentious! this callow and pretentious tho?

(i guess jeremy strong is what this looks like when it rly is the point)

If it hadn't been written about ad nauseam, I wouldn't have guessed that Strong was method acting. He's so good and unforced! Leto is the opposite: big effort, totally unconvincing.