Say Anything Blog

Far too many Americans get their only information about things like rendition

I happen to see it this weekend and it had excellent acting. Aside from the unfair portrayal, the story of the suicide bomber was very intense and the movie was good in that sense. Unfortunately you’re 100% correct on how so many Americans are going to get their only info through Hollywood.

Did they mention that rendition is the brainchild of William Jefferson Clinton? That little point make it into the script, or did they just gloss over that little point?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

‘it had excellent acting’

By that you mean ‘it had excellent editing’.

Actors on film are the creation of the editor, there is no such thing as a film actor; just a talking head manipulated by the splicer.

‘it had excellent acting’
By that you mean ‘it had excellent editing’.
Actors on film are the creation of the editor,

Actually, it is the director’s vision that ultimately appears on the screen.
That said, it is possible to have excellent acting, editing and direction or an absence of all three.
But in order for there to be anything to edit, there must first be acting and directing.
Don’t discount the craft of good acting. There’s so very little of it in today’s personality driven entertainment industry.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

huh? you can learn stuff that’s not in movies? bullshit.

The excellent acting wasn’t from the “famed” actors who are titled in the film, but came from Moa Khouas, and Zineb Oukach.

Making movies is a business not an art form.

The big myth about movie making is the ‘director’, it’s the cinematographer who captures the images according to what is scripted and it’s the editor who slices the images together. 

And, if you’ve ever worked as an actor on film you’d know that a monologue or a dialogue can be shot over and again until there’s enough stuff to edit; it’s the editor’s work which produces the acting seen on film.  Audiences do not see all the celluloid left on the editing room floor. Movies do not require actors in order to get the product made just people who know how to walk and talk, and if they look great all the better.

There’s a reason why film actors avoid the stage or if they do work on stage their performance will disclose the fact that they can’t act; on stage there are no re-takes.

Movies as an art form is illusionary and “famed” actors are simply marketing tools in the business of making a product called movies.

And, if you’ve ever worked as an actor on film

Yes, I have. Have you?
The editor can’t do crap unless he has something to work with. The only way an editor can overcome really bad acting is to edit it out completely. (Makes for awfully short films!)
BTW, are your eyes brown???

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

syn, that’s ridiculous. If that’s true, then why are they paying millions of dollars to actors and not just to the “artist” editor?
Certain actors are able to actually make the viewer feel the intensity of the situation through their acting and no director or editor has the ability to make that happen with out the talent from that specific actor.
Don’t get me wrong though, there are many over paid actors simply because of who they are and not strictly on their talent.

Editors do provide us with those excellent and entertaining continuity glitches!
I remember one film, poorly edited, where the hero confronted the bad guy, and in the course of a protracted fight scene used two different guns: a revolver and a semi-automatic pistol. After the first gun was knocked from his hand and he retrieved the other, the close ups of the gun in his hand would alternate between the two for no apparent reason!

The other, more common glitch, is said hero with pump shotgun...he racks the slide to chamber the next shell...and then a couple of scenes later, without having fired the gun, he racks the slide again for dramatic effect...and no shell ejects!
A variation of this is hero/villian with semi-automatic pistol, racks the slide to chamber the cartridge (which cocks the hammer) and then a couple scenes later, he cocks the hammer again for dramatic effect! See that one a lot, too!

Or do you want to blame those on the director?

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan