From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #417 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, November 8 2003 Volume 12 : Number 417 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Keanu and related [Christopher Gross ] This calls for a very clever mixture of psychology and extreme violence [] RE: Oh yeah, and the Matrix [Eb ] Re: This calls for a very clever mixture of psychology and extreme violence [Eb ] Re: The Matrix ["Glen Uber" ] Re: just like shouting "liar" in a crowded democracy [Jim Davies ] Yanni Rocks! Er, Roky Yawns! Ehhhhfeckit... ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: Oh yeah, and the Matrix [steve ] RE: Don't touch my schtick (was: Murdering William) ["Jason Brown \(Echo ] RE: Don't touch my schtick (was: Murdering William) [Sweet & Tender Hooli] Re: possible feg-like gig? ["Stewart C. Russell" ] REAP ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: The Matrix ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Yanni Rocks! Er, Roky Yawns! Ehhhhfeckit... ["Grunty" ] Re: This calls for a very clever mixture of psychology and extreme violence [Tom Clark Subject: Re: Keanu and related On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Capuchin wrote: > > He was also competent, at least, in The Devil's Advocate. > > Gads... I don't think I can buy that. > > But mere competence isn't really at issue here (though it easily could > be), we're talking about doing one thing well. I don't think anyone would > say that he did well, merely competent (though I disagree -- maybe you > just liked the movie otherwise?). In retrospect, I think I liked Keanu's performance better than it may have deserved because it was better than I *expected*. When you're expecting D work, C+ looks pretty good.... I did like The Devil's Advocate, kinda, but more because of the plot and some of the supporting characters than either Reeves or Pacino. > OK, clearly I gave the impression that I intentionally shouted this to the > crowd. I hope I've made the truth clear. You're right, I misunderstood that part. Just posting an incredible amount to the list lately, Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:41:04 -0800 From: "Natalie Jacobs" Subject: This calls for a very clever mixture of psychology and extreme violence > > The kids have no appreciation for the art of the bon mot, these days. > >There you go with your smutty French talk again... It's just my inexplicable je ne se quois, or however you spell it. (I took German in high school.) >OK. The blood/violence didn't disturb me, because it's so over-the-top. I >am one of the few people who did *not* like Pulp Fiction because of the way >it depicts violence. In PF, violence is cool. In all other Tarantino movies >it serves some other purpose as well. My personal favorite is still >Reservoir Dogs, which I saw when it came out, not after the fact ... I approved of the violence in Reservoir Dogs, because it showed violence as bloody, painful, and generally unpleasant. Mr. Orange (? - the Tim Roth character) gets shot in the belly and takes the entire movie to die. This is totally realistic - with a belly wound, you bleed to death. You don't just fall over the way people usually do in movies. It's not clean or dramatic. It's ugly and messy. That's the way violence should be shown in films. It's amazing the way we're so desensitized to violence in film that it can actually be played for laughs, and people will laugh. That's part of the reason I don't want to see Kill Bill. The other reason I don't want to see Kill Bill is that I always hear it being described as an "homage" to this and that. Jesus Christ, does Tarantino do *anything* other than "homage"? An homage to comic books, an homage to Hong Kong action films, an homage to every movie he's ever seen... I mean, I do like his films, but ENOUGH already! Do something original! Homage is to Tarantino as arpeggios are to Robyn. Enough, enough, enough. And for the record, I really enjoyed The Matrix, just as a slick, stylish sci-fi film with an interesting conceit, but I didn't think it called for a sequel, let alone two sequels. As far as trilogies go, I'm sticking to Lord of the Rings. n. p.s. I had a dream that I was eating dinner with Tom Clark and Nick Winkworth, and I kept accidentally eating Nick's hamburger, thinking it was mine. _________________________________________________________________ Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over limit? Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:47:20 -0800 From: Eb Subject: RE: Oh yeah, and the Matrix >If you put half as much effort into being charitable as you must into >finding ways to be nasty and hateful, you'd maybe have fewer health >problems and fights with your lady friends. > >I'll go ahead and lay it out for you, if I must: I HOPED that they got >something positive out of what I said and that it was better than what >they would have gotten otherwise because I would not like to think that I >made someone's day worse. Now you're just inventing ways to put a positive spin on your incessant moralist bullying. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:48:36 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: This calls for a very clever mixture of psychology and extreme violence >Jesus Christ, does Tarantino do *anything* other than "homage"? DePalma seemed to evolve past this...I doubt Tarantino ever will. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 00:49:31 GMT From: Jim Davies Subject: just like shouting "liar" in a crowded democracy I was rather impressed with Jeme's Tarantino heckle. It was an absolutely perfect piece of audience participation. Perhaps it did mean that some people had a different kind of evening from the one that they were expecting, but - you know - maybe they'll remember it for longer. And, for some of them, maybe it improved their lives. For example, it's given them a more interesting account of seeing the film: they can mention to their co-workers and friends that some guy (whether they support him or not) made that comment. They can then look outraged, or thoughtful, or whatever - but they have something more to say that "uh, we saw the film, it was okay". I think that Jeme has performed a public service. Would I do the same? I don't know. I haven't seen the film. I don't like watching people get hurt while others laugh. It reminds me of school. :^). x Jim ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 19:51:46 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: The Matrix Amidst all the "arrogance" and "bullying"...has anyone actually seen the new Matrix sequel? I hear it's pretty bad but if you like the series it's worth seeing. Obviously if you invested your time in the first two you kinda get stuck with it, unless you just stopped caring one way or the other. Max _________________________________________________________________ Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $26.95. https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:59:21 -0800 From: "Glen Uber" Subject: Re: The Matrix This one time at band camp, Maximilian Lang wrote: >Amidst all the "arrogance" and "bullying"...has anyone actually seen the new >Matrix sequel? I hear it's pretty bad but if you like the series it's worth >seeing. Obviously if you invested your time in the first two you kinda get >stuck with it, unless you just stopped caring one way or the other. I stopped caring about 30 minutes into the first one. Cranky in my old age, - -g- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 01:22:32 GMT From: Jim Davies Subject: Re: just like shouting "liar" in a crowded democracy I was rather impressed with Jeme's Tarantino heckle. It was an absolutely perfect piece of audience participation. Perhaps it did mean that some people had a different kind of evening from the one that they were expecting, but - you know - maybe they'll remember it for longer. And, for some of them, maybe it improved their lives. Not in terms of changed sensibilities, or anything like that. Just in terms of raw material for future dialogue. Comic book man inking in the bubbles. Yay. And, hey - if the film really doesn't deserve it - then they should learn to shrug off irrelevant comments. Like people eating too much popcorn, or eating just enough popcorn, but much too noisily, or providing dreadful, overloud accompaniment at an acoustic gig. I have a mental image of Uma Thurman stepping over the tables at the Bottom Line and beheading the guy with the beard. Jeme says something, quietly, at the back of the room. None of us hear it. Robyn, having turned around to pick up a glass of water, is spared the whole experience. Uma having disappeared, he continues with the set; the guy with the beard is still singing along, but now he is perfectly in tune. x ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 20:27:00 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: The Matrix On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Maximilian Lang wrote: > Amidst all the "arrogance" and "bullying"...has anyone actually seen the > new Matrix sequel? I hear it's pretty bad but if you like the series > it's worth seeing. Obviously if you invested your time in the first two > you kinda get stuck with it, unless you just stopped caring one way or > the other. My take: it's much better than the second movie at the things the second movie spent most of its time trying to do. However, those aren't the things I wanted or expected the sequels to focus on, so I enjoyed watching most of it, but when it ended I was like, that's all? That's all you could do with all that potential? But at least there was some sense of tension. I don't think the first movie had a single nerve-wracking moment; odd for a franchise that started off feeling more like a thriller than an action movie. The preview for a Philip K Dick movie starring Ben Affleck piqued my interest somewhat -- I think it was called Paycheck. a ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 17:59:34 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Yanni Rocks! Er, Roky Yawns! Ehhhhfeckit... Jeme: >>What the hell is a WARTHAWG? Well, it's just like a regular thawg, only you use it in times of martial conflict. >>>> I take it literally: you felt compelled to share it, just as in the >>>> theatre story, although you knew it would cause trouble. >>Um, compelled to share the story or the comment within the story? The comment, but I'll plead digest-lag since you'd already clarified the circumstances of the comment by the time I posted that... sorry. >>>> Without being nasty about it-- as a friend, even: do take a look at the >>>> consequences of these urges. >>It's just a mailing list. I don't think the consequences are too dire. ...a mailing list whose members are actual people (I can vouch for at least some of them) who obviously have emotional reactions to what's said on it. As opposed to, say, the SIMS, or the characters in "Kill Bill". When people on the feglist get all het up for whatever reason, it's probably more deleterious to their health then the squibs attached to the actors portraying shooting victims in the movie that you found so bothersome were to theirs. That is: pissed off fegs represent actual hurt. That may be okay to you, and admittedly I've given myself a pass for ruffling feathers* before. But generally I don't get a good feeling going to bed at night knowing I've provoked outrage in people I've never met in person but whom I actually like quite a bit. But hey, I've had an emotionally draining week, and I may be unique around here in that I'm probably taking things too seriously at the moment. Or... not so much. >>Is that clear enough to see through the smog? Hey... that's not just LA-bashing, it's lazy. Next you'll tell us that many of our local females have breast implants! >>I mean, if I could just go home when there was nothing to do, I wouldn't >>have to sithere at this desk and find something to fill my idle minutes. - -- >>but today's bosses can't understanding paying full-time pay for a person >>who's only there half-time, even if they're job doesn't demand M-F 9-5 >>attention. Bah. That's save y'all a lot of my BS, too, for what it's worth. - -Rex "I'm going to Disneyland, kind of" Broome *not intended as literal Quail-reference ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 20:06:18 -0600 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Yanni Rocks! Er, Roky Yawns! Ehhhhfeckit... Rex: > Jeme: > >>What the hell is a WARTHAWG? > > Well, it's just like a regular thawg, only you use it in > times of martial conflict. First instance of beer-through-nose hilarity on the feglist in a while. You came close to owing me a keyboard, Rex! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:34:20 -0500 From: jill sunderlin Subject: FEG TREE! FEG TREE! Bottom Line Tree ***Beware: 100% Robyn content*** After a dormancy of several years the Feg Tree has returned to life! We (me, bayard, woj, and 2 others whose names haven't been divulged to me yet) are creating a tree to spread copies of the Bottom Line gigs that woj has ever so nicely offered to share with everyone. .SHN files of the Bottom Line gigs will be placed in an ftp directory on my server. Those with broadband access and burners can offer to be branches and download the files directly. These branches will then be responsible to sending copies to lower branches and leaves -- in trade for cd blanks and postage costs. In the past the maximum copies anyone has had to burn and mail has been 5 -- we usually have enough branches to spread it out. So, to SIGN-UP: Send me an email. I need to know if you want to be: 1) an "upper branch" --- you have broadband access to download the .SHN files and are willing to burn copies for the lower brances 2) a "lower branch" --- who will receive a CDR copy of the shows and then burn copies for leaves 3) a "leaf" --- those who would like cd's of the shows, but are unable to make copies We are at present considering this only a CD tree, and not tapes, midi, whatever. If this is a problem for anyone let me know, and we'll see what we can do. AND -- I need you to send me a RELIABLE email address so your branch can reach you, and your mailing address. For those who would like more info on .SHN files, bayard has provided this link: http://research.umbc.edu/~hamilton/shnfaq.html That's all of it The files will be uploaded to the server sometime at the end of next week -- after Nov 12th (I think -- sometimes thereabouts anyway). Happy Treeing! jill, the long dormant tree-mistress ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 20:10:56 -0700 From: Sweet & Tender Hooligan Subject: Don't touch my schtick (was: Murdering William) > Keanu and Pitt both have one schtick that they > do really well. That's true of almost any "star," really. It is, in fact, the basis for the entire "star system" in Hollywood. Bruce Willis, Meg Ryan, Tom Cruise, Hugh Grant, John Cusack, Julia Roberts, every "actor" to ever come from SNL, etc. These stars step out of their established personas from time to time, but the box-office takes prove that audiences really prefer when they play to their established schtick. It's probably more difficult to think of stars for whom this is not true. Off the top of my head: Anthony Hopkins (he's got *2* schticks he does really well) Russell Crowe (I don't think I'd like the guy, but he can act) Billy Bob Thornton Cate Blanchett Hrm. I know there must be a few more, but at the moment I'm having trouble of thinking up their names. = s&th hooligan@apostate.com www.jaquelinerose.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:19:57 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: Don't touch my schtick (was: Murdering William) >Anthony Hopkins (he's got *2* schticks he does really well) >Russell Crowe (I don't think I'd like the guy, but he can act) >Billy Bob Thornton >Cate Blanchett > >Hrm. I know there must be a few more, but at the moment I'm having >trouble of thinking up their names. Philip Seymour Hoffman is probably my favorite contemporary "chameleon" actor. Love that guy. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:26:28 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: Oh yeah, and the Matrix >> You guys are no fun. They're just HK films dressed up in black >> leather. On Nov 7, 2003, at 10:10 AM, Miles Goosens wrote: > You've said that before when people dare criticize THE MATRIX as > shallow and godawful, but if you really think that, why did you point > us to the link about the Gnosis underpinnings of the story? Someone asked what they were "about". > For that matter, if you're really just doing "HK films dressed up in > black leather," why do the "deeper meaning" stuff at all unless you're > at least halfway serious about it? As far as I'm concerned, the > moment that the Wachowskis start dropping Gnostic references left and > right is like the moment that George Lucas compared himself to > Kurosawa -- they're pretty much asking to be criticized on these > higher levels. Saying "they're just HK films" or "they're just '30s > pulp serials" once the "high art" argument starts taking on water is > trying to have it both ways, and a tacit admission that these movies > come up short of their aspirations. I don't think that the Matrix films are any big deal. They're a popular entertainment, not high art. It's common to base popular entertainment on this or that mythology. SF and fantasy writers do it all the time, who knows how many HK films are based on the Monkey King. Most of the HK films that I watch are probably based on some myth, legend, or fictionalized historical character, as I'm not that interested in the cop stuff. I don't know, or really care, what the aspirations for the Matrix films were. I had no expectations before I saw the first one, but I think all three are entertaining. Having seen the third today, I have to say that I don't think it deserves the critical backlash. - - Steve __________ Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou - http://ykk.misago.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:33:43 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: Oh yeah, and the Matrix On Nov 7, 2003, at 3:24 PM, Capuchin wrote: > I was appalled that such horrible human mutilation was played for > humor. > > > > When those 88 guys were lying around with their limbs severed and blood > everywhere and some dead and others screaming and still others just > wandering around dazed and confused, the audience was chuckling all > around. I guess you've never seen one of those samurai movies where one guy kills hundreds. - - Steve - ---------- This big deal about Bush landing on an aircraft carrier? Talk about a 6-year-old kid with a Tonka toy -- we got it here. - Neil Young ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:51:14 -0800 From: "Jason Brown \(Echo Services Inc\)" Subject: RE: Don't touch my schtick (was: Murdering William) >>Anthony Hopkins (he's got *2* schticks he does really well) >>Russell Crowe (I don't think I'd like the guy, but he can act) >>Billy Bob Thornton >>Cate Blanchett >> >>Hrm. I know there must be a few more, but at the moment I'm having >>trouble of thinking up their names. > >Philip Seymour Hoffman is probably my favorite contemporary >"chameleon" actor. Love that guy. Of those listed above i'd say only Hopkins and Crowe are real superstars that are also good actors. Thornton, Blanchett, and Hoffman are all just great acrors that would be in demand regardless of their box office potential. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:12:22 -0700 From: Sweet & Tender Hooligan Subject: RE: Don't touch my schtick (was: Murdering William) > Philip Seymour Hoffman is probably my favorite contemporary > "chameleon" actor. Love that guy. Yeah, he's amazing, though I don't think I'd call him a "star" (yet). Has he had an above-the-title credit yet? "Owning Mahoney," maybe? = s&th hooligan@apostate.com www.jaquelinerose.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:23:10 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: possible feg-like gig? John Barrington Jones wrote: > > PLEASE TELL ME WE ARE NOT GONNA HAVE ANOTHER THREAD ABOUT TOP-POSTING VS > BOTTOM-POSTING. aww, and we had so much *fun* the last time ... Okay then, Reese Witherspoon to Robyn in three steps. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:25:50 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: REAP The USA's olympic baseball team's berth is the Athens games. I am shocked. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/summer/2003-11-07-usa-baseball-loses_x.htm _________________________________________________________________ Crave some Miles Davis or Grateful Dead? Your old favorites are always playing on MSN Radio Plus. Trial month free! http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:28:58 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: The Matrix Glen Uber wrote: > > I stopped caring about 30 minutes into the first one. never seen *any* of them. Nor Star Wars, too. Stewart (see, look! I didn't mention them! Not once!) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 23:38:15 -0500 From: "Grunty" Subject: Re: Yanni Rocks! Er, Roky Yawns! Ehhhhfeckit... so let me get this straight, we aren't allowed to call ourselves animals names on this list? because my real name is Laura, but damn, i am so sick of it, can't i call myself what the hell i want, what it is with this list? or was that this one really rude person who e-mailed me and asked my why i wanted to call myself a warthawg, why yes of course i'm human, and you did deserve what i called you too, that wasn't nice and it hurt my feelings. : ( Grunty Da Warthawg aka Laura > > Well, it's just like a regular thawg, only you use it in > > times of martial conflict. > > First instance of beer-through-nose hilarity on the feglist in a while. You > came close to owing me a keyboard, Rex! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:39:40 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Don't touch my schtick (was: Murdering William) Sweet & Tender Hooligan wrote: > > Yeah, he's amazing, though I don't think I'd call him a "star" (yet). > Has he had an above-the-title credit yet? "Owning Mahoney," maybe? "Love, Liza", too. Fuck, was that depressing. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:58:33 -0600 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Yanni Rocks! Er, Roky Yawns! Ehhhhfeckit... > so let me get this straight, we aren't allowed to call > ourselves animals names on this list? I'm only responding because you quote my appreciation of Rex's wordplay here, but WTF? Did someone really call you out for using an anthropomorphic nym? That's just weird. You could ask the Great Quail but he's resting. You might have better luck with Gnat. > > > Well, it's just like a regular thawg, only you use it in > > > times of martial conflict. > > > > First instance of beer-through-nose hilarity on the feglist > in a while. You came close to owing me a keyboard, Rex! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:33:37 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Yanni Rocks! Er, Roky Yawns! Ehhhhfeckit... Grunty wrote: > so let me get this straight, we aren't allowed to > call ourselves animals names on this list? You are allowed to call yourself anything you want, except for Osama, Adolf, George, or Britney. We just get to make fun of you for it if we feel like it. :) You get the same privilege, of course. - -- (not really a dwarf) ===== "Senator John McCain recently compared the situation in Iraq to the Vietnam era -- to which President Bush replied, 'What does Iraq have in common with drinking beer in Texas?'" - -- Craig Kilborn __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:46:12 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: We'll Have No Dork Things "Rex.Broome" wrote: > >>Jill, whose son's bronchitis has morphed into > >>pneumonia > > Oooh. Be very careful with that. I missed about > three months of my life, the Turn of the Century/ > Millenium included, with that shit. Stranded in > West Virginia, no less. Truly thought I was going > to die for all kinds of reasons. My wife has only > recently forgiven my father for letting me play a > gig with him the night before I went into the > hospital. Dark times. Amen. It sounds like I had it three years earlier than you almost exactly. Diagnosed on New Year's Eve, so they gave me an outpatient IV because they wanted to keep as many beds empty in case of drunk driving accidents, etc, that night. I was only waylaid about a month, thankfully, but still felt weak from it periodically until around late March or so. It was the perfect close to a truly horrible period starting with my father dying in October, my sister and grandfather getting into a fistfight at Thanksgiving, and my sister being raped on what would have been my parents' 30th wedding anniversary (Dec 30). If I hadn't been there, I would have sworn it was some miserable fucking soap. My brother had flown to Paris the day after Christmas, so he got to call home on New Year's Day, and find out that things had actually gotten worse while he was out of the country. 1996 can go fuck itself with a grenade launcher. ===== "Senator John McCain recently compared the situation in Iraq to the Vietnam era -- to which President Bush replied, 'What does Iraq have in common with drinking beer in Texas?'" - -- Craig Kilborn __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 22:01:06 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: This calls for a very clever mixture of psychology and extreme violence on 11/7/03 4:41 PM, Natalie Jacobs at emma_blowgun@hotmail.com wrote: > p.s. I had a dream that I was eating dinner with Tom Clark and Nick > Winkworth, and I kept accidentally eating Nick's hamburger, thinking it was > mine. Just keep your mitts off my veggie burger! - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:20:52 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Don't touch my schtick (was: Murdering William) On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Eb wrote: > Philip Seymour Hoffman is probably my favorite contemporary "chameleon" > actor. Love that guy. Gadzooks, I can't STAND that guy. And I'd hardly call him a chameleon. He's the same sweaty, depressed guy in every movie. There ARE actors that I think of "chameleons"; people who truly do blend into their role. The older actors still on the scene have that talent: Paul Newman, Robert Redford, G-E-N-E H-A-C-K-M-A-N, etc. I really think of Ewan McGregor this way after watching Shallow Grave and Down With Love in the same month. (Honestly, I might even put Renee Zellwegger there.) Certainly Billy Murray when he's not doing inane comedy. Johnny Depp could probably do anything convincingly. Nicole Kidman can be pretty great in a number of roles. Julianne Moore is settling into a schtick, unfortunately, but she had a good run. Sally Field before the "I Want My Baby Back" era. Dennis Quaid and Randy Quaid are both capable of whatever they need to do, certainly. I don't think EVERY star has a schtick. But some absolutely do. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:23:24 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: Don't touch my schtick (was: Murdering William) Wuvable Jeme: > > Philip Seymour Hoffman is probably my favorite contemporary "chameleon" >> actor. Love that guy. > >Gadzooks, I can't STAND that guy. Naturally. > >And I'd hardly call him a chameleon. He's the same sweaty, depressed guy >in every movie. Yeah, especially in Almost Famous. >The older actors still on the scene have that talent: Paul Newman, Robert >Redford, G-E-N-E H-A-C-K-M-A-N, etc. Redford? Talk about a guy who plays the same character in every film. Speaking of which, just a few minutes ago, I saw a trailer for the upcoming Hugh Grant film. And he's playing THAT GUY yet again. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:25:45 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Don't touch my schtick (was: Murdering William) On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Sweet & Tender Hooligan wrote: > That's true of almost any "star," really. It is, in fact, the basis for > the entire "star system" in Hollywood. There's a big tendency toward it, sure, but I don't think it's a requirement. > Bruce Willis, Meg Ryan, Tom Cruise, Hugh Grant, John Cusack, Julia > Roberts, every "actor" to ever come from SNL, etc. These stars step out > of their established personas from time to time, but the box-office > takes prove that audiences really prefer when they play to their > established schtick. Woah, woah, woah... that's not really how you measure it, though. The box office surely pays better if you play the role you're expected to play. Yeah, that's going to happen. The question is whether or not you CAN do otherwise. And while most of the folks you list are clearly that one role (Grant, Roberts, Cruise, etc.), I really don't see John Cusack and Bruce Willis in that rut. > Anthony Hopkins (he's got *2* schticks he does really well) Right, so he's about on par with Adam Sandler. > Russell Crowe (I don't think I'd like the guy, but he can act) What's he play well other than the tough, ignorant, violent asshole? He made A Beautiful Mind to change our minds about it, but I think it just went to prove he shouldn't break out of his genre. > Billy Bob Thornton I would have said so right after Slingblade, but he's really gone into the hick schtick. However, that reminds me of the former J. T. Walsh. He was frickin' awesome. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #417 ********************************