Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Oh shit, they really are actors...



Especially steamy filth begins at about 1:10. Notice the unnatural pauses and awkward, forced frown-sighs.  It doesn't get much worse than this.  Would you cast her for this role? Does she invoke any kind of empathetic response in the viewer? When she asks 'who am I  introducing?' under her breath, what she is really saying is 'I want out.'  I wish some people in Newton would blow the whistle on this BS. 

Here is good ol' Robbie Parker again (six hours after his daughter was allegedly killed in one of the worst school massacres in American history) Again, does he invoke an empathetic response in the viewer?  Or are you thinking, 'Thanks for coming out Robbie....NEXT...':



More glaring feces:

23 comments:

cyrusfx said...

While you think you may have caught me in a moment of weakness with my disillusionment with Obama and all, I assure you I still can't believe a conspiracy is real just because you don't like the way family members of tragedy victims are grieving.

People who have suffered real tragedy as such will say that the way people cope with the tragedy will vary wideky from person to person and that there is likely to be a whole flood of different emotions in the process.

None of us have really had our brains discombobulated in such a manner so I don't think its fair to say you know how they should or shouldn't respond.

And for the record I do believe in some conspiracies. Even though I don't believe 9/11 was a U.S. goverment-led conspiracy I think that is more likely to be one than this. I just don't see the profit motives here. The government aren't the biggest profiteers in America, its banks and corporations and such.

The housing market collapse of 2008 has much more evidence of a conspiracy and financial motive than Sandy Hook.

Even though I have less than none of it, I truly do believe money drives the world and has more or less replaced genetics in terms of "natural fitness."

Taint Montgomery said...

Only they are not grieving, they are acting, and they all fail. It's true that different people cope with tragedy in different ways. Thus when ALL the 'grievers' appear to be acting piss-poorly, you know something is up. Again, watch Carlee Soto in the first video. This is jr. high 'intro to acting' quality stuff. Its not shock. It's not idiosyncratic grieving. It's pure fail.

Taint Montgomery said...

'This pain is excruciating,' *forced sigh-frown*, 'and unbearable...'

R O F'ing L.

Taint Montgomery said...

Here's how you know the acting is shitty:

1) unnatural timing of lines
2) awkward pauses mid-line
3) forced facial muscle movements
4) unnatural changes in demeanor (watch carlee when she straightens up and shakes her hair)
5) no emotional connection to the content of the words spoken, even when they involve the very recent death of a child (esp. Robbie Parker)

There is a reason why good actors get the good gigs and the good money. They can actually embody the character. Most others fail miserably.

Taint Montgomery said...

Why do I feel no empathy for these people? I feel empathy towards real people in distress, but not these 'family members.' Why are they not triggering my natural empathetic response?

Why would a grieving person force their facial muscle movements? Have you ever encountered someone who wasn't acting, and yet exhibited all the fails of bad acting?

/enddeadhorsebeating

cyrusfx said...

Yeah, again, all your points are based on the premise that you fully understand how people should act after an inconceivably traumatic event and that to deviate from whatever behavior you consider to be proper means these people were crisis actors paid by the government? I just can't make that leap, its a disservice to everything I have learned thusfar about reality.

Taint Montgomery said...

Real people care about loved ones that die. Bad actors pretend to and fail. This is very easy to understand.

Also, notice that I have never mentioned the gov't in this or any other related post.

Do I believe that I 'fully understand how people should act after an inconceivably traumatic event?' Again, no. But I know that they should not act like piss poor actors. Even though no one could possibly 'fully understand' the emotional constitution/grieving style/psychological profile etc. of every human who could possibly grieve, I do recognize shitty acting when I see it.

Taint Montgomery said...

Let me make explicit the problem with your argument. Take this point:

'...all your points are based on the premise that you fully understand how people should act after an inconceivably traumatic event and that to deviate from whatever behavior you consider to be proper means these people were...actors...'

Now lets generalize it by substituting "x" for ' an inconceivably traumatic event ':

'...all your points are based on the premise that you fully understand how people should act after "x" and that to deviate from whatever behavior you consider to be proper means these people were...actors...'

How does a director/casting director/producer etc. determine whether a candidate is appropriate for a role? How does one determine whether the candidate has acting skills? Must one first 'fully understand how people should act after "x"', where "x" is given by the circumstances dictated by the script, before making a judgement about a candidates acting skills/appropriateness for the role? Must one have clearly determined in advance, informed by an encyclopedic knowledge of the circumstances "x", all 'behavior [one] consider[s] to be proper' for the role?

Of course not. You don't have to have a God's eye view of humanities collective psychological profile before you judge an individuals acting ability. There's no way any human possibly could.

Now lets work through some examples by plugging in some values for "x".

I've never seen warfighting first hand. I haven't profiled every veteran of every war. Does that mean I can't judge the acting skills of a candidate auditioning for the role of a soldier?

I've never dealt with infidelity first hand. I haven't profiled every person who has ever been cheated on. Does that mean I can't judge the acting ability of a candidate auditioning for the role of the cuckolded husband?

I've never lost a family member in a school shooting massacre. I haven't profiled everyone who has. Does that mean I can't judge the acting ability of these Sandy Hook 'family members'?

cyrusfx said...

You are starting from the assumption that these people are actors, and then working from there. I am starting from the assumption that these people lost loved ones just a short time prior to these videos, in which case they get a pass from me to behave however they see fit.

If the government really did kill a lot of peoples children that day, why bother hiring actors to play their parents? Don't you think the parents would be naturally full of grief? Or do you believe the whole thing never happened, in which case how do you explain all the people who are now dead or missing because of Sandy Hook?

You are raising far more questions than you are answering by continuing to be so steadfast in your weird beliefs.

cyrusfx said...

Also, I feel lots of very real empathy for these people. I did before I saw the videos, and I do afterwards, too. So, according to your logic, that means they're not actors after all, since they elicited a genuine emotional response from me.

Huge Larry said...

One reason why folks experiencing genuine grief in this situation might seem like unskilled actors is because they've never before been in the media spotlight. I can imagine how suddenly finding oneself in the public eye, and then trying to verbally express extreme grief might result in unnatural timing and awkward pauses. I can imagine that it would be a strange mixture of grief and extreme anxiety of being in front of the camera, and knowing you will be seen by millions.

Taint Montgomery said...

You are starting from the assumption that these people are actors, and then working from there.'

I am starting from the assumption that they are either non-actors (real) or the 'ultimate actor' (fake, though indistinguishable from the non-actor). Normally we assume people are non-actors only; it's just too weird to think that genuine people are actually 'ultimate actors' who are really fooling us. But when the acting fails become obvious, THEN we know we are dealing with actors. We could never know if we are dealing with ultimate actors because they are indistinguishable from non-actors. So we assume they are real people. We become suspicious when we recognize that a supposedly real person is not an 'ultimate actor'.

In other words, BAD acting is a sign of ACTING in general.

Taint Montgomery said...

Normal people are their own 'ultimate actors'.

NORMAL PEOPLE DON'T EXHIBIT ACTING FAILS WHEN PLAYING THEM SELF!!

Taint Montgomery said...

Now I want to go around, living my life as if I were a shitty actor playing the role of Kevin. I wonder how people would respond. It would be really hard though. Keen eyed/eared people might notice that I am actually the real Kevin playing the role of a shitty actor playing the role of myself.

Taint Montgomery said...

Paris Hilton is a shitty actor. Maybe you disagree. I can cite my reasons for not believing her performance, but those might not sway you. I try to be objective as possible, producing a list of fails, but if you don't see them there isn't much I can do. If she does indeed trigger an empathetic response in you, there is nothing I can say to counter that.

This whole debate hinges upon the existence of a certain shared, often difficult to communicate understanding of the difference between shitty and quality acting. If we can't agree that (for example) Daniel Day-Lewis is a great actor (for certain reasons) while Paris Hilton is a shitty actor (for other reasons) then we can't really have this debate.

cyrusfx said...

I think Co has an elucidating point -- maybe these people seem like "bad actors" because they have no formal acting training or experience, thus they appear stilted and unnatural on camera.

This doesn't mean they are liars, it just means they aren't good at talking on camera.

You have to remember most television is extremely scripted and that people in real life don't usually talk and act like actors in TV shows or movies do. Therefore you can't use television, movies or an experienced actor as a baseline for normal human behavior.

In real life, people stutter, slur their words, take long awkward pauses, say the wrong word, go through mood swings mid conversation, get off point and speak very slowly -- all these things are removed from scripted television to emphasize aesthetics, story flow and ultimately audience retention.

I don't see how your point about Daniel Day Lewis and Paris Hilton is relevant because I see no evidence that these people are actors and should be judged as such, which is what you are doing.

Its just human nature to grieve in different, unexpected ways. To claim to know how they should properly act after this tragedy is beyond strange.

I'm going to need more evidence than your disapproval of their "performance" if you want me to believe these people are actors.

For instance, when any one of the thousands of people that would have to be involved by this point step forward and admit Sandy Hook was a "hoax"; now that's some considerable evidence.

Example: when Edward Snowden came forward about PRISM, he totally flipped my belief about whether the government is spying en masse on its citizens. So it can be done.

If Daniel Day Lewis' son was killed at his preschool, I'm sure he would deliver one heart-wrenching press conference but that's because he has a lot of training in front of cameras and microphones. It doesn't mean he's faking anything, it just means he is reflexively applying his training and skills to his personal life instead of a film.

The family members in your vids have no formal acting experience, thus of course they will appear to be "bad actors." Its very strange to assume how they should behave given the extraordinary nature of their circumstances, and even stranger to think they are thus part of a massive, despicably heinous government conspiracy cover-up.

But for the sake of argument I think Paris Hilton has far superior acting chops over Danny Lewis, there now the debate's over. Phew!

Taint Montgomery said...

'The family members in your vids have no formal acting experience, thus of course they will appear to be "bad actors.'

Ya, because normal people need to be good actors in order to be believable in the role of themselves. Unfucking believable.

By this logic, everyone must think I am a bad actor playing the role of Kevin, because Kevin actually is a bad actor.

Taint Montgomery said...

Wait, no, I'm actually incredibly believable in the role of Kevin because I'M NOT F'ING ACTING WHEN I'M PLAYING MYSELF.

Taint Montgomery said...

'Therefore you can't use television, movies or an experienced actor as a baseline for normal human behavior.'

When did I do that?! Seriously? Even the best actors fall short of the 'ultimate actor' mark because, as you say, 'most television is extremely scripted and that people in real life don't usually talk and act like actors in TV shows or movies do.' This is why genuine reality programs are distinguishable from scripted programs. I'm using (as a baseline) the glaringly obvious fails typical of bad acting to judge glaringly obvious acting behavior.

'In real life, people stutter, slur their words, take long awkward pauses, say the wrong word, go through mood swings mid conversation, get off point and speak very slowly.'

Normal people don't take 'beats' in between their lines (or mid-line!). Normal people don't deliver overwrought lines after spending hours in front the mirror working alternate ways of articulating a line so as to seem more believable (which never works). Normal people aren't completely disconnected from the emotional content of their speech. The cadence of normal speech is not stilted as if the words are not the persons own, as if they are reading the words off a screen in their head. Etc.

cyrusfx said...

"When did I do that?! Seriously?"

You did it in every comment that you made here. You are saying you know for certain grieving family members should act in a very specific way, and when they don't do that, they are crisis actors hired by the government to cover up a conspiracy. That's what you are saying.

" I'M NOT F'ING ACTING WHEN I'M PLAYING MYSELF."

neither were the family members in your vids.

Isn't there a possibility that there is overlap between the behavior of a bad actor and the behavior of a grieving person who has just undergone an unfathomably traumatic experience?

To say that you know for sure how people should behave in this one-of-a-kind situation is ludicrous. But I will obviously never convince you of this, just as you will never convince me these people are actors, so lets just call it quits here.

Taint Montgomery said...

' You are saying you know for certain grieving family members should act in a very specific way, and when they don't do that, they are crisis actors hired by the government to cover up a conspiracy. That's what you are saying.'

Again, BAD ACTORS act in a very specific way while grieving family members may act in myriad ways.

'Isn't there a possibility that there is overlap between the behavior of a bad actor and the behavior of a grieving person who has just undergone an unfathomably traumatic experience? '

You've been relying on this point all along and I'm glad you've finally made it explicit. It seems like Co was making a similar point. Would you like to make an argument for it, or would you rather just assume this highly unlikely coincidence?

Maybe there is overlap between the behavior of a bad actor and the behavior of a person hitchhiking.

Maybe there is overlap between the behavior of a bad actor and the behavior of a person drinking at a bar.

Maybe there is overlap between the behavior of a bad actor and the behavior of a person working at a post office.

You can't just arbitrarily assume that normal, genuine, grieving family members will somehow appear to be bad actors. WHY would they coincidentally appear to be bad actors?


So, again, what reasons do you have to believe that these people ONLY SEEM TO BE BAD ACTORS? Anxiety at the podium causes one to seem to be a bad actor? The stress of touring the country in support of gun control makes one seem to be a bad actor?

How about we accept the obvious conclusion that doesn't involve deluding ourselves with convenient coincidences...

They seem to be bad actors because THEY ARE bad actors.

cyrusfx said...

"Again, BAD ACTORS act in a very specific way while grieving family members may act in myriad ways."

What if one of the myriad was the way bad actors act? This seems highly likely if the person has no experience in front of the camera.

"You've been relying on this point all along and I'm glad you've finally made it explicit. It seems like Co was making a similar point. Would you like to make an argument for it, or would you rather just assume this highly unlikely coincidence?"

I'm just asking you a question. It has a yes or no answer.

"You can't just arbitrarily assume that normal, genuine, grieving family members will somehow appear to be bad actors. WHY would they coincidentally appear to be bad actors?"

_I_ _don't_ think they are bad actors. YOU do. I'm just talking from your point of view to try to appeal to your sensibilities.

"So, again, what reasons do you have to believe that these people ONLY SEEM TO BE BAD ACTORS? Anxiety at the podium causes one to seem to be a bad actor? The stress of touring the country in support of gun control makes one seem to be a bad actor?"

BINGO. You win the prize.

"They seem to be bad actors because THEY ARE bad actors."

Feel free to conclude this if you want but I am gonna go ahead and conclude the opposite.

Taint Montgomery said...

Well we've gotten to the point were any more debate would just rehash what we've already rehashen. Touche`.