294 posts
|
Post by dani on Dec 4, 2017 9:37:56 GMT
This must mean either Bertie Carvel or Andrew Scott doesn't care for Andrew Garfield.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Dec 4, 2017 9:39:28 GMT
I'll be the one to say it, Janie Dee (in my opinion) should of won over Amber in the musical catagory. For me, this only goes to show how subjective these things are, as I thought Janie Dee was far from being the best person in Follies and I was surprised to see her in the category at all.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 9:41:02 GMT
Not necessarily, a lot of people use "actor" as a gender neutral (in the same way no one says "doctress", for example). Perhaps Laura Donnelly has beef with Glenda Jackson, or Robert Fairchild doesn't get on with Amber Riley, or there's an unknown yet intense feud between Sheila Atim and Tom Glynn-Carney.
|
|
2,959 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Dec 4, 2017 9:56:17 GMT
The winners seem to be in or from continuing shows. Yes. I didn't watch but assumed An Octoroon would win over the fantastic Wish List (which I was rooting for) because the latter was way back last January and An Octoroon is transferring to the NT.
|
|
|
Post by jaqs on Dec 4, 2017 10:02:08 GMT
The beat actor award sponsored by ATG, best actress award sponsored by expensive shoes.
|
|
2,959 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Dec 4, 2017 10:04:35 GMT
a lot of people use "actor" as a gender neutral The thing is, though, it isn't. 'Actor' has centuries of male baggage attached, and I find something peculiarly self-hating about those women who feel the use of the traditionally female term "actress" is somehow inferior. Why? Because it's associated with women? I think - in an era when the language around race and sexuality is constantly shifting for political reasons, a gender-neutral term like performer or player should be used rather than women feeling the need to shed the female term. I dislike the terms Miss and Mrs and have always used Ms., but the 'actor' thing is a bit like women wanting to call themselves Mr and claiming it's progressive, when in fact it feels more like an erasure at a time when the treatment, specifically, of women by a still overwhelmingly male-dominated industry is still a major issue.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Dec 4, 2017 10:40:36 GMT
a lot of people use "actor" as a gender neutral The thing is, though, it isn't. 'Actor' has centuries of male baggage attached, and I find something peculiarly self-hating about those women who feel the use of the traditionally female term "actress" is somehow inferior. Why? Because it's associated with women? I think - in an era when the language around race and sexuality is constantly shifting for political reasons, a gender-neutral term like performer or player should be used rather than women feeling the need to shed the female term. I dislike the terms Miss and Mrs and have always used Ms., but the 'actor' thing is a bit like women wanting to call themselves Mr and claiming it's progressive, when in fact it feels more like an erasure at a time when the treatment, specifically, of women by a still overwhelmingly male-dominated industry is still a major issue. Denise Gough has been trying to reclaim the word "actress" from its current position in the journalistic sin bin. Personally I'm more interested in not being abused or patronised than whether I am called an actress or an actor. I accept that many people use the word "actor" neutrally, but where someone's talking about an awards ceremony where the acting categories are denominated Best Actor and Best Actress it's not very surprising to make the inference I did. Maybe Robert Fairchild really doesn't like Amber Riley, or whatever, but somehow I suspect this is about Garfield.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 10:46:19 GMT
Ooooh, who hates Andrew Garfield? Are they jealous about his lovely hair? I know I am.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 10:54:15 GMT
Ooooh, who hates Andrew Garfield? Are they jealous about his lovely hair? I know I am. We all are darling, we all are. (Though mine in it's current state of needing the chop resembles his quiff somewhat) Anyway I'm proud of my baby Prophet, who also had some lovely words to say in his speech.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 11:48:01 GMT
I found Garfield's speech horribly toe-curling. Earnest luvvie overload!
He was, however, in my mind anyway, a worthy winner of the award.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 12:19:59 GMT
I found Garfield's speech horribly toe-curling. Earnest luvvie overload! He was, however, in my mind anyway, a worthy winner of the award. Perhaps. Lovely hair though. How does he get that quiff so pouffy? Nice that Glenda turned up to pick up her award too. She didn't bother for either Oscar so she must have fancied a night out to show off her lovely Labour red coat.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Dec 4, 2017 12:19:59 GMT
a lot of people use "actor" as a gender neutral The thing is, though, it isn't. 'Actor' has centuries of male baggage attached, and I find something peculiarly self-hating about those women who feel the use of the traditionally female term "actress" is somehow inferior. Why? Because it's associated with women? Uhm, I think it's because it was associated with prostitution, especially when placed within quotation marks. Not that I'm suggesting that is what you were doing there, it's just the reason that I've seen given for women preferring to use actor. It all goes back to the centuries of baggage attached to women on the stage...
|
|
2,959 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Dec 4, 2017 12:59:55 GMT
It all goes back to the centuries of baggage attached to women on the stage... I suspect that in those days male actors were probably considered sexually available too, but that wasn't spoken of so publicly. And even so - which really hasn't been a mental association for at least a century - all the more reason to reclaim it, as words like 'queer' have been reclaimed from derogatory use into something empowering. Regarding the usage in places like the Guardian and BBC, I think they should respect what a woman chooses to call herself and/or adopt a gender neutral term like performer, but the Guardian even went so far as to change a quotation from Maggie Smith in a headline which was very specifically about the bad treatment of women in the industry, not women and men.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Dec 4, 2017 13:08:59 GMT
Well, yes, the Gruan is a law unto itself, and rarely sensible. I don't think the association is quite as dead as you think, or there wouldn't be women citing it as a reason for preferring 'actor'. Perhaps that is connected to the attitudes that have come to light from the likes of Weinstein et al. And as we've seen, the idea that actors are in some way sexually 'available' - at least to those in positions of power - has not been limited to women actors. But these perceptions/attitudes are often not entirely reality-based.... Anyway, this is a tangent - I still want to know who samuelwhiskers dislikes so much!
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Dec 4, 2017 13:12:17 GMT
so far as to change a quotation from Maggie Smith in a headline I think you mean a bannerline. Headline discriminates against people without heads.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 21:18:59 GMT
I am not happy with the Brandon Fraser Jacobs win. I would have preferred that award to go to Inua Williams for Barbershop Chronicles, supporting emerging British talent.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Dec 4, 2017 21:44:02 GMT
I was there, guest of a friend. Garfield’s speech was insincere and pompous. I didn’t realise we had a mind reader on the board! You may think he is pompous, but you can’t possibly know how sincere his speech was unless you have some special power.
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 4, 2017 22:16:37 GMT
Can I see the Hare tribute to Peter Hall anywhere?
|
|
77 posts
|
Post by tributary on Dec 4, 2017 23:00:53 GMT
I was there, guest of a friend. Garfield’s speech was insincere and pompous. I didn’t realise we had a mind reader on the board! You may think he is pompous, but you can’t possibly know how sincere his speech was unless you have some special power. No, you’re quite right. Particularly when posting on a theatre message board, I should have remembered that tone, facial expression, commitment, conviction and words chosen mean nothing, and can’t ever be used to judge sincerity.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Dec 4, 2017 23:37:22 GMT
Sincerity is entirely an experience of the individual - only Andrew knows if he believes what he was saying or not.
Particularly on a theatre messageboard, you should understand that your interpretation of what an actor is conveying is as much about how you read their presentation as about what they are actually feeling.
It is ridiculous to criticise an actor as insincere. The most you can do is criticise their presentation of sincerity as unconvincing. Sincerity isn’t always necessarily convincing, because there’s a difference between knowing something is how you truly feel and making an effort to convince people that it is how you truly feel.
|
|
885 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Dec 4, 2017 23:53:46 GMT
I was there last night as well and Garfield's speech sounded heartfelt and entirely genuine and in keeping with his (excellent) NT Platform, which was ALSO misreported upon at the time. For a gifted and able actor, he certainly does bring out the trolls. Not sure why. Agree entirely about excellence of the tribute to Peter Hall: very lovely indeed. And Phoebe W-B was a great host. I love the fact that her mum's first name is Tree (!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 23:56:45 GMT
Sincerity is entirely an experience of the individual - only Andrew knows if he believes what he was saying or not. Particularly on a theatre messageboard, you should understand that your interpretation of what an actor is conveying is as much about how you read their presentation as about what they are actually feeling. It is ridiculous to criticise an actor as insincere. The most you can do is criticise their presentation of sincerity as unconvincing. Sincerity isn’t always necessarily convincing, because there’s a difference between knowing something is how you truly feel and making an effort to convince people that it is how you truly feel. Lovely words, Kathryn. Do you happen to be a writer?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 23:58:11 GMT
Just realised that my post might seem insincere, but I truly appreciated the sentiment of Kathryn's post.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 23:59:49 GMT
I was there last night as well and Garfield's speech sounded heartfelt and entirely genuine and in keeping with his (excellent) NT Platform, which was ALSO misreported upon at the time. For a gifted and able actor, he certainly does bring out the trolls. Not sure why. Agree entirely about excellence of the tribute to Peter Hall: very lovely indeed. And Phoebe W-B was a great host. I love the fact that her mum's first name is Tree (!) Garfield has always come across as a really thoughtful and genuine young actor so I was surprised to read a description of him as "insincere". Pleased that someone else thinks otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 8:17:41 GMT
I am not happy with the Brandon Fraser Jacobs win. I would have preferred that award to go to Inua Williams for Barbershop Chronicles, supporting emerging British talent. I mean, the Evening Standards awards are a load of baubles anyway, the playwright's name is Branden Jacobs-Jenkins, and Inua Ellams wasn't nominated, nor could one really consider him "emerging" considering he's been emerged for a good number of years now. What an odd post.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 8:48:49 GMT
My better judgement says to walk away, and any other actor, any other play I'd let it lie. But obviously I can't let Andrew (and his hair) go undefended.
I thought that the words of his speech were heartfelt, reflected the experience of putting that monster on stage (including the bodily fluids part, I ahem know no specifics of course). And the expression of gratitude towards Marianne also reflects what it took to get that company doing what they did. His words about Kushner, for me, ring true of someone who knows these plays inside out, and truly admires and appreciates the sentiment behind this work of Kushner's and others. I also think Garfield as an actor/person was genuinely thrilled and moved to win that award (even if the ES awards might be better named the BS awards).
The above is my PERSONAL take on the speech. Now the opposite take is possible-you could watch it and think 'what a load of BS' an editorial you of course. BUT what you can't possibly know is whether he was being insincere, that is unless he took you aside at the after party and told you so himself. (and if he did why weren't you asking about his hair products?!)
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Dec 5, 2017 9:15:56 GMT
I know nothing about Andrew Garfield as a person, but to me his speech seemed joyful, honest and heartfelt, and the best actor award more-than-deserved. However, saying... It is ridiculous to criticise an actor as insincere. The most you can do is criticise their presentation of sincerity as unconvincing. ...seems a bit of a stretch. Andrew Garfield giving a speech isn't him being 'an actor', that's him speaking as a person; the same as anyone from any other profession giving a speech.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Dec 5, 2017 9:58:37 GMT
I am not happy with the Brandon Fraser Jacobs win. I would have preferred that award to go to Inua Williams for Barbershop Chronicles, supporting emerging British talent. I mean, the Evening Standards awards are a load of baubles anyway, the playwright's name is Branden Jacobs-Jenkins, and Inua Ellams wasn't nominated, nor could one really consider him "emerging" considering he's been emerged for a good number of years now. What an odd post. Word association! Branden Jacobs-Jenkins meets Brendan Fraser. Not sure where "Inua Williams" came from, but it made me laugh. I remember seeing Cush Jumbo refer to Ellams thus on Twitter once.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Dec 5, 2017 10:15:35 GMT
I know nothing about Andrew Garfield as a person, but to me his speech seemed joyful, honest and heartfelt, and the best actor award more-than-deserved. However, saying... It is ridiculous to criticise an actor as insincere. The most you can do is criticise their presentation of sincerity as unconvincing. ...seems a bit of a stretch. Andrew Garfield giving a speech isn't him being 'an actor', that's him speaking as a person; the same as anyone from any other profession giving a speech. That's sort of my point, although I think my head got a bit sidetracked into thinking about audience reception/interpretation of performance so I didn't make it clearly enough. When an actor is acting, their job is to convince the audience of their sincerity, and so they are 'performing' it - and not actually necessarily feeling it. Although convincing themselves they are really feeling the emotion often helps convince an audience of it - especially on camera, in close-up. On stage an actor can really be feeling all sorts of emotions but they still have to perform them outwards or the audience won't be able to pick up on them. When an actor is speaking as themselves, accepting an award, they can generally assume the audience accepts their sincerity, so they don't 'perform' it any more than anyone else would. Unless you have a specific reason to believe that they are lying through their teeth, it is silly to judge them as if they are performing in a play. I don't see any reason to doubt Andrew Garfield's sincerity. I would also note that when you are truly sincere and telling the absolute truth it is still impossible to convince other people of that if they believe that you are not. It doesn't matter what you say or how you say it, if someone has convinced themselves it's not the case - because they don't like you, because they have decided to believe someone else - your sincerity is irrelevant. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has had that experience...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Dec 5, 2017 10:47:16 GMT
When an actor is speaking as themselves, accepting an award, they can generally assume the audience accepts their sincerity, so they don't 'perform' it any more than anyone else would. Unless you have a specific reason to believe that they are lying through their teeth, it is silly to judge them as if they are performing in a play. I suspect that this is one of those discussions where the commenters' intent (as in both of us) doesn't always come through as straight-forwardly as intended, so apologies if I'm not being clear or if I've misunderstood what you've said. Putting aside Andrew Garfield's career, he gave a speech and each of us, whether consciously or subconsciously, made a judgement on whether we feel he was being honest or not. IMO that's not 'judg[ing] them as if they are performing in a play', that's just human nature. I mean, each of us will have a reaction to others saying "Wow, I love this gift" or "No, I'd love to see those baby photos" or "No, the turkey tastes great", or whatever, based on what we know of the speaker, their words & demeanour and the situation. I don't think that's much different to someone commenting that a speech seemed 'insincere and pompous'. As I said, my feeling was that Garfield seemed honest & heartfelt. However, at the end of the day, this is someone in the public eye making a speech to an audience. He isn't having a private chat with a friend. So I don't think it's unreasonable for someone else to comment that they felt differently. After all, being pedantic, it's not possible for anyone other than him to truly know how he truly felt at that moment.
|
|