An Actor looks at vor v zakone

I enjoy good Thai, Mexican and Indian food. When I eat spicy food, I want to be able to taste the food, not just the heat. Bad food that's overloaded with hot spices does not magically become good or notable food. When I go to a club to see a standup comic, I want to laugh. I'm not a prude, if the joke truly calls for vulgarity in some form or another, fine. But, I vividly remember a performance at Spin's in Midvale in the '90's where the comic seemed to believe that stupid jokes became funny with the addition of an "F" bomb thrown into every other sentence. Finally, if violence, sex or nudity is obviously an integral part of a story, I understand. I say this because "G" and I watched "Eastern Promises" the other night and, well it's VIOLENT!

Before I read the Wikipedia article on the film, I speculated that the film may have been re-cut to get the "R" rating. I truly thought that it may have originally been rated "NC-17" the violence is that graphic.

So, there you are, you've been warned. "Eastern Promises" is a very good film. It was nominated for and won multiple awards in the United States and abroad.

But, my reasons for writing about "Eastern Promises" have to do with the acting and Viggo Mortensen's performance as Nikolai Luzhin. Mortensen's performance was incredible. Mortensen is the absolute poster boy for Lee Strasberg's school of Method Acting.

While preparing for his role as Aragorn in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy Mortensen hiked in costume for days to achieve the look of the road weary traveler. Bob Andersen the sword fighting instructor for the trilogy called Mortensen, "the best sword fighter I've ever trained." (After filming wrapped, Mortensen purchased the two horses he'd used citing the bond they'd formed during the shoot.)

Mortensen worked with director David Cronenberg on Croenberg's "A History of Violence" and when he'd come back to the set on Monday, he'd bring props he'd found and purchased over the weekend.

For "Eastern Promises" Mortensen travelled to Russia and spent weeks talking to men he suspected were Russian mobsters, he imitated their body movements, speech patterns and he learned about the practice of tattooing your criminal history on your body and what the various tattoos signify. When he returned to London shortly before principal photography began writer Steven Knight incorporated Mortensen's tattoo research into the screenplay. The tats were so accurate that Mortensen was mistaken for a "real" Russian gangster in a London restaurant one night and thereafter, washed the tats off before leaving the set.

If you think you can handle the graphic violence and some male nudity, I'd strongly recommend watching and studying Viggo Mortensen's British Independent Film Awards Best Actor winning performance in "Eastern Promises", if not check out some of his other work; Aragorn in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy or the as artist/con man David Shaw in "A Perfect Murder".

If you're a method actor I think you'll learn something, if not, tell me how you prepare for a role and we'll talk next time we're on location, on set, on stage or in the studio…

An Actor’s take on typecasting or is Zac Efron Still 17?

About a year ago I took a month and studied Cary Grant. I read several biographies and watched five or six of his movies I'd never seen. One of his biographers mentioned what was a frequent criticism of Grant, he always played the same character i.e., Cary Grant. Grant's 1964 film, "Father Goose" was his, (in my opinion) very successful attempt to break out of that stereotype. Grant's character, Walter Eckland was totally different from any character or role in his long career. Although Grant didn't win his long coveted Oscar, "Father Goose" did win an Oscar for, Best Writing, Story and Screenplay. It was also nominated for two other Oscars and a Golden Globe.

Last year Gretchen and I saw, "Me and Orson Welles". At the time I wrote a blog titled, "Zac Efron is Still 17". At that time I wrote, "I saw "Me and Orson Welles" at the Broadway this afternoon. While I don't totally agree with Rolling Stone's opinion of Zac Efron's acting abilities, it was a good movie and I'd see it again.

The film was shot in New York, London and The Isle of Man. The locations, costuming and production values were superb. I thought it was well written and a superb example of a look backstage. It would probably work quite well as a stage play.

My only problem with the film was trying to decide who was portraying the lead character. Was Troy Bolton the lead or Zac Efron?

The gestures, speech patterns and expressions were all Troy Bolton. Maybe Troy Bolton and Zac Efron are the same person. Has anyone ever seen Troy Bolton and Zac Efron together?

I can honestly say that Efron did a superior job as Link Larkin in "Hairspray". He wasn't Zac Efron playing himself as a character named Link Larkin; he was an actor who developed a character.

After Efron backed out of Kenny Ortega's production of "Footloose" last summer, an acquaintance commented that he probably didn't want to be typecast and wanted to stretch his acting abilities. I immediately retorted, "Oh, a project like,"Seventeen Again"?"

The problem with "Me and Orson Welles" is that Zac/Troy/Richard is "Seventeen Again", or is that still 17?

Before I agree with "Rolling Stone's" pronouncement that "Me and Orson Welles" proves Zac Efron can act, I'd like to see Mr. Efron portray a character who isn't 17 and doesn't sing, dance or play basketball."

All of this leads me to "The Adjustment Bureau" which we saw this afternoon. (We really enjoyed it, very good film, I strongly recommend it and it may end up on my Amazon Wish List) Anyway, Gretchen and I are big fans of "Mad Men" and "The Adjustment Bureau" features "Mad Men's" Roger Sterling (John Slattery) as Richardson. Once again the inflection and delivery of the lines, the characterization, even the mannerisms had me thinking not of "The Adjustment Bureau", but of Roger Sterling. And, the hat he wore throughout the film didn't help either.

So my question is this; as actors are we all narrowly typecast, (especially in a small market with relatively few casting directors) or do directors really want the same character from the same actor over and over?

Is it our fault when we're afraid to stretch ourselves by auditioning for more challenging roles, breaking through our own sub consciously imposed limitations?

Or, do we consistently audition for roles that we think we have "The Look" for?

I don't know, but I do know I've caught myself doing the same audition for a similar character, the homeless guy, the reformed alcoholic running the homeless shelter and etc. If you know or have any thoughts on the matter, tell me next time we're on set, on location or on stage…