Photo

Colin Morgan as Merlin


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 ptajen027

ptajen027

    Mansquito

  • Full Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:07 AM

Is it just me or is everyone total impressed and mesmerized with Colin Morgan's performance as Merlin? In my humble opinion, Morgan's performance is award worthy. Posted Image

Please Comment!


#2 Aithusa

Aithusa

    Sleestak

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 52 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 11:47 AM

Is it just me or is everyone total impressed and mesmerized with Colin Morgan's performance as Merlin? In my humble opinion, Morgan's performance is award worthy. Posted Image

Please Comment!




Well he did win an award for his performance as Merlin. He won Best Actor for Virgin Media TV Awards. Yes. I think it was well deserved. Colin is one of the best actors to play Merlin. The others would be Sam Neil and Joseph Fiennes. Sam is what I like to call the classic Merlin. Joseph is the gritty, dark and conflicted Merlin. I`m not sure how to describe Colin`s Merlin. I guess he is the geeky and endearing Merlin. On a side note-He also did a fun 1920`s photo shoot with Katie Mcgrath.

Here`s the link : http://www.lady.co.u...r_vintage_style

#3 ptajen027

ptajen027

    Mansquito

  • Full Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 04:01 PM

Well he did win an award for his performance as Merlin. He won Best Actor for Virgin Media TV Awards. Yes. I think it was well deserved. Colin is one of the best actors to play Merlin. The others would be Sam Neil and Joseph Fiennes. Sam is what I like to call the classic Merlin. Joseph is the gritty, dark and conflicted Merlin. I`m not sure how to describe Colin`s Merlin. I guess he is the geeky and endearing Merlin. On a side note-He also did a fun 1920`s photo shoot with Katie Mcgrath.

Here`s the link : http://www.lady.co.u...r_vintage_style


Honestly, I'm totally ignorant of Arthurian legend & couldn't tell you the last time I saw a different take on the story. I'm not a big TV/movie buff, and prefer to live & experience life than watch it on TV. I'm also not a "fanatic" & its rare that a actors performance stands out to me, but Morgan's sincerely has. I think Morgan's version of Merlin shows an adolescent awkwardness, a boyish innocence, empathy & charm, as well as, strength and confidence from having magic & being a Dragonlord. Morgan's talent as an actor puts him in a position to successfully portray an abundance of different characters.



A few other performances that have truly stood out for me are:
Brad Pitt in "Troy"
Milica Jovovich in "Resident Evil"
Rami Malek in the "Pacific"
Mark Wahlburg in "Band of Brothers"
Keira Knightley & Matthew Macfadyen in "Pride & Prejudice"


Good to know Morgan won an award for his performance, in my opinion he truly deserves it! Thanks for the link and for commenting! Posted Image ~ Jen




#4 francophile

francophile

    Caprican

  • Full Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 06:27 PM

Well he did win an award for his performance as Merlin. He won Best Actor for Virgin Media TV Awards. Yes. I think it was well deserved. Colin is one of the best actors to play Merlin. The others would be Sam Neil and Joseph Fiennes. Sam is what I like to call the classic Merlin. Joseph is the gritty, dark and conflicted Merlin. I`m not sure how to describe Colin`s Merlin. I guess he is the geeky and endearing Merlin. On a side note-He also did a fun 1920`s photo shoot with Katie Mcgrath.

Here`s the link : http://www.lady.co.u...r_vintage_style


I'm a Joseph Fiennes and Ralph Fiennes fan.

I really enjoyed Joseph Fiennes' performance in Shakespeare in Love. That film is a masterpiece! It's my second favorite movie of all time.

#5 francophile

francophile

    Caprican

  • Full Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:01 PM

Honestly, I'm totally ignorant of Arthurian legend & couldn't tell you the last time I saw a different take on the story. I'm not a big TV/movie buff, and prefer to live & experience life than watch it on TV. I'm also not a "fanatic" & its rare that a actors performance stands out to me, but Morgan's sincerely has. I think Morgan's version of Merlin shows an adolescent awkwardness, a boyish innocence, empathy & charm, as well as, strength and confidence from having magic & being a Dragonlord. Morgan's talent as an actor puts him in a position to successfully portray an abundance of different characters.


A few other performances that have truly stood out for me are:
Brad Pitt in "Troy"
Milica Jovovich in "Resident Evil"
Rami Malek in the "Pacific"
Mark Wahlburg in "Band of Brothers"
Keira Knightley & Matthew Macfadyen in "Pride & Prejudice"


Good to know Morgan won an award for his performance, in my opinion he truly deserves it! Thanks for the link and for commenting! Posted Image ~ Jen




I think standouts of the last 10 years or so have been

Meryl Streep in anything
Cate Blanchett in anything
Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin in No Country for Old Men
Johnny Depp in the first Pirates of the Caribbean
Leonardo di Caprio in anything- but esp. Blood Diamond

#6 ptajen027

ptajen027

    Mansquito

  • Full Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:23 PM

I think standouts of the last 10 years or so have been

Meryl Streep in anything
Cate Blanchett in anything
Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin in No Country for Old Men
Johnny Depp in the first Pirates of the Caribbean
Leonardo di Caprio in anything- but esp. Blood Diamond


Thanks for commenting! Posted Image
I agree with you- Meryl Streep and Cate Blanchett are two fabulous actresses! What are your thoughts on Colin Morgan? My 10yr old got me hooked on "Merlin" and I watched a few episodes in passing, but finally got the time to sit down and watch a full episode and was enthralled with Morgan's performance. My personal favorite, is "The Last DragonLord". He has so many difficult scenes in that episode and performs like a seasoned actor every single time!
I'm also impressed with the actor who portrays one of the knights- the one who drinks from the cup of life. He has very few speaking lines but I've gotten attached to his character and would be disappointed and sad if he died.


#7 Aithusa

Aithusa

    Sleestak

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 52 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 08:00 AM

That`s Sir Leon. I don`t think he is going anywhere. Before the other knights came along, Sir Leon was pretty much the figure head who represented the knights as characters. One fan jokingly called him " The Unsinkable" Sir Leon because all the minor knights die around him,but he always manages to survive somehow. Also Morgan did do a good job in "The Last Dragon Lord". That`s one of my favorite episodes too. No one can cry like him. Freya`s death scene in "The Lady of Lake" episode was another strong emotional moment for him as well. The way he played Merlin when he fell in love with Freya was so sweet. Forget Arthur and Gwen ! Merlin and Freya win my vote for the cutest couple.

#8 ptajen027

ptajen027

    Mansquito

  • Full Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 09:09 AM

That`s Sir Leon. I don`t think he is going anywhere. Before the other knights came along, Sir Leon was pretty much the figure head who represented the knights as characters. One fan jokingly called him " The Unsinkable" Sir Leon because all the minor knights die around him,but he always manages to survive somehow. Also Morgan did do a good job in "The Last Dragon Lord". That`s one of my favorite episodes too. No one can cry like him. Freya`s death scene in "The Lady of Lake" episode was another strong emotional moment for him as well. The way he played Merlin when he fell in love with Freya was so sweet. Forget Arthur and Gwen ! Merlin and Freya win my vote for the cutest couple.


Yea, that's the 1! Sir Leon is a great actor! I think he should get more camera time.

I'm kinda torn on Freya and Merlin's relationship. At first I felt like it moved too fast, but then I thought maybe it was because he could relate to her and share his secret with her that drew him to her so quickly.
I think the best way to replace Freya would be to have the daughter of one of Merlin's fathers good friends
or the daughter of one of Gaius' good friends come into his life. It would be especially neat if she was a Dragon Lord. I know they say it's passed from father to son, but they could get around that. I mean girls can be Dragon Lords too! haha Posted Image As much as Merlin goes through, he deserves a love interest!

Honestly, I have a lot of appreciation for actors and actresses. I use to be a productions assistant in the DC/Virginia area for extra money and once watched this poor girl role her eyes at least 50 times! And that was only for a commercial! Can you imagine? Ugh... no thanks!

I'm surprised more people haven't posted about Morgan's talent. In my opinion, it's really outstanding!


#9 Scopet

Scopet

    Viper Pilot

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 131 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 09:52 AM

I like the way he uses his eyes when he's acting. Case in point in last week's episode (sword in the stone pt 1) where Merlin's asking to join Tristan on the trip and says he could really use the company. All he does to suggest that "the half wit" is driving him nuts is give a few sideways glances.

Some folks may put panto down, but you can really tell the actors who've done panto in the past from the actors who haven't. They're a lot freer in their acting.

#10 ptajen027

ptajen027

    Mansquito

  • Full Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 10:05 PM

I like the way he uses his eyes when he's acting. Case in point in last week's episode (sword in the stone pt 1) where Merlin's asking to join Tristan on the trip and says he could really use the company. All he does to suggest that "the half wit" is driving him nuts is give a few sideways glances.

Some folks may put panto down, but you can really tell the actors who've done panto in the past from the actors who haven't. They're a lot freer in their acting.



I like the way he makes his eyes look glassy when he is about to cry or was crying. I have yet to see stone pt 1. I'm going to download Stone pt 1 and pt 2 tomorrow, hopefully it's on itunes! Posted Image

I'm not familiar with the term you used, what is panto? Posted Image


#11 MikeAP001

MikeAP001

    Minbari

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 262 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 06:38 AM

I like the way he makes his eyes look glassy when he is about to cry or was crying. I have yet to see stone pt 1. I'm going to download Stone pt 1 and pt 2 tomorrow, hopefully it's on itunes! Posted Image

I'm not familiar with the term you used, what is panto? Posted Image


I think it's short for pantomime: communication by gestures and facial features of emotions and feelings without the aid of speech. Most people used to use the term "expressive". As in, "Caroline Munro has the most expressive eyes of any Bond villain!" (Every 007 fan boy coming of age in the 70s will never forget when she gave Roger Moore a wink before shooting him down from her attack helicopter?)

#12 ptajen027

ptajen027

    Mansquito

  • Full Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 09:55 AM

I think it's short for pantomime: communication by gestures and facial features of emotions and feelings without the aid of speech. Most people used to use the term "expressive". As in, "Caroline Munro has the most expressive eyes of any Bond villain!" (Every 007 fan boy coming of age in the 70s will never forget when she gave Roger Moore a wink before shooting him down from her attack helicopter?)


Thanks, I'm totally clueless on Performing Arts terminology, I'm going to school to work in the medical profession so I'm up to my eyeballs in medical terminology right now. Posted Image haha

Do you have any thoughts on Colin Morgan's performance as Merlin? I'm surprised more people haven't posted about it. It's really astounding!... well for me it is,
and not in the way I felt when I was 9yrs old about Sean Austin in Goonies! Posted Image Lol Its similar to how I felt when I read "With the old breed" by Eugene Sledge; sincerely appreciative & impressed with his writing. (Great book by the way, if your into WWII history)

#13 MikeAP001

MikeAP001

    Minbari

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 262 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 11:21 AM

Thanks, I'm totally clueless on Performing Arts terminology, I'm going to school to work in the medical profession so I'm up to my eyeballs in medical terminology right now. Posted Image haha

Do you have any thoughts on Colin Morgan's performance as Merlin? I'm surprised more people haven't posted about it. It's really astounding!... well for me it is,
and not in the way I felt when I was 9yrs old about Sean Austin in Goonies! Posted Image Lol Its similar to how I felt when I read "With the old breed" by Eugene Sledge; sincerely appreciative & impressed with his writing. (Great book by the way, if your into WWII history)


I'm not into the Performing Arts. It's just things that I remembered from college before I went into the medical profession. But, I read a lot and I've met some people who are or were part of the Performing Arts--- mostly community theatre type things. Oh, and you'll discover once you're in the real world that a lot of that medical terminology has been rendered useless now a days but the ability to analyze and apply that knowledge isn't and that has applications beyond the medical world.

As for Colin Morgan's performance, I like it. His and the rest of the cast's performance represents European/Stage Training which is a bit more expressive and by American standards less believable (until you see the rest of the world and see that it's not; but, the solution to that is simple: play an American in a subdued manner with the hand gestures but keep the facial expressions in play). It's actually a more studied and disciplined way of performing and driven mostly by the director (directors like the British Charlie Chaplin, Russian Sergei Eisenstein, the German Leni Reifenstahl, and the American John Ford) by which the actor took on the part by becoming the character within the boundaries of the director's interpretation. However, that started to change as the newer medium became dominant and was replaced by other innovations and, some would argue, driven by economic forces resulting in changes that were not based on purely artistic ones resulting in situations where actors were cast for a "look" rather than actual acting talent and with that impetus newer and different ways of acting evolved.

That's not to say that it's better or worse than any other method of presenting a story or in acing, it's just another way of doing so; however, with the advent of these other methods of acting, the director became less controlling. In time with the advent of technology, these schools became so divergent and specialized that there were different types of actor. By way of review, at one time, there wasn't as much of difference between a Stage, Radio, Television, or Movie Actor. They were all one in the same originally. Now, thanks to technology, while Stage Actors must learn and memorize their parts to be believable, Movie and TV Actors can read their lines from Cue Cards(Teleprompters now, I guess) which was one reason that in the 1970s Ron Howard while raised as a TV actor enjoyed playing to a Live Studio Audience in Happy Days because it challenged his skills as an actor; the same was true of John Ritter during the height of his prime time success on Three's Company when he auditioned and worked in the New York Stage; as did Carroll O'Connor, Old Archie Bunker himself, who took on the Stage Role of Brutus in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. That would also explain why contemporary American Movie actors do not transition well to TV or Stage presentations (There was an episode of guest star Brad Pitt in Friends playing an old friend of Ross' who was to play someone with the personality of Brad Pitt? if I remember right) while Stage actors and TV actors with Stage experience can do well in the Movies (like O'Connor as cited earlier; if you want, Movie Star Charlton Heston had been in London and New York Stage doing Shakespeare plays like MacBeth; now, compare his performance as himself in Friends to Pitt's as himself but with a different name, and you'll see what I mean).

#14 Scopet

Scopet

    Viper Pilot

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 131 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 12:30 PM

I like the way he makes his eyes look glassy when he is about to cry or was crying. I have yet to see stone pt 1. I'm going to download Stone pt 1 and pt 2 tomorrow, hopefully it's on itunes! Posted Image

I'm not familiar with the term you used, what is panto? Posted Image


Sorry. Panto is short for "pantomime" but in the British sense of the word it's a family style of theater (or theatre) where adults are telling children's stories in a bawdy way. Here's an example, and Colin's in it as a bonus. Not to everyone's taste, but the movements are exaggerated and involves a lot of improving with the audience. Not high drama, but a lot of fun. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=MaQzrAR4C6M. It has to be performed at several levels to keep the kids interested, but slips in some jokes for the adults as well. All "mistakes" are intentional.

#15 MikeAP001

MikeAP001

    Minbari

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 262 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 01:57 PM

Sorry. Panto is short for "pantomime" but in the British sense of the word it's a family style of theater (or theatre) where adults are telling children's stories in a bawdy way. Here's an example, and Colin's in it as a bonus. Not to everyone's taste, but the movements are exaggerated and involves a lot of improving with the audience. Not high drama, but a lot of fun. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=MaQzrAR4C6M. It has to be performed at several levels to keep the kids interested, but slips in some jokes for the adults as well. All "mistakes" are intentional.


That's interesting. It shows quite a divergence between American and British words. Pinocchio, Peter Pan, Snow White and other plays like that are usually called "Musicals for the entire Family" or "Family Entertainment" and are usually shown around Christmas. If that is a popular genre in Britain, shown year-round, then I think I know why Euro-Brit acting diverges from American.

#16 Scopet

Scopet

    Viper Pilot

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 131 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 03:32 PM

That's interesting. It shows quite a divergence between American and British words. Pinocchio, Peter Pan, Snow White and other plays like that are usually called "Musicals for the entire Family" or "Family Entertainment" and are usually shown around Christmas. If that is a popular genre in Britain, shown year-round, then I think I know why Euro-Brit acting diverges from American.


Panto's a bit of a subset of that. Sort of a cross between Disney and Vaudeville.


American acting became dominated by the "method" style of acting, in which the actor was encourage to draw on past experiences and to actually become the character they were portraying and live the part. The idea being, if the emotion is there, the actor will naturally portray the correct non verbals to show their inner thoughts.. Needless to say it's been responsible for a few psychotic breaks. Also most American Actors don't seriously start studying acting until College. British acting focuses on learning the nonverbals and actively choosing the movements which will portray the inner emotions of the character, with the actor keeping his own brain behind them. British actors usually start their acting career in stage schools, a bit like our magnet high schools that focus on the arts.

There's a old story about
Dustin Hoffman - a devote of the method style and Laurence Olivier - highly trained in the British stlye. They were working together on Marathon Man. Hoffman had gone for a few days without sleep to prepare for the torture scenes and came into the shoot looked pretty rough even before the makeup department got hold of him. Olivier asked him why he was putting himself through all that. Hoffman said that he was trying to be convincing in the role. Olivier response was "Why don't you try acting, dear boy"

No one way's better than the other, it's just a matter of what toys you have in your toy box and what you do with them.



#17 MikeAP001

MikeAP001

    Minbari

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 262 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 10:08 AM


Panto's a bit of a subset of that. Sort of a cross between Disney and Vaudeville.


American acting became dominated by the "method" style of acting, in which the actor was encourage to draw on past experiences and to actually become the character they were portraying and live the part. The idea being, if the emotion is there, the actor will naturally portray the correct non verbals to show their inner thoughts.. Needless to say it's been responsible for a few psychotic breaks. Also most American Actors don't seriously start studying acting until College. British acting focuses on learning the nonverbals and actively choosing the movements which will portray the inner emotions of the character, with the actor keeping his own brain behind them. British actors usually start their acting career in stage schools, a bit like our magnet high schools that focus on the arts.

There's a old story about
Dustin Hoffman - a devote of the method style and Laurence Olivier - highly trained in the British stlye. They were working together on Marathon Man. Hoffman had gone for a few days without sleep to prepare for the torture scenes and came into the shoot looked pretty rough even before the makeup department got hold of him. Olivier asked him why he was putting himself through all that. Hoffman said that he was trying to be convincing in the role. Olivier response was "Why don't you try acting, dear boy"

No one way's better than the other, it's just a matter of what toys you have in your toy box and what you do with them.



I was actually thinking more along the lines of the writer/director and the loss of influence by the writer at least here in the US. Originally, the writer is the great creator who puts his ideal down on words while the director modifies things according to the resources available to see that as much of the writer's ideas are expressed on stage/screen and the actor is one of the tools used by the director. This is still in effect when the writers/directors are one in the same and the actor can be controlled. But, something happened as writers and directors became separate. The writers lost a lot of that creative process so that the directors actually came to dominate the production until it became the director's interpretation. This wasn't uniquely an American thing.

For instance, Irishman Bram Stoker and his estate fought with FW Marnau over Nosferatu. Stoker had written a stage play of Dracula based on his book. Marnau devised his own interpretation of Stoker's book and put it on film. Stoker, et. al. claimed that it was a direct swipe with nominal changes while Marnau argued that there were artistic differences. Stoker won the court battle and most of the film prints were destroyed but there was now a blue print of how to present the same story and avoid copyright issues. With that you have more directors "collaborating" with their own set of writers to bring forth the "director's" vision moreso than the writer's. Director's in everywhere ran with it during the Silent Era or films and have never stopped.

But, in this country, as the Director/Producers became more potent, the Actors in America began to fight back. It wasn't much of a fight but you had Chaplain, Fairbanks, and Pickford trying to use their popularity to gain more influence in the creative and fnancial process eventually forming United Artists as a production company to cope with the burgeoning Hollywood Star Machine eventually becoming part of it. In turn, actors became more and more of the directorial/producer including stars like Chaplain, Fairbanks, John Wayne and Ron Howard with varying degrees of success, and very recently Tom Welling and Johnny Depp. (Note: don't take anything away from the significance of Wayne as a director even though it was a disaster, it was his example of an actor transitioning into a director that inspired others to do so in movies and television). The general feeling expressed had been that the actor needed to experience more of the creative process of the production beyond acting; translated: acting's okay but not satisfying (see Ron Howard).

While there are actor/directors in Britain, there doesn't seem to be as many actors wanting to direct. I could be wrong but from what I've read those actors enjoy what they're doing moreso than their US counterpart. And, part of the reason might be the panto and other stage training the Brits get--- it's more fulfilling because of the connection they get with the audience. It might be interesting to compare other countries with an otherwise British tradition like Australia or New Zealand and their acceptance panto and the stage training method with the US.

#18 ptajen027

ptajen027

    Mansquito

  • Full Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 04:58 PM


Panto's a bit of a subset of that. Sort of a cross between Disney and Vaudeville.


American acting became dominated by the "method" style of acting, in which the actor was encourage to draw on past experiences and to actually become the character they were portraying and live the part. The idea being, if the emotion is there, the actor will naturally portray the correct non verbals to show their inner thoughts.. Needless to say it's been responsible for a few psychotic breaks. Also most American Actors don't seriously start studying acting until College. British acting focuses on learning the nonverbals and actively choosing the movements which will portray the inner emotions of the character, with the actor keeping his own brain behind them. British actors usually start their acting career in stage schools, a bit like our magnet high schools that focus on the arts.

There's a old story about
Dustin Hoffman - a devote of the method style and Laurence Olivier - highly trained in the British stlye. They were working together on Marathon Man. Hoffman had gone for a few days without sleep to prepare for the torture scenes and came into the shoot looked pretty rough even before the makeup department got hold of him. Olivier asked him why he was putting himself through all that. Hoffman said that he was trying to be convincing in the role. Olivier response was "Why don't you try acting, dear boy"

No one way's better than the other, it's just a matter of what toys you have in your toy box and what you do with them.



I would have to say I like the British style of acting better. Personally, it's more believable, but it's probably more challenging for the actors, because... well... they have to actually act. I also think Americans are more focused on how much money the project will bring in, so they appeal to the masses, and we end up with cracker jack TV shows and movies.
I'm sure Merlin doesn't have a huge budget, but they still produce a phenomenal show, and in my opinion, it's because they have such a talented cast.
You and Mike seem to be a lot more knowledgeable than I am, about the Performing Arts and theater; I'm truly getting an education! thanks guys! Posted Image

Question, have you guys noticed the trend of European actors being more focused on acting, then fame?

#19 ptajen027

ptajen027

    Mansquito

  • Full Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 05:29 PM

I'm not into the Performing Arts. It's just things that I remembered from college before I went into the medical profession. But, I read a lot and I've met some people who are or were part of the Performing Arts--- mostly community theatre type things. Oh, and you'll discover once you're in the real world that a lot of that medical terminology has been rendered useless now a days but the ability to analyze and apply that knowledge isn't and that has applications beyond the medical world.

As for Colin Morgan's performance, I like it. His and the rest of the cast's performance represents European/Stage Training which is a bit more expressive and by American standards less believable (until you see the rest of the world and see that it's not; but, the solution to that is simple: play an American in a subdued manner with the hand gestures but keep the facial expressions in play). It's actually a more studied and disciplined way of performing and driven mostly by the director (directors like the British Charlie Chaplin, Russian Sergei Eisenstein, the German Leni Reifenstahl, and the American John Ford) by which the actor took on the part by becoming the character within the boundaries of the director's interpretation. However, that started to change as the newer medium became dominant and was replaced by other innovations and, some would argue, driven by economic forces resulting in changes that were not based on purely artistic ones resulting in situations where actors were cast for a "look" rather than actual acting talent and with that impetus newer and different ways of acting evolved.

That's not to say that it's better or worse than any other method of presenting a story or in acing, it's just another way of doing so; however, with the advent of these other methods of acting, the director became less controlling. In time with the advent of technology, these schools became so divergent and specialized that there were different types of actor. By way of review, at one time, there wasn't as much of difference between a Stage, Radio, Television, or Movie Actor. They were all one in the same originally. Now, thanks to technology, while Stage Actors must learn and memorize their parts to be believable, Movie and TV Actors can read their lines from Cue Cards(Teleprompters now, I guess) which was one reason that in the 1970s Ron Howard while raised as a TV actor enjoyed playing to a Live Studio Audience in Happy Days because it challenged his skills as an actor; the same was true of John Ritter during the height of his prime time success on Three's Company when he auditioned and worked in the New York Stage; as did Carroll O'Connor, Old Archie Bunker himself, who took on the Stage Role of Brutus in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. That would also explain why contemporary American Movie actors do not transition well to TV or Stage presentations (There was an episode of guest star Brad Pitt in Friends playing an old friend of Ross' who was to play someone with the personality of Brad Pitt? if I remember right) while Stage actors and TV actors with Stage experience can do well in the Movies (like O'Connor as cited earlier; if you want, Movie Star Charlton Heston had been in London and New York Stage doing Shakespeare plays like MacBeth; now, compare his performance as himself in Friends to Pitt's as himself but with a different name, and you'll see what I mean).


I think it's great you are able to remember so much! I, on the other hand, do very well in school, but have the tendency to forget after an extended period of time if I don't review the material. I like medical terminology, but it's like learning an entire new language. Unless I'm charting, I won't use it. I can't use it with patients, they will be clueless and have no idea what I'm talking about. haha

It's too bad the British style of acting has fallen by the wayside and like you said, actors are cast for a "look" instead of talent. I wish I shared your knowledge about the Performing Arts. Your posts have been quite the education. Posted Image I live relatively close to Washington DC, so hopefully during summer break, I'll get the opportunity to take in a show and learn more.

Honestly, I have never blogged or put up a forum about an actor before. I've never really been the "star-struck" type and no actor has made such an impression on me like Morgan has. In my humble opinion, he truly is talented. Posted Image

#20 MikeAP001

MikeAP001

    Minbari

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 262 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 09:41 PM

I think it's great you are able to remember so much! I, on the other hand, do very well in school, but have the tendency to forget after an extended period of time if I don't review the material. I like medical terminology, but it's like learning an entire new language. Unless I'm charting, I won't use it. I can't use it with patients, they will be clueless and have no idea what I'm talking about. haha


That's the way it is for almost everyone. I'm no different. I just spend a lot of my spare time reviewing any number of things. You'll be surprised just how much you've learned that you'll end up forgetting until something comes along and reminds you about them.

That's what medical school does. It's supposed to train you to do be able to know that resources exist when you need them because you might not always remember the information but, you'll know where to find the information. As for applying medical terminology to your charts and patients, you'll find that there's been a trend to minimize that; mostly spurred by medical malpractice and legal medicine issues.

Learn and recognize the medical terms but when you're in actual practice try to use "plain and simple language in a manner understandable to the prudent lay person" to explain things to your patient and you'll be able to survive a medical malpractice suit or charges of healthcare fraud which are the unfortunate realities of today's world. Just to try to stay grounded when you deal with patients. And, if can't and find your head getting too big for any hat to fit, just remind yourself what a Nobel prize winning Hematologist named William Castle once told his students at the Harvard Service of the Old Boston City Hospital: "A doctor is someone with a degree who's shown he has knowledge. But, it's sterile knowledge found in books. Applying that to the human condition, that's when you acquire wisdom, that's what makes you a physician. and that's a process that should never end."

I live relatively close to Washington DC, so hopefully during summer break, I'll get the opportunity to take in a show and learn more.


If you live near DC, there's usually a Free Shakespeare Play sometime during the summer. All it'll cost is transportation into DC, just avoid the speed cameras. Otherwise, it's free. Check with these guy: http://www.shakespearetheatre.org for their FREE For ALL. Those plays are usually worth seeing even if you had to pay, and in this economy seeing a production like that for free would be a welcome relief because then, you can see Shakespeare as it was meant to be seen.

Honestly, I have never blogged or put up a forum about an actor before. I've never really been the "star-struck" type and no actor has made such an impression on me like Morgan has. In my humble opinion, he truly is talented. public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif


If you're a stay at home sort like me, then there are any number of DVDs just look for the Derek Jacoby or Patrick Stewart performances of a Shakespeare play and compare that with Olivier or John Hurt to get the richest interpretations. You'll find that while Colin Morgan is a talented actor and better than most of his British American contemporaries, he isn't quite up to the level of his predecessors, yet. And, you'll gain an appreciation for the performing arts.

But, if you want to get the most out of the plays check out, at your library a series called the GREAT COURSES and see if they have the ones on Shakespeare. The COURSES are headquartered in Virginia but the instructors are among the Best in the Country. I've reviewed the Shakespeare Tragedies and the Courses are all excellent. You'll discover nuances in Shakespeare that weren't very evident and develop a better appreciation for him and the actors. And, if I remember correctly, the instructor who's at the University of Virginia gives an introduction to the Theatre and Stage of Shakespeare era. It's an Ivy League education at a fraction of the cost and founded by someone with an Ivy League education who found it wanting.

The topics are broad and if you like Merlin, the DVD on the Arthurian Legends and it's influence on Western Thought is very interesting. Likewise, the COURSES on Myth and Religion are good. Some of them give a strong counter argument to the Hero Archetype popularized by Joseph Campbell while others including the Hero in History support Campbell. The lecturers review the subject matter and then provide additional insights while making the information accessible to the viewer just like the Ivy League. I recall finishing a COURSE on Science, the Queen of Mathematics.

It was a good review of the History of Science but it should have also mentioned Religion in the title because the section on the mathematics of the infinite of the 20-21 Centuries answered some Medieval Religious questions that arose and were addressed in the Great Monotheistic Religion COURSE and Medieval period COURSE including the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin when phrased in the language of mathematics and string theory. It's just as Stephen Gould wrote about Astrophysics and God: that at the highest levels of theoretical physics and at the sub-atomic level of matter, science finds itself asking the very same questions asked and answered by religion.

I bring this up because I'd been speaking to a surgeon about chess which turned into a talk with an Ob-gyn about the Kalevala and then Copper metabolism as a scourge of ancient civilizations which ended up as a talk about Vitamin D Receptors and Insulin as a potential mechanism for and the treatment of Alzheimer's disease which ended up as a talk about the Iliad and Greek philosophers, and finally Obamacare. At any rate all of that brought me to Merlin and Religious iconography and numerology. You'll be surprised at the things that just pop into your head at times. And on a trip to the public library, I found the Religion Course and Greek Philosophers. That led me to Pythagoras and Number Theory which led to the Mathematics COURSE.

But, that's why I like this show, it can lead you to some pretty wild ideas that might have a practical application. If you don't believe me, take out a book on ACLS and look at the treatment algorithm for ectopic arrythmias. You'll find that Merlin pretty much followed those principles in treating the villagers in Lamia right down to the medications (you just need to translate them to their current active pharmacological end products: Epinephrine and Atropine).

Sorry of the length of this post but these things just came to mind while I was writing.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users