vixyish:

clockworkgate:

biscuitsarenice:

We Can’t Get Out Of The Bedroom Now.

Shirley Maclaine on Parkinson in 1975

Holy crap.

Woah. I did not know any of that. Women got all those roles because they had *shock value*…

As an actress, this is the bane of my existence. So few female roles exist to audition for (much less good ones - so many scripts don’t have many females at all), and the few that exist so often require sex scenes, nudity, or at the very least, sexy slim bodies in tight or revealing costumes.

But I never would have guessed this as the impetus.

(Also sad that this is still true nearly 40 GODDAM YEARS LATER.)

wilwheaton:

sheelzebub:

burningfairytales:

neoliberalismkills:

drawspoopymisha:

image

I WAS SO HOPING THAT WAS THE REACTION GIF AND IT WAS, PERFECT

I am beginning to understand the reasoning behind the game ‘Shatner.’

I will always reblog Shatner overacting.

FOREVER REBLOG

Why do you always end up playing the asshole in your various acting roles? You're good at it, but it seems to be an unfortunate typecast.

wilwheaton:

All actors have a particular role that they’re best suited to play, and when they play those roles, they really connect with the audience.

For example: John Travolta is amazing at playing The Loveable Loser. That’s who he was in Welcome Back Kotter, Grease, and Saturday Night Fever, and audiences freaking LOVED him. When the studios tried to make him The Leading Man, in films like Urban Cowboy, Perfect, and something else I’m forgetting right now, audiences turned on him and his career started to flounder.

He didn’t do much of note for a very long time, until Tarantino cast him as a junkie hit man in Pulp Fiction. Suddenly, he’s playing the Loveable Loser again, and his career explodes with roles in Michael, and something else that I’m forgetting right now (it’s 5am and I’m on 4 hours of sleep).

So, when he’s playing that archetype, audiences connect with him on a subconscious level, because it’s the type he plays so perfectly.

The type I play so perfectly, it turns out, is that guy you love to hate, that guy who antagonizes your hero. That’s who I played in The Guild, Leverage, Eureka, and Big Bang Theory. I don’t know why I play those roles so effectively (it may be related to how much I like to sass people in real life), but it’s what I’ve been doing for a few years, and it’s no coincidence that my acting career has had a bit of a resurgence as a result.

I don’t consider it typecasting, I consider it smart casting, and I wish that more casting people would understand what type I play, and give me a chance to work in those roles.
Oh, and remember: the villain is the hero of his own story, so even though I’m playing an asshole you love to hate, from that character’s point of view, he isn’t doing anything wrong. For example, Doctor Parrish on Eureka was an antagonist to Fargo and Carter, but from Parrish’s point of view, he was the smartest guy in the room, and he was just baffled that he was the only one who could see it. As a result, he resented having to answer to Fargo, who he viewed as someone who didn’t deserve to go to Titan, be the Director of GD, or get the girl. He resented having to deal with Carter, who wasn’t even a scientist, but was always telling him what to do. At the end of the day, though, Parrish loved GD, loved the town, and would tolerate working with people he thought weren’t as smart as him, because he believed in doing the right thing for science.
Thanks for your question.
Poor people stay poor because they do arts degrees.

Sophomore Engineering Student (via shitrichcollegekidssay)

Poor people stay poor because other artists have allowed the industry to degrade to a level that people drastically undervalue art. In graphic arts, an independent artist typically makes below minimum wage. So many people take advantage of starting out and struggling artists, that they offer “exposure” as compensation. Or a hideously low rate. I have had people offer to pay me just $5/page for color work. And they saw nothing wrong with this offer. This is for something that I typically spend 4-6 hours per page on. And there are artists out there so desperate for ANY money, they will accept those offers. And thus perpetuate the idea that this is okay.

No, poor people aren’t poor because they take art degrees. They’re poor because there are entitled assholes who take advantage of them so they can turn a bigger profit.

Art is everywhere. Try to imagine a world without it. Without graphics. Without font design. Without logos. Everything done in the same, bland typefaces, with no images and no sense of color. Artists are more than people who sit and make pretty pictures. They are what gives companies an image, an identity. So why are they treated like the lowest possible rank?

(via sandpuppeteer)

This goes for actors as well. I have had occasions where I spent tons of money just on an audition only to see the film still not be made (and yes, I was cast). Or spent my time and money for a role, taking a day (or days) off work - unpaid - for nothing more than “credit” and “footage” and “exposure” and still the films weren’t finished, my “payment” never received. And even those that were finished… I don’t see a dime. And yet to get ANYWHERE in my career I have to keep doing pro bono acting work just to have enough of a resume to get people to look at me twice.

(Is it any wonder then that I actually get really pissed off at actors with huge careers who have no talent and/or no desire to actually be doing what they have the privilege to do - much less this culture of “reality stars” who have no talent whatsoever that prevent so much real television from getting produced because reality TV is so much cheaper to make? But then - even then - I see casting calls go out for these reality tv shows. Coming from actual casting directors and talent agents, sent out to their actor talent. You think these people aren’t also being taken advantage of? Because they’re desperate to get somewhere?)

It isn’t type casting. It’s smart casting.

wilwheaton:

Over at my Tumblr ask thingy, therondraith asked:

Why do you always end up playing the asshole in your various acting roles? You’re good at it, but it seems to be an unfortunate typecast.

All actors have a particular role that they’re best suited to play,…

View Post

unwillingadventurer:

William Hartnell doing his close to the face hand gestures. Apparently Hartnell gave his fellow actors the same lecture about gesturing close to the face on ‘as live’ television as you never knew when you were going to get a close up.
Hartnell is sometimes criticised for forgetting lines and such but his performance and presence as the Doctor is just so strong. Watch him in scenes, in the background, watch his eyes dart back and forth, the curiosity, the wonder. Watch his hands tremble slightly, and watch as he interrupts with the best precision, and watch how he commands the scenes without saying much at all. When people say that Hartnell is just the actor who forgets his lines we get so sad because acting is so much more than the lines, and when he couldn’t remember, he made up for it with his mannerisms and his physicality and authority. 
It didn’t matter that his sentences came out wrong sometimes, he was boss and you’d listen to him. You still believed in him.

^^^ All of this.
Do people seriously criticise this? Like, seriously, as though it matters? As though a line flub somehow makes him less of the Doctor? (Actually,THE Doctor - as in, the original, the one who sets the precedent.) I mean, considering the speed and turnaround for filming, with few or no retakes? If you’re one who feels that then I’d like to see your reaction to how much present day actors would flub with that set-up in a modern tv show. Also, I’m guessing you’ve never seen a play in your life if you think missing a line (yet being able to recover and cover over it) is the end of the world for an actor.
I love this man. And I love this Doctor.

unwillingadventurer:

William Hartnell doing his close to the face hand gestures. Apparently Hartnell gave his fellow actors the same lecture about gesturing close to the face on ‘as live’ television as you never knew when you were going to get a close up.

Hartnell is sometimes criticised for forgetting lines and such but his performance and presence as the Doctor is just so strong. Watch him in scenes, in the background, watch his eyes dart back and forth, the curiosity, the wonder. Watch his hands tremble slightly, and watch as he interrupts with the best precision, and watch how he commands the scenes without saying much at all. When people say that Hartnell is just the actor who forgets his lines we get so sad because acting is so much more than the lines, and when he couldn’t remember, he made up for it with his mannerisms and his physicality and authority. 

It didn’t matter that his sentences came out wrong sometimes, he was boss and you’d listen to him. You still believed in him.

^^^ All of this.

Do people seriously criticise this? Like, seriously, as though it matters? As though a line flub somehow makes him less of the Doctor? (Actually,THE Doctor - as in, the original, the one who sets the precedent.) I mean, considering the speed and turnaround for filming, with few or no retakes? If you’re one who feels that then I’d like to see your reaction to how much present day actors would flub with that set-up in a modern tv show. Also, I’m guessing you’ve never seen a play in your life if you think missing a line (yet being able to recover and cover over it) is the end of the world for an actor.

I love this man. And I love this Doctor.