The Greatest Showman

Remember in one second [End of the God Station] Mobile phone user input address: m.xinwanben.com

An understatement but a light weight.

The cloud is light and the wind is light, but the aftertaste is profound.

Once again, Renly completed a splendid performance. It was only the slight changes in the eyebrows, eyes and shoulder lines, but in the fleeting time, it showed a delicate and complex emotional evolution, not only with context, but also with layers. It has both depth and strength, and truly elevates the concept and connotation of the entire character by several grades. The excellent and wonderful performance frees the character and the story from the shackles of the script and the lens, and turns the fake into the real.

Is this possible?

Is this real?

The answer is yes.

In addition to Renly, many actors have had such highlights: Anthony Hopkins' performance in "Silence of the Lambs", Heath Ledger's performance in "Batman: The Dark Knight", Matthew McConaughey's performance in "Dallas Buyers Club" and so on, they all had such "highlight moments".

There is no doubt that these actors are good and good, but "good" and "perfect" are two different things. For most of their careers, they can only be good but can't go further. When the right time meets the right role , and then there is a soul-shattering spark that truly touches perfection.

Of course, maybe such a "highlight moment" is only once in his entire career, but it must be known that most actors cannot reach such a high level in their entire life, Leonardo DiCaprio lacks such a moment In high light, he was excellent, but far from perfect.

So, why can actors such as Daniel Day-Lewis, Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson, Robert De Niro, Katharine Hepburn be called "hall-level" actors?

Because they have more than one "highlight moment" in their careers. It is true that not every one of their works can be praised and recorded in the annals of history; but looking back in the long river of time, their highlight moments have been as many as two, three or even more, which is what makes them great.

Renly, too.

Why does Renly have such a powerful and profound influence in the film industry? Just because of egot? Just because of the undefeated halo? Just because of market appeal? Maybe both, but not only that, the real key reason is that Renly had his own "highlight moment" at a young age.

The first is the first episode of "War in the Pacific."

The second time is the final scene of "Love Crazy".

The third time was the performance of "Drunken Country Ballads".

Even now, the Hollywood industry still firmly believes that the performance of "Drunken Country Ballad" is undoubtedly the masterpiece of Renly's collection, but this performance did not even get an Oscar nomination, which once again proves that the awards season has countless influencing factors, and the strongest are not seen. If you can win, it may not be the best to win in the end.

So, can the "lobster" scene be the fourth highlight of Renly's career?

Who would have thought that Renly's acting skills would break through again, but in a black comedy?

The evildoer of the end of the world is reborn

The entire film industry has always maintained a negative attitude towards comedy performances, just as the attitude towards comedy throughout the art history has never been as good as the drama. So far, the only thing that can break the blockade of the fixed concept is Jack Lay, the first winner in the history of the "Best Actor Grand Slam". Mongolian.

The actor who starred in comedy films such as "Passionate" and "Peach/Color/Apartment", Venice, Cannes, Berlin, British Academy, Oscar and Golden Globe, all won the best actor title, and turned each one twice. Awards ceremonies have at least two trophies, and Jack Lemmon's first Oscar for Best Supporting Actor came from a comedy, "Mr. Roberts."

But overall, the significance and weight of comedy performances are far underestimated.

Just as Renly got inspiration from Buster Keaton's performance, comedy is actually more difficult than a drama, and it takes more effort to sculpt the actors than the drama, otherwise it may become a simple and crude "shit/ Urine/fart" comedy, and lost the ironic force of the work.

Strictly speaking, "The Lobster" is an absurd comedy. The coldness on the surface echoes the profoundness of the inner core. If the actors complete the performance in accordance with Oggs' requirements, then the work can still achieve its original purpose, because Oggs only needs actors. Facial paralysis is enough, all the dark humor comes from the setting of the plot; but Renly, on the basis of Oggs' request, endowed the character with a soul, and the vitality of trying to break free of bondage has just become a brightening The core meaning of this work is the ultimate pursuit of comedy films.

It's not easy for Bo Jun to laugh; but after laughing, it's hard to go to heaven.

Renly restrained the rhythm and strength of the performance, but interpreted more aftertaste, and the shock of that aftertaste was multiplied, tripled, or even tenfolded.

The entire set of the film crew fell into contemplation.

Of course, it was mainly because they knew the script and story so well that they could easily capture the information released by Renly through the performance; as for the audience, it was up to the director's scheduling and editing to see if the director could convey this thinking to the audience, How much can be conveyed is the final hurdle that determines the quality of the finished product. Otherwise, how can the excellent performances of those excellent actors be submerged?

So, what is Oggs thinking now:

Mind **ào zhà!

Ogus's whole brain is about to explode now

Here, he noticed Renly's performance, but also Rachel's performance.

Just as David turned to leave, in the corner of the camera, the back of the myopic woman was slightly stiff.

It’s just a fleeting moment, such small details, and still static details, if you don’t observe them carefully, the high probability event is just not noticed; even in the process of watching the movie, it is difficult for the audience to capture every detail in the picture, often unable to Captures all the information given by the director's shot.

But Ogus is the director, he has to pay attention to the big picture, he has to take care of every corner. So he noticed the details of Rachel's performance.

Then, the brainstorming came! He is now bursting with infinite inspiration, which is colliding fiercely and violently, especially Renly's emotional details in the last three sets of shots, and Rachel's performance processing, which triggered many associations in his mind.

Should he lock the camera on Rachel, and go a step further and ask Rachel's back to show some emotions, and then form a contrast? Let the bond between David and the short-sighted woman form, and show the struggle and pain of the short-sighted woman at the last moment? Wife's Hand Covers the Sky: Almighty Spiritualist: Almighty Spiritualist

Or is it that this approach is too much, and the intention to form a contrast is too obvious, but it is inferior? Maybe even destroy the setting of myopic women?

Because no matter what, the next shot will be divided into two lines, focusing on David and the woman respectively, creating an emotional collision with the different actions of the two people, but according to the original setting, myopic women are hard-hearted, She stood at the top of the food chain. Those struggles and hesitations were insignificant. Rachel gave her a little softness, but at the same time, Rachel also cut off these softness, which was a fluctuation.

If Ogus does not specifically show this change, then it may be the psychological change of a myopic woman. Maybe she has been moved by love but still chooses to survive after all; but if Ogus presents it with a camera, it means Because the audience has to receive this information, it seems too rigid and rigid, but there is a sense of forcing the audience. This is obviously a very low-end film expression technique.

The question now is, should the director throw out more clues? Or is it enough to rely on the performance of the actors? No need to superfluous?

But Oggs was a little reluctant: because Renly went from staring at the steak knife to walking away, the content presented in this series of performances was really too complicated and too interesting. If he gave up like this, he would always feel a bit rude to the audience. What if you can't taste it? According to Oggs's usual style, he is more accustomed to subtraction rather than addition. It is best to stop the shot here. Renly's performance is enough, and there is no need for the director to use the shot to inject more information.

The source of such contradiction is that Renly's performance is really too good!

The filming of "The Lobster" is almost over, but Oggs can't help but exclaim again and again. Renly's performance does have infinite possibilities. Even in Oggs' cold and restrained scene, Renly can still There are countless possibilities to interpret "facial paralysis".

This skill makes the whole movie start to shine.

After thinking about it, Oggs still couldn't hold back, "Rachel, finally we add another shot, the camera is aimed at your back, your shoulder line is a little tight because you are aware of David's emotions, You understand David's plan, that firmness affects you, and you hesitate a little bit. A little bit, just a little bit of emotion is enough."

Now is the filming process, Ogus can make more demands, film all kinds of ideas in advance, and then decide slowly in post-production, for example, he can edit two versions, and then see which version If it is more appropriate, then which version should be adopted, maybe keep it, maybe delete it, maybe switch the camera to bury the clue.

But if the shooting process simply ignores this possibility, there will be no room for manoeuvre when editing later.

This is what Ogus convinced himself. In fact, deep down in his heart, Oggs also understood that his compromise was still moved by Renly's performance after all.

But how exactly should the finished film be made? Ogus didn't have a clear idea, he could only take one step at a time, but at least, Renly's performance really made the movie more advanced, Ogus began to feel fortunate that he chose Renly at the beginning, this is definitely a A more correct choice.

Ogus also began to be unable to restrain his excitement.

2

Support (end this site) and share this site with those who need it! Can't find the book, please leave a message!