|  IP: Logged

"How could you possibly think Denzel was the most deserving, when he wasn't even the lead actor in his respective movie? Denzel played a supporting character, while Ethan's character was the lead. They just switched it around for the awards for some reason. More politics likely. I would think that someone that wants to write and direct would have noticed that."

OK NOW YOU HAVE GONE AND DONE IT!!!

Me thinks dat sumwun iz gitten ay bit pehrsunahl?

Lets take moulin rouge for example..

Nicole kidman was the star of the show, both of the movie and of the story, HOWEVER, she was not a lead actor. Reason? The story is bieng told by Ewen McGregors character. She is dead, or possibly a fictional charchter in his mind of lonliness. We are not to find this out, just to listen to his tale. All of the charachters in his tale are supporting, he is the only one in the story that is a lead because he is the only one that we are truly looking at.

Now lets travel back to Training Day. Who are we seeing the story angle from? Is it from denzels or from ethans? Is it from a purely standby telling form? This all depends on your point of view. As Denzel carried the film, the average viewer tends to believe that he is the lead actor, and that Ethan is the Supporting actor. Another view is to believe that because we follow Ethan all day long and he only meets up with Denzel later, that we are seeing the story from ethans point of view, making him the lead actor.

What is really happening here is that the story is bieng told from the point of view of that of someone having been with both of them all day. Remember that Denzel was not present at the start of Ethans day, nor was Ethan present at the end of Denzels Day. This makes both of them the lead actors, or rather, and ensemble cast.

In this case, the academy chose the average viewer take and chose to give ethan hawke a supporting actor nomination instead of the lead actor nomination, in conjunction with Denzels nomination, which would have been more appropriate.

"They just switched it around for the awards for some reason. More politics likely. I would think that someone that wants to write and direct would have noticed that."

Noticed what? That you have an opinion? That you believe that the academy did a switcheroo for politics? SO WHAT? As I recall in my previous writings, I made not one mention as to the worthiness of any NOMINATIONS, but rather to the awards given. Anyone who can type should be able to read. Right?

To refresh the memory, here is what I wrote...

""As for denzel, I was pulling for him. I saw every film nominated, and felt that his performance was the most deserving. Yes russel crowe was fantastic in A Beautiful Mind, but there are at least a hundred well known actors that would have been able to pull off the same fantastic performance. For russell crowe, it was not a great feat, but his same fantastic average performance. His problem, is that most of his performances are fantastic. He needs a few average ones for a few years and then a great one. Denzel's performance was over the top, and I truly felt like I was watching the character, and not Denzel. With Russell, I felt I was watching Russell.""

""Oh and back on Denzels award, remember that he won for his PERFORMANCE, not for the film. A great performance does not necessarily denote even a good film, and a great film does not mean that anyone had a really great performance. Sometimes films win because of the ensemble of crew/cast, sometimes an actor wins because he just really feels the part.""

So as my point made, and my skills as a STUDENT of writing and directing in the fine arts of theater and film having been upheld before a court of peers that I keep hidden within my own multiple personality disorder, I depart this day.

Your most humble of correspondents,

No story can have two leads of the same gender, although a story can have leads of opposite genders if the roles are prominent enough. This would explain Nicole Kidman being the 'female lead', not 'a lead that was female', as her role was obviously very prominent among the women in that movie. However in something like Gladiator there would probably not have been a female lead because none of the female roles were that dominant. On to Training Day. In a story where there are two dominant male characters such a this one, or say a story like South Pacific, the story of comedy triumphs over the story of tragedy (comedy originally meaning a story in which the hero defeats his rival, not one that is merely funny; tragedy originally meaning a story where the hero fails, not one that is merely sad). In Training Day, Ethan's story ends in comedy, whereas Denzel's ends in Tragedy, making Ethan the leading man, as opposed to a supporting cast member. This is similar to in South Pacific where Lt. Cable dies ending his story in tragedy, and Emil lives and gets the girl, ending his story in comedy, making Emil the leading man. This is what I was taught, and I have much respect for the teacher that taught me that, but it could be wrong. It is my explanation for why Denzel is not the leading man, rather than using "the average viewer take" as you made reference to the Academy using. Just something you might look into as you pursue your writing interest, which I'm sure you will exceed in, given the passion you display in posting on this site. If your teachers tell you different, please let me know.

 |  IP: Logged

As for my teachers, the subject of comedy bieng more leading than tragedy has never come up. What I study is the intracacies of character development, relating to arc and relavence to others and surroundings. Story is secondary to charachter.

As for theater bieng stuffy, I propose that theater and cinema are very closely related. The cinema is often presented in auditoriums designed to give a stuffy theater atmosphere, and many films designed to give that feeling of actually witnessing the show as if it were presented to you at the moment, rather on film. As was moulin rouge, and many other films. In fact many theater and broadway style shows become very large and important pieces of cinema, and vice versa as well. The two are very related, from a creative standpoint.

The point of this site is technical in nature, and from a creative standpoint, much of the same creativity goes into both film and theater. ANd as this is film-yak, I can talk about any stuffy thing I want to. HAHA.

Chad, I am passionate about what I write. Both in my posts and in my semi-professional life. My two finished screenplays have generated great praise from all who have read them, however, as my harshest critic, I continually rewrite them. In fact, one was set for production last year, until the chief financier died, and the money lost in probate court. Since then, I have pulled that particular script down and am currenly in the stage of rewriting it for another project, hoping to achieve funding later this year. The other, also in the stage of yet another rewrite.

So don't take any offence chad. I am a very snide, cynical, and very sarcastic individual. I hold nothing back, use brute honesty, but I have absolutely not a mean bone in my body. I never come to blows, and never sue anyone. I don't yell at anything but the cat.

So thats my tale for the day.

Have to run. Mummsy needs the fone.

I agree that cinema and legitimate theater are closely related. Cinema just removes the limits of the stage.