5 Comments

1. Nanda  •  Jun 8, 2004 @3:43 am
   

   No no no you did not just say that Brad Pitt has “range” and “skill.” Agh!! You did!

   When I watch a movie, as part of an audience that is watching a show to be entertained, I do not want a job! Jobs are lame. If I have to have a job in order to see depth in an actor’s performance then the actor is falling short.

   And I have seen Meet Joe Black, which consisted of Brad Pitt widening his eyes and staring at things. Perhaps intentionally, but not the most arousing of performances.

   I guess I just disagree. From what I’ve read of epic poems, the hero of the poem is not only the focus of the story, he’s also just that - a hero. Even if he is a tragic hero he’s still all heroic and glorious and stuff. I didn’t get any “hero” from Pitt in Troy (did from Hector, who wasn’t billed first or second in the movie). Pitt just grunted and had wide arms.

2. Teel  •  Jun 8, 2004 @10:17 pm
   

   I am miraculously ignorant of what defines a “hero” - I have never even heard of anyone doing something I would have considered “heroic”, I don’t know of anyone I think of as a “hero”… could you tell me what “hero” means to you, or an example of someone you consider a “hero”? And based on the ridiculous general expectations of “hero”, I felt that the very first sequence of Troy established that Pitt’s character was NOT intended to be “heroic”.

   On the other hand, I think that you need to choose your role as a member of the audience. Either you’re actively involved and working mentally to understand and appreciate the film, or you’re just there to take in the spectacle. In the case of the latter, you have no business being critical of such nuances as “acting”, “direction”, and the “screenplay”. Just set back, turn your mind off, and enjoy.

   I like to do a combination. I like to think actively about the elements of the entertainment, AND to set back and enjoy it. It always seemed silly to me to go to the movies and then not enjoy yourself.

3. Nanda  •  Jun 9, 2004 @5:44 am
   

   I look at things like movies and such in order to be entertained, period. I do not find it entertaining to see a brown and yellow film about a non-emotive supposed tragic hero. I think you have no business telling me that I have no business doing something because I have a very quick temper that is triggered by my unreasonable assumptions, and sometimes I have been known to growl at people.

   I think it’s all fine and good and entertaining to think about certain films, but when you say words like “work,” that to me implies something that is not so entertaining. I don’t want to work mentally on any movie I see. If I so happen to think about stuff, right then, that’s fun.

   (And come on. Finding depth in a Brad Pitt movie is like finding depth in a Family Circus cartoon.)

   Homer was all about the hero. I know this because of my horrible late nights writing essays about The Odyssey for that horrible literature class. So if they didn’t intend for him to be heroic, that’s not a very accurate interpretation of the original work.

   To me, a hero saves lives at risk to her/his life, rather than killing everyone. I guess back in the olden Greekish days being heroic meant saving the lives of the people you liked and killing everyone else, though. But I can’t tell you how all the academics define a hero in the Greekish days. But when I think of a hero from an epic poem, I think “glorious.” I think of a human who is almost god-like. And if it’s a tragic hero, I think of a guy who is noble and fights and stuff but is going to die. Oh, so I guess Brad Pitt had the tragic part down. But I didn’t think his death was so tragic, so maybe not. I *wanted* him to die, whereas if he accurately acted the hero I wouldn’t have wanted him to die (despite my obvious bias against him personally), regardless of his tragic flaw.

   Brad Pitt didn’t do any of that. He didn’t appear to like anyone. He looked at his mother like she was a rock and he looked at Helen like she was a walking vagina. His few “honorable” moments weren’t him being honorable so much as “normal” instead of “barbaric.” He risked his own life, but they made him seem more of an unthinking, stubborn child, rather than a glorious hero that other people admired.

   I like Homer. I recommend Stanley Lombardo’s translations (direct quote from the Odyssey: “Are you all pumped up because you beat that bum, Irus?”). I’m currently reading through the copy of The Illiad that I bought to put on my bookshelf. Now that I have no life, I can read it. It looks like there’s a whole bunch of stuff the film couldn’t squeeze in that portrays Achilles as a lot more heroic than Brad Pitt seemed.

   Maybe Brad did the best with what he was given. Maybe I’m more unhappy with the adaptation of the poem than the acting. But Brad’s idea of being Achilles, the celebrated hero of a grand epic poem, was making his voice thick and low, with random fluctuations in his tone from time to time. Oh, and wrinkling his nose when Achilles was supposed to be upset. To me, that isn’t good acting. But it wasn’t bad enough to laugh out loud while watching the movie - and that’s just not entertaining!

   Characters are what makes television and movies and stories so entertaining to me. It’s what I loved about The Odyssey - the clear characterization of all the people, and there were a lot of them. In the movie, Achilles seemed like a personality-lacking robotic warrior type thing. Hector had personality. Why couldn’t Achilles?

   I guess it’s like Achilles appeared to only have thumos in action, while Hector had thumos in both thought and action. And in an epic movie, where thumos is important, I expect to get lots of it from the star of the movie.

   As much as I hate to admit it, I enjoy thinking about Troy after the fact. But I did not enjoy watching it.

   Oh, and they didn’t even explain why shooting Achilles in the heel would kill him, and focused on all the successive arrows that hit him. Whaaat.

4. Teel  •  Jun 9, 2004 @11:03 am
   

   “In the movie, Achilles seemed like a personality-lacking robotic warrior type thing. Hector had personality.”

   And I felt the opposite. I knew, from the first scenes I saw him in, where Achilles was coming from and how he felt about his lot in life. I was able, as the movie played out, to follow him emotionally to Troy, and when he acted, I not only knew why, but I felt it in keeping with his character. When his cousin charged into battle, at first I was shocked (because the Achilles that I knew from the rest of the film would not do this), and then the moment I saw him fight, I knew for sure it was not Achilles, and I was relieved that his character had not suddenly done something that didn’t make sense (well, according to his already established logic, anyway).

   Yet with Hector, I got no sense of clear character. He suspects before leaving Sparta that his brother is up to no good, but does nothing, says nothing. He finds out that his brother has done something that will have dire consequences, and for half a moment he seems to want to act, but then for no discernable reason does not. I can’t read him; why did he turn back to Troy again? That didn’t seem to come clear. When he first encounters Achilles, I don’t know what he wants, whether he’s any more upset that they defiled the temple or not, and I don’t detect a lick of concern for his cousin that (without seeing her) I assume has just been raped and killed, killed and raped, or kidenaped and raped and raped and raped. He has stumbled into this deadly situation, is let out alive, and is no more or less interested in fighting the Greeks. He seemed to me to care very little for his wife and son and less for his cousin than Achilles did hardly knowing her. When his brother challenged Helen’s husband to a one on one battle, Hector seemed for a moment to understand heroism in allowing it to happen, but then when Paris proved the coward, it was as though Hector was a different person, his whole demeanor changed. Throughout the whole film he seemed to be some sort of spineless jackass who didn’t really care for anything, but felt a sense of duty he was required to follow. Paris was worse, sure, and even less heroic, but Hector… what an unpredictable ass.

   I never got a consistant feel for who Hector was, for what he wanted from each situation he found himself in. But Achilles I understood entirely. Eric Bana gave me the same performance I saw in The Hulk. I liked it in The Hulk until I saw him do Troy virtually the same way. This isn’t “acting” as much as it’s “character acting”. Perhaps Eric Bana can act (in more than one way), but despite your clear personal bias, at least Brad Pitt comes across as a different being in different films. If you go into it looking to make fun of and analyze negatively the acting of any one person, you can come to the same conclusions about ANY actor in ANY film the way you seem to about Brad Pitt. Personally I was more disappointed in the acting of Brian Cox and Peter O’Toole (I think that’s right) than Brad Pitt, and they were each better than Eric Bana.

   …

   As far as the difference between an actual Greek epic poem and the movie “Troy”… I haven’t read any Homer, and even if I did, I doubt I would ever expect any modern representation to accurately depict what Homer wrote. I didn’t go into Troy expecting anything. In fact, when Achilles was introduced I thought to myself “Oh? Achilles is in the Illiad? Neat. Maybe I should read it.” I didn’t go in expecting Brad Pitt’s acting to suck, like it seems you did. I did go in knowing it was inspired by the Illiad, but also that generally up to about 30 pages of prose translates well to about two hours of film… and it can’t be that far off for epic poetry… and the Illiad is a LOT longer than 30 pages, but Troy isn’t a three-week long movie… so, I knew that the bulk of it had been cut out. And if you cut out 90% of a story, you’re really just making something new anyway, so if Troy isn’t like the Illiad, then that’s to be expected. It’s like all the stuff that got cut out of Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban - the movie would have been over four hours the way Chris Columbus had been doing it - it doesn’t make the movie bad, it makes it an interpretation of the book, more “inspired by HPatPoA” than “based on HPatPoA”. That is, going into either movie, rather than looking to re-read the book in a different medium, I looked to be entertained by whatever was presented to me. And I was.

   You say you look at movies in order to be entertained, but if you choose to be entertained you will be, and if you choose not to be entertained, you won’t be. So if you were not entertained by Troy then it is a result of a decision you made, perhaps unconscious or made long in the past, but you were entertained exactly as much as you allowed yourself to be.

   …

   Also, I thought it was clear the entire time that beyond superstition and religion, no supernatural effects or events would be depicted in Troy. It is my rough understanding that the Illiad (moreso the Oddessy) is full of the supernatural, but since none of the rest of Troy relied on the supernatural, I didn’t expect any explanation of Achilles’ death.

   Though seriously - if Paris is that good an archer, why didn’t he shoot Achilles before Hector died? Especially since it would have been an excellent parallel to Hector’s saving his own life during an unmatched challenge.

   Sigh. I suppose they were trying too hard to follow the Illiad.

5. Nanda  •  Jun 10, 2004 @5:09 pm
   

   Hector seemed like a kind, gentle man who had noble convictions. He fought because he had to, not because he wanted a glorious name. Achilles fought because he wanted his name to be remembered, I guess, and because he had those big muscles so he was good at it. To me, Hector is the more likable of the characters.

   Hector looked at his wife lovingly and planned for her escape from Troy. He showed caring for his baby. Achilles threw his own love interest on a pile of skins and fucked her. To me, Hector is more likable in this regard.

   Maybe he didn’t show much regard for the fate of his cousin, but neither did Achilles, and he was the one who fucked her. The focus of the Iliad was not about how oppressed women were, but how glorious the male heroes were, so I guess this is to be expected. Yes, Achilles went in to save Helen, but the look on his face was one of a caveman going to go club his woman and claim ownership, rather than one of a man who loved someone.

   “When his brother challenged Helen’s husband to a one on one battle, Hector seemed for a moment to understand heroism in allowing it to happen, but then when Paris proved the coward, it was as though Hector was a different person, his whole demeanor changed. Throughout the whole film he seemed to be some sort of spineless jackass who didn’t really care for anything, but felt a sense of duty he was required to follow. Paris was worse, sure, and even less heroic, but Hector… what an unpredictable ass.”

   Okay. I think this shows Hector and Paris were only human. What would you have done? Humans are cowardly. Humans get afraid. Humans show emotion. Humans change their minds and become confused. On one hand Hector wanted to let his brother fight and be all brave. On the other hand, he did not want his brother to die, especially when he was begging for help. Hector showed love for his brother that surpassed any rules about fighting or whatever.

   I don’t necessarily mean to criticize only Pitt’s acting. I’m not saying Bana was a wonderful, emotive actor. I’m saying he portrayed a more human, likable character than Pitt, intentional or not, which I find very strange considering Achilles is supposed to he the well-liked hero.

   ——-

   I know that movie adaptations of literature are going to leave stuff out. But my complaint with many movie adaptations is what content they choose to include. I found the interactions between gods and humans the most interesting aspect of the Homer poems, but there was none of that. It’s like the Lord of the Rings movies. Focus on big battles because Americans love to see shit like that. There was too much fighting and too little background information.

   ———————-

   “You say you look at movies in order to be entertained, but if you choose to be entertained you will be, and if you choose not to be entertained, you won’t be. So if you were not entertained by Troy then it is a result of a decision you made, perhaps unconscious or made long in the past, but you were entertained exactly as much as you allowed yourself to be.”

   I chose to be entertained. I wasn’t. Some things are just not entertaining to some people, regardless of how much they want to be entertained. I tried. I tried to laugh at Brad Pitt’s sweaty face. I tried to ignore the fake boats on fake water. But in the end I was left unsatisfied. I think that what you say about letting yourself be entertained might be a valid point that applies to yourself, but it doesn’t always apply to everyone in every situation. But it’s fine, you can say it is my fault that I didn’t enjoy the movie. I say that it is the fault of those who created the movie!

   I have enjoyed Brad Pitt movies before. Interview with the Vampire, 12 monkeys. I think I liked them despite Pitt. Maybe he is capable of acting a bit different from movie to movie, but the acting seems very amateurish to me and guided mostly by heavy editing. Still, I managed to at least be interested in the fate of his characters in those movies, while I wasn’t in Troy.

   I admit it was my fault for expecting more than a typical epic war movie. I thought perhaps they would throw in all the interesting bits from the books, and make it a nice story about specific people and emotions - not just war in general. But perhaps that type of thing is not good for a movie format.

   ———

   It’s like one reviewer of the movie said - we like to have a personal investment in the main character. We like to care what happens to him or her. The movie was full of underdeveloped characterizations and overdeveloped battles, so while the scenes were big and grand and all, I was left not caring whether the main characters died or not, or won or not, etc. With the possible exception of Hector.

   Strange that we feel nearly the opposite.

   I personally didn’t understand why all those archers, not just Paris, stood around the walls of the city while Achilles beat up Hector. Why didn’t they just arrow him to death right away? Maybe Hector was trying to finally do the honorable thing. I don’t know. None of them seemed all that smart to me.