|
|
In Treatment has received nominations for the following categories:
Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series
Gabriel Byrne
Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series
Dianne Wiest, Hope Davis
Congratulations to all our nominees!
For a full list, visit HBO.com
|
Posts:
771
Registered:
5/18/09
|
|
(28 of 28)
Re: 2009 Emmy Nominations
Nov 23, 2009 8:44 PM
|
Is what true Acool? I know you know already that there is a season three with Gabriel. I also know that the Be Tipul star is in big trouble, recent heart attack and mental problems, so they would probably need a new lead actor there
Not sure if that helped, but I hope it did. Check out the season three casting choices on the threads, its fun 
--
Edited by iamyuneek at 11/23/2009 6:07 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
71
Registered:
5/4/09
|
|
(27 of 28)
Re: 2009 Emmy Nominations
Oct 22, 2009 9:12 AM
|
|
HBO-Is this true????
Hagai Levi, israelian creator of Be Tipul, the inspiration of In Treatment, announced last week that his show will have a new adaptation in France.
He also confirmed that In Treatment had been renewed for an original season 3 by HBO.
You can read all that on French TV magazine Télé 2 Semaines website (in French) :
http://www.tele-2-semaines.fr/contenu_editorial/pages/echos-tv/5161-bientot-un-en-analyse-a-la-francaise
|
|
|
Posts:
80
Registered:
4/25/09
|
|
(26 of 28)
Re: 2009 Emmy Nominations
Oct 20, 2009 2:02 AM
|
not on topic
--
Edited by Paxson2 at 11/22/2009 12:48 AM PST
--
Edited by Paxson2 at 11/22/2009 12:51 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
10/8/09
|
|
(25 of 28)
Re: 2009 Emmy Nominations
Oct 19, 2009 2:37 PM
|
> Have you seen Season 2 yet, only your arguments seem
> more relevant to Season 1.
No not at all! I spent 7 months this year in the US and had the chance to see season2. I'm a colleague of Daniela1 and she'd asked me before she posted if there would be structural differences between s1 and s2. That made me react on your post. There are no differences regarding the frame between s1 and s2. It's the same just shorter.
> There is more development
> in season 2, especially in the relationship between
> Paul and Gina, both in the room and in their
> recollections together.
I don't wanna talk about s2 too much. Daniela1 and others that maybe read this post haven't seen it till now. I don't wanna ruin it for them. Sure there's development in s2. But not more than in s1. The difference with Gina is that Paul is now in therapy going back to his past. That makes it even more emotional for him. The ground of the relationship stayed the same just developed on this basis. Its like Daniela1 expressed it still the conflicted mentor-protege relationship. Pauls development in s2 results from the happenings in s1. He moved to NY, he's alone now. Daniela1 once wrote "That's why he was looking for human connections with his patients in such an intensive, maybe too intensive way. He tried to close a gap in his life - but I think he looked for an replacement in the wrong space." In s2 this imbalance goes even more in the wrong direction. Its a leitmotif you can find all season long and specially in the sessions with April and Oliver.
> Probably the most physical
> encounter of that season is the pivotal rage between
> them in week 6.
That may be the most physical encounter of s2. But I felt the most physical tension in the room in Mia week3.
> And I'm also sure the Emmy was not awarded to Weist
> by people who considered her performance merely a
> device.
Maybe Wiest was the only of the main characters that got the Emmy cause she was considered a device. Gina is the only character without storyline. To give such a character contour is very hard and as Daniela1 wrote "she couldn't give a more credible performance".
But a Emmy nominee or win doesnt mean automatically quality or higher quality. What's on the mind of this jury, what standards they go by is a mystery. This year Ellen Burstyn was nominated for a performance of about 14 sec. Whatever she did in this time it must have been a revelation. Equating a Emmy win with higher quality and turning the argument on its head, it would mean that shows or actors that weren't nominated or didn't win, didn't have this quality. In Treatment wasn't nominated and Byrne didn't win the Emmy! Ergo, they didn't have the quality.
> Its the RELATIONSHIP between Paul and Gina that
> develops character in Season 2. As Weist says in an
> interview on this site, "Its very complicated, this
> relationship between them". The significance of her
> character deepens.
It's the relationship between Paul and Gina that is the basis for Pauls treatment. Like in Paul's sessions with his patients. But what has Gina to do with the development of Mia, April, Oliver + Walter? She just plays a role in 1 of 5 weekdays. Wiest is right the relationship between them is complicated, a complicated mentor-protege relationship, a kind of mother figure for Paul. The significance of her character is different because she's Pauls therapist.
> ("there's a relationship there
> between them" , Hagai Levi has said in interview, and
> "The second season is much deeper and more adapted to
> the Western culture.") There was also a deliberate
> attempt to internalise more, having fewer props etc.
> "what I wanted " says Byrne "was for the camera to go
> inside, go into him and let the audience into his
> head". You will also notice that the room itself
> takes on certain significances according to the
> psyche of those entering it. So season 2 is very
> different in character development and depth.
Levi is right as Wiest. There's a relationship between them. Though s2 is deep but not deeper than s1. I'd like to ask him what he meant by "more adapted to the Western culture". There's certainly something like the Western culture. I'm the son on an Israeli and a German having grown up in Israel and Germany. My job took me to different spots in the Western world and I'm sure, asking an American and a European to define this, I'd get 2 different answers. Alone in Western Europe there'd be huge differences. I can imagine Levi really meant that s2 is more adapted to the American culture. IT was at first made for the American market. If having fewer props is really a deliberate attempt to internalise more or is just much simpler for cutting? This few changes have been done cause s1 wasn't successful in the US. They tried to reach a bigger audience with s2. Most probably changes wouldnt have been done if s1 had been successful. But looking at the ratings it didnt work cause it's completely unimportant if Pauls office is in NY, near Baltimore or in Chicago f.i. At least they got more glowing reviews. Byrne described the challenge for him as an actor using a metaphor. A camera cant go literally inside your head. He sits on the other side of the screen. This fewer props made a difference for him as an actor, there was nothing to "hide behind" not even a teapot or glasses. But there's no real difference while watching. Cause from the first scene in s1 we already not just tried to get into his head but as Daniela1 said "into his heart and soul". The few props in s1 didnt prevent this at all. The room had already significance in s1 and s2 isnt different in character development and depth. But its understandable that Levi put it that way in an interview trying to interest new viewers. I loved both seasons and got involved with each character but s1 touched me more. In week 3,4,5 with the physically fighting couple Jake + Amy, Sophie taking pills in Paul's bathroom, the love triangle Laura, Alex + Paul and Pauls love confession in Gina week4, drama was at its best. Alone Byrne's play in the sessions with Alex was remarkable.
> In terms of the format being a pillar, creative
> people see formats as a challenge to be broken, which
> is how we got this innovative format in the first
> place. Hagai Levi himself has said he does not want
> to continue with this format in a third season, "
> with Levi hinting that a third, a kind of spin-off,
> following one patient through his life", may enter
> production soon.
>
> Subsequently he has said this spin off idea will not
> be picked up as the third season with HBO. If a
> format rigidifies it becomes formulaic like all those
> crime procedurals. What does interest him is a two
> person dialogue of intimacy in an enclosed space. Nor
> does the role of Paul have to act as a central
> pillar. Change is always possible and sometimes
> necessary.
>
> It might be a natural progression for any third
> season to explore Gina more with Paul as a device to
> develop her character . She is a woman in authority,
> just as complicated as Paul. That might give Gabriel
> Byrne more of a break too. But then Im not a fan of
> any actor in particular so I would not feel affronted
> by that change. I recognise however that most Byrne
> fans would not want that change, and he is very
> special in that role.
The format of IT is definitely a pillar. Thats what is new, what makes the show so special and gives us this high quality in acting performances. Creative people create new formats, sure. But its immensly creative to stay within a format and keep the quality high as well, believe me. The IT format is brandnew, you cannot speak of rigidity or stereotypes comparing it with the countless crime procedurals. I partly understand Levi. He's done it 4 times with Be Tipul and IT knowing that he cant make this a success in the US. But its really a shame that he got bored with it and left behind something unfinished. His new project might be interesting when its done. But what interests me much more is a s3 of IT. I want to know how Pauls story goes on. Sure Paul doesnt act as a pillar in this new project. This has nothing to do with IT. It's something completely new and different. Thats the reason why HBO doesnt pick it up as a s3.
Change is always possible and sometimes necessary. A new impulse isn't urgently needed but would do good. Thats why I would go on without Gina. She means that Paul's in trouble. He used her himself as a device, he just visits her when he's deeply in trouble, projects something into her so that he can fight her. In s1 the impulse was Laura, in s2 it was the first meeting with Mia regarding his law suit. Paul hadn't seen her 10 years before s1. He's also not seen her between s1 and s2. I dont see the big role that she shall play in his life at all. I want to see Paul get out of his troubel not needing Gina anymore and the ending of s2 felt also as an end point of this relationship.
HBO has a problem with important people getting off the boat and no scripts for a s3 existing. Its essential to hire at least a part of the original writers to stay with the spirit of the show and to stay with its leading man. IT is the story of the psychologist Paul Weston. Byrne understands his character best. HBO probably tries or tried to solve those problems with the background of low ratings and a limited financial frame without making a mess of the show. Cause I dont think that Byrne would be a part of this. If he's interested in a shared leading role with Dianne Wiest? Its a bit of a do it right or let it be situation.
I'm no particular Byrne fan too. I remember Daniela1 said to me after the first episode "Gabriel Byrne is like a jewel in this show, he'll shine". I know what she meant by that now. It's not about being fan or not fan of a particular actor in general. Everybody has to be a Byrne fan in IT. His work is brilliant. It's also not about being affronted to Dianne Wiest. It's much simpler. In Treatment is not about Gina. I cant imagine HBO intends making it about her. That would be a crackpot idea. Imagine Howard Gordon and the other doers of 24 for instance would've decided after s2 that 24 isn't about Jack Bauer anymore. People tend to identify with their "heroes", they become fond of them. They usually dont have understanding for this kind of "creativity". An outcry would've been the consequence.
Sometimes Paxson2 I dont get your point here really. I also dont see the connection between the Obama Era, America's soul and In Treatment for instance. It's kind of abstract to me. But I dont have to. I've added my thoughts like Daniela1 and other people have done beautifully before. Nobody here subtracts, we just interchange (different) thoughts and opinions.
That's all. ---
|
|
|
Posts:
80
Registered:
4/25/09
|
|
(24 of 28)
Re: 2009 Emmy Nominations
Oct 11, 2009 2:41 PM
|
Have you seen Season 2 yet, only your arguments seem more relevant to Season 1. There is more development in season 2, especially in the relationship between Paul and Gina, both in the room and in their recollections together. Probably the most physical encounter of that season is the pivotal rage between them in week 6.
While all characters are also devices in a sense, even heroes as protagonists being vehicles for authorial intent, (and here Hagai Levi would support you in this, "When I realised during planning for the original series that he would go to his therapist on a Friday I knew I had something. By having that session we get to know Paul and basically the show is about him rather than the patients, the hero is the therapist."), I would dispute that Gina is simply a device, even though we know very little about her, as we know very little about Beckets characters in his dramas. Its the definition of character that alters. And I?m also sure the Emmy was not awarded to Weist by people who considered her performance merely a device.
Its the RELATIONSHIP between Paul and Gina that develops character in Season 2. As Weist says in an interview on this site, "Its very complicated, this relationship between them". The significance of her character deepens. You could say the RELATIONSHIP, more than the individual, is the character being explored in the room ("there?s a relationship there between them" , Hagai Levi has said in interview, and "The second season is much deeper and more adapted to the Western culture.") There was also a deliberate attempt to internalise more, having fewer props etc. "what I wanted " says Byrne "was for the camera to go inside, go into him and let the audience into his head". You will also notice that the room itself takes on certain significances according to the psyche of those entering it. So season 2 is very different in character development and depth.
In terms of the format being a pillar, creative people see formats as a challenge to be broken, which is how we got this innovative format in the first place. Hagai Levi himself has said he does not want to continue with this format in a third season, " with Levi hinting that a third, a kind of spin-off, following one patient through his life", may enter production soon.
Subsequently he has said this spin off idea will not be picked up as the third season with HBO. If a format rigidifies it becomes formulaic like all those crime procedurals. What does interest him is a two person dialogue of intimacy in an enclosed space. Nor does the role of Paul have to act as a central pillar. Change is always possible and sometimes necessary.
It might be a natural progression for any third season to explore Gina more with Paul as a device to develop her character . She is a woman in authority, just as complicated as Paul. That might give Gabriel Byrne more of a break too. But then Im not a fan of any actor in particular so I would not feel affronted by that change. I recognise however that most Byrne fans would not want that change, and he is very special in that role.
What interests me is this group of men-Hagai levi,Warren leight, Rodrigo Garcia etc who seem to be writing differentlyfrom a mature male psyche, as opposed to the posturing heroics of a young male mythology, the kind of thing normally associated with television like Heroes,Lost etc...all that about special powers and saving the world , demonstrative action and special effects etc. For instance look at the difference between Carnivale, beautifully managed by the younger Rodrigo Garcia, and In Treatment. There is something quite radical in the move from that to this.
Anyway thats just me. You have your own interpretation as we all do,all equally valid and all adding to the body of opinion that appreciates a text. Its not about being right or wrong, better or lesser, and once a drama is performed its even beyond the intention of the creator whose unconscious is beyond him as he creates out of it. So its a fascinating maelstrom of discourse or concourse. And in the end we can only hope that we contribute to the understanding in some way, that we add something rather than subtract.
Heres the interview I reference with hagai Levi.
http://adventuresinprimetime.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/tv-interview-hagai-levi/#more-274
|
|
|
Posts:
48
Registered:
7/11/09
|
|
(23 of 28)
Re: 2009 Emmy Nominations
Oct 9, 2009 1:01 PM
|
In some ways Gina does seem to be a dramatic device because we only see her in terms of Paul, this mothering mentor, mysterious woman. We don't know much about her. Maybe that's a possible direction for a season 3 then.
On the other hand all these characters are "different" in terms of development because we are inside their head in this room, and that's all that matters. "Inside their heads" can be like a stage, or maybe its more real than Real. Its like the characters in a Virginia Woolf novel where we are in their stream of consciousness and all the action/description is minimal and written in brackets. What we usually associate with character development is in the brackets here too and we are moving around in their psyches. Its not that the character is any less, its just that we are coming at it from a different viewpoint.
---
Actually I mentioned the Gina episodes on Fridays more in context with the structural aspects of "In Treatment" or lets simply call it the frame of the show. And the frame of "In Treatment" is clearly and tightly fixed. The show has two irreplaceable pillars that are interweaved with each other, the format itself - which is the basis and actually the real star of IT, comparable in its meaning for the show with the real time aspect in "24" - and its leading man.
The format of (daily) psychotherapy sessions [lets just say: (mainly) one room, two people in two chairs facing each other and talking about the emotional life] is what just allows the actors to give such tremendous performances. The resulting, gripping intensity forces us to pay attention. If you did change this format, you would take away what makes IT so special, you would take away the show's very own character.
And its omnipresent leading man is Dr. Paul Weston, beautifully played by Gabriel Byrne. The big emotional contribution, he brings into his role, has an incredibly forming influence on the whole series.
-
Any other character in IT is just shown in connection with Paul (the very, very few scenes without him, we can ignore in this regard). So, it's not that we just see them in terms of Paul, it's that they are just shown in terms of Paul. It's only Paul, we constantly see with different characters and whom we finally follow through his week. He's the only character that is multidimensional for the viewer and of whom we can really form an image step by step; and if you not just look detailed at every single storyline but look at IT from an all-embracing point of view, every patients story and every other occurring character is of course in some way a "dramatic device" to tell the story of the leading man. Because it's just dramatic when Paul can somehow emotionally relate with these characters, by e.g. finding a part of his own story in his patients' stories reflected. Without that connection, there would be no Drama.
So, for us it's about trying to get inside Paul's head, his heart and his soul - and this is hard enough. But it's impossible trying to get inside the head of an one-dimensional character. If we were inside their heads, we could read their thoughts. But as Paul said to Sophie - unfortunately he can't read her mind, he's not a magician. He doesn't know anything more than what she told him. I'm no magician either. All I can do is the same thing Paul does - listening and watching as attentive and keen as possible. When I mentioned the dialogue between Laura and Paul (week 4), it wasn't about being inside their heads, it was just about listening and watching and connecting the information that was already given to the audience. (I'll come back to that topic later.)
And what's finally left over for us, is the same question Paul asked himself, "Do I (we) really know any of these people or are they all just one big fiction that I've (we've) constructed in my (our) head(s)?". They are not just one big fiction but we don't really know them either. Like Paul, we just know the part of their lives, they told in these sessions, their private thoughts that they possibly have never told anybody else. But as Gina said, it's "a part of their lives - maybe - but not necessarily a big part". In the end it's like Paul said when he talked about Alex, "... and they've stayed with me (Alex's private thoughts), they are inside me ...". That expresses exactly what this whole thing is about. It's not that we are "moving around in their psyches" and that we are "inside their heads", it's about them being "inside our heads". That's what originally brought us in this forum here. This may of course differ in the individual case but something about the show stayed with each of us.
-
Regarding the frame of the show, we had a clear division of the week in "Season 1". Mondays to Thursdays we saw Paul with his patients, and on Fridays it was the other way around and he was "somehow" the patient himself - to stay in these terms. It were just rare moments when they left this frame for the sake of storytelling. And for good reasons, they stayed with the "schedule" in
"Season 2", 'cause, as I mentioned above, the format and its leading man are the major pillars of IT. (And not to forget the brilliant writing of course. But that's not just in IT, that's always of vital significance and an chapter on it's own.)
So, in terms of the occurring characters Paul stands
- without question - above all. Looking at the screen time, it's actually not a leading role, it's a "mammoth role". The supporting roles in "Season 1" e.g. were Laura, Alex, Sophie, Jake & Amy and, last but not least, Gina.
When you now - in retrospective - take a closer look at this supporting roles, you can discover that each one of them had an own storyline, that they told - each one of them ... except for Gina. That's what makes the Gina character different from the others. (The show is called "In Treatment" - and the only one of the main characters that hasn't been "in treatment" is Gina!) Filmmaking is just about storytelling and, especially in Drama, about the elaboration and development of the characters (that the story is about) - that's at least the "old-fashioned" view. And staying in these terms, Gina is not somehow, she is just a "dramatic device", because she doesn't have a story. The few things we know about her regard mainly those areas of her life, that Paul did in some way touch - another huge distinction between her and the other supporting characters. And the conflicted mentor-protege relationship is at first the essential ingredient for the emotional connection that characterizes Drama. Anyway, Mondays to Thursdays it's about the patients' stories, and Fridays - it's about Paul's story. The Gina character has of course a background for Dianne Wiest to get into her role, but this background isn't visible for the audience - and that's no accident, that's an intended necessity.
Of course Gabriel Byrne tried with his acting style setting of the wish in the viewer to get inside his head, to read his thoughts and to know what he feels. (The camera work and the constant close-shots alone suggest this.) From Mondays to Thursdays he isn't really "acting" but "reacting" (and that's incredibly hard). So, from the very first moment, that's what his way of acting was finally about ; and he knew that if he would be able to manage this, he had drawn us in. And because of his great abilities as an actor, his wide range of emotions and his expressiveness and courage, there are moments in "In Treatment" where you have the feeling that "his face is like an open book", that "you can look through his eyes directly into his soul". (Dr. Paul Weston is of course just a role that he plays, nevertheless it's his very own interpretation of this character.) On the four weekdays with his patients (where he is by the way a dramatic device himself too), despite he was mainly reacting, he did find a way showing us four different faces of Paul Weston, he did find a way to interact with each character on a very own level.
But now there comes the "different viewpoint". Every single viewer has made different experiences in his life, looks at this in a different light and therefore interprets every scene, though maybe from time to time just slightly, in a different way. (While watching IT I often thought that it would be very, very interesting to have subtitled what Gabriel Byrne himself really wanted to express in every single scene.) And because we are not inside Paul's head, and because we can just try to read his thoughts, the Friday is needed for Paul to say out loud what's on his mind, so that we - at least partly - can see if we were right with our interpretations and have in some way a "reinsurance". Without this possibility, Paul would be a man without an own storyline, a "mystery" ... like Gina ... - and IT, like we know and love it, wouldn't exist at all. The expression "his face is like an open book" is just a metaphor. Nobody runs around with an open book on his neck. Being inside the head or in the stream of consciousness of a character is really possible while reading a book. But "In Treatment" isn't a novel, it's TV. And on screen the "deepness portrayal" of a character is much more complicated than in a novel, 'cause the characters usually don't sit there with balloons above their heads, where there thoughts are written in; and for the most part there are no subtitles that could tell us what's on their mind right now either. And without the device of voice-over to deliver a soliloquy and to make the inner conversation audible, it just depends on the abilities of the individual actor. Anyway, it isn't about how many or what possibilities there are in this context, 'cause finally non of this is used in IT; and if we should have the feeling being inside their heads and being able to read their thoughts, it just means that the actors did a damn good job. So once again, Friday (until now it was at least always the Friday) is the day for Paul to tell his story. This is the most essential block in the two major pillars (format and leading man) of the show. Without this block, those pillars - on which the whole show is rested - would collapse. That's why I said, "... it's not really the character of Gina that is important in this sessions." - and in this context, and for the reasons I've mentioned above that isn't a question of the viewpoint, that's a matter of fact.
The visible character development in "In Treatment" regards of course just those characters that have an own storyline - Paul himself and his patients. These development is different because they have a different meaning and a different frame in the overall picture of the show. Paul is the omnipresent leading man. He's the most important character of the show and needs to be developed comprehensive over the several seasons. The patients' characters were - until now - just developed over a period of one season. Looking e.g. at Paul's story in "Season 1", you can say that his whole life did somehow fall apart in this nine weeks. He was in love with one of his patients, his wife cheated on him, he had to realize that his marriage is over and the demons of his past did creep up on him and finally caused his inability to live the love with the woman, he wanted so much - just to give a short summary. So, from the moment where Paul pushed the Kleenex box towards Laura in "Episode 1" to the point where he rang the bell at her door in "Episode 43", there was a huge development of his character and this was by no means just minimal or in brackets - actually it was a "quantum leap" that Paul made in "Season 1" (and his patients as well) . The fact that the acting style is minimal in terms of a "small gesture acting", doesn't mean that the character development would be minimal too - in contrast. With a minimal character development nearly every Drama would be doomed. At a quick glance those actions are of course not that obvious like the car chases or explosions in an action movie, despite that the action is there and, for people who love the show, this has even more dynamic than any loud din. Very rarely the complexity of human being has been portrayed so full of nuances, has been portrayed with such love for the detail.
-
To venture the prospects for a possible third season, we can just speculate so far, because we don't know if there will be a third season at all, what it is about and how it will look. So, I'd like to go back to the beginning where I said, "If you did change this format (and its leading man as well), you would take away what makes IT so special, you would take away the show's very own character.", - and would create something new. And again, this isn't a viewpoint, that's a matter of fact as well. The viewpoint is if the result would be better or not. If e.g. another leading man or woman, following just one patient over a longer period of time, more than the mainly one patient treatment in terms of group therapy or shifting the show more often outside, would make IT more interesting or not. For my part, I don't really think so. For the reasons I've mentioned above, I wouldn't change anything without having to, I would stay with the format, its leading man and within the "schedule" in terms of telling the patients' stories on four weekdays and telling Paul's story on the remaining one - it that should be again a feasible frame for HBO.
Anyway, I don't think that many people here are really interested in changing IT in its basic elements, and if that's what finally should happen, we can just talk about it when we know the new frame.
Staying with the proven therefore, in a possible third season the development of Paul's character stands again in the first place and has to tie on to the story that has been told about him till now. It's of the greatest importance that we find "our therapist" with all his issues again.
"Season 1" was an "awakening" and a "realization" - "Season 2" is the "processing" a "working off". But till that point, Paul's story feels somehow unfinished. That's why a third season would make so much sense, to give the character the chance on a "fresh start" (cause probably nobody wants to see him stepping backwards and halt is always the worst solution). A fresh start would mean that Paul finds another way to deal with his fears and - after going back to the roots of his childhood issues - finally dares to open out and to share his thoughts and live his feelings in a relationship with a woman that he really loves, 'cause in "Season 1" this turned out as very important if not most important for himself.
In the already established frame of the show, we would have the obligatory new roster of patients on four weekdays. Paul's story would be told at the remaining one. So, how to place Gina in this frame? Possibility No.1 - and actually the only one where Gina could tell her own storyline and where we were able getting to know more about her - is that Gina becomes Paul's patient. Possibility No.2 is a change of their relationship and the two of them become lovers, meeting on the remaining weekday - in this way Paul's story can be carried on telling. But for the fact that Paul's story is to the fore on this day and that we know next to nothing about Gina until now, we won't know much more about her afterwards as well. And finally possibility No.3 (though in this case Gina would definitely remain a "mystery", to stay in these terms) is that everything stays as it was and Paul goes on visiting Gina in her capacity as his therapist and/or confidant. This would mean halt, because we can conclude that in this case Paul still struggles with his issues, that those sessions would be more or less a repetition of what have been done before and that the development of the leading man would therefore be stuck up a blind alley. [Because in the end the only real variable in this established and tight frame is how the remaining day is structured and where or with whom Paul reflects his week.] This three variants are the only possibilities in the established frame to place Gina regular on one day a week and to carry on telling Paul's story at the same time.
Possibility No.4 would be to change the frame of IT so that Gina's character can be developed.
And - that's just a unbiased enumeration of the given possibilities.
-
If I remember correctly it was the NYT that once wrote about "In Treatment", "If it's possible to find pleasure in other people's psychic pain - and obviously it is - there's no better place for it than in this therapy sessions.".
I don't think that's what IT is really about. Finally it's about being interested in what happens to or with other people. And what better way to end this than quoting Paul in this context:
"It's curiosity, we're supposed to be fascinated by how people behave. - At least I think so."
---
(edited by Daniela1)
--
PS: Yes, I've seen Laurence Olivier in "The Entertainer" and I've also seen "Hamlet" and "Henry V". But I was a child having grown up in the world of film and television - and I'm now 37 years of age. So, ... no - I cannot remember that I would have been shocked in any way about seeing Laurence Olivier in a screen role.
|
|
|
Posts:
80
Registered:
4/25/09
|
|
(22 of 28)
Re: 2009 Emmy Nominations
Oct 9, 2009 5:53 AM
|
Have you see both seasons,Paul2 ?
We are still waiting for word about a season 3.
If we dont get another season, the two we have will always be insurpassable.Im still digging deep into season 2.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
10/8/09
|
|
(21 of 28)
Re: 2009 Emmy Nominations
Oct 8, 2009 1:27 PM
Rate this post:
|
Just adding a few thoughts on In Treatment:
In Treatment is truly one of the greatest TV series I've ever seen. It's intelligently written, powerfully acted and as good as drama will ever get on TV. It may perhaps in our fast, action addicted times just fill a niche but to me it is more spellbinding than any action loaded show.
I got involved with every single character, for their portrayal was credible and real. Because the human being is full of complexity and paradoxes, sometimes annoying but in the next moment deeply sympathetic. On the first sight it might appear very easy to know this people and yet realize that they're very complex and you don't really know them at all. It also might appear that the show requires heavy commitment but actually all you have to do is listening and watching, as close as Byrne does, and they draw you into their lives without effort.
The cast is excellent and Gabriel Byrne's performance is outstanding, actually it's beyond outstanding ~ it's phenomenal. It looks as if this would be the performance of his lifetime.
In Treatment is a tremendous show. It's one for the ages.
Go on with it!
--
|
|
|
Posts:
80
Registered:
4/25/09
|
|
(20 of 28)
Re: 2009 Emmy Nominations
Sep 20, 2009 1:39 PM
|
not on topic
--
Edited by Paxson2 at 11/22/2009 12:55 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
232
Registered:
8/13/08
|
|
(19 of 28)
Re: 2009 Emmy Nominations
Sep 20, 2009 12:23 PM
|
> The stage requires a much more flamboyant and stylized bodily performance than the acting in movies.
This reminds me of Gabriel's comment about epics (in the 2008 AFI Top 100 interview): the outsized proportions, grandeur and sweep of epics too often overwhelm any subtleties and nuance of character, gesture, etc.
> Remember the shock of Laurence Olivier in The Entertainer, to see this great stage actor in a screen role? Unexpected and innovative.
Wasn't it Olivier the director who first used the capabilities of film to do something that Shakespeare (and every stage actor) could only dream of: use the device of voice-over to deliver a soliloquy as the internal conversation it actually is? "Hamlet" and "Henry V" come to mind. It's a convention that we, having grown up in the world of film and television, all take for granted, but it must have been a revelation to those who still thought of film merely as recorded-theater-on-a-screen.
> Just look at one of the first scenes in Episode 16 (Laura week 4), where Laura told Paul in vivid and graphic detail about the night that she had spent with Alex. You have the actual dialogue of Laura's description and Paul's reply on it.
And isn't it so much more involving when the viewer has to imagine the scene only described in words? How many other directors might have taken the obvious route and staged the bar scene (to name only one example of many) as a flashback?
> All this emotions Gabriel Byrne expresses during this scene, though, even in this moment, he still tries to reduce his reaction in a way that the audience should know, what's going on inside him - but Laura shouldn't. You can find this kind of 'silent, between the lines dialogue' in the whole series.
Exactly. There are multiple "channels" to select from, not all of which can be recognized/comprehended on the first viewing. That's what makes it a revelation and a pleasure to go back and watch a scene again. And again.
|
|
|
Posts:
80
Registered:
4/25/09
|
|
(18 of 28)
Re: 2009 Emmy Nominations
Sep 20, 2009 10:55 AM
|
off topic
--
Edited by Paxson2 at 09/20/2009 8:00 AM PDT
--
Edited by Paxson2 at 09/20/2009 8:05 AM PDT
--
Edited by Paxson2 at 09/20/2009 8:08 AM PDT
--
Edited by Paxson2 at 11/22/2009 12:53 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
48
Registered:
7/11/09
|
|
(17 of 28)
Re: 2009 Emmy Nominations
Sep 19, 2009 3:18 PM
|
"I just wonder, do we have any actors here in forum? Somebody that could explain something about acting on stage, and then acting in movies?"
---
There have been books written about this subject and if you ask five different actors, that have worked in both worlds, it's perfectly possible that you get five different answers, that include anything from 'there's no real difference at all, it's just acting' to the statement that 'we're talking about two totally different kind of acting styles here'. So, the only way to approach this topic in a short and clear way, is to keep it as simple as possible and to point out some of the main differences between stage and film acting - that, of course, exist.
A stage actor develops a character during the course of a two- or three-hour performance. As a film actor you don't have this continuity, the scenes are often shot in reverse order in which they'll finally appear in the movie and in small takes. That means, you have to come to every shot with a character already fully developed. Many actors, that have made the change from theater to cinema, tell you that, during their first movie shooting, they actually had no idea what this whole thing was about and how it would look in the end, that they felt quite lost.
The stage requires a much more flamboyant and stylized bodily performance than the acting in movies. Film captures even the smallest gesture and magnifies it 20 or 30 times. On stage you have to reach even the last circles with your acting. If you did act this way in a movie, it would usually look ridiculous. You can only play in a movie roughly similar like on stage when it's specifically required to create a kind of comedy character, like Gabriel Byrne did e.g. in 'Mad Dog Time'.
The most simple aspect is that film, despite the advantages of makeup, lighting, soft focus, etc., is relentlessly cruel to any sign of imperfection in the actor or actress. In this regard, the stage is much friendlier.
Stage actors are usually very well trained and educated in dialogue and working with the language, the spoken word. They are used to learn and remember a lot of text, 'cause every passage is needed in a piece, evening by evening. Most of them have played a variety of classical plays in their career. Moreover the work on stage requires a lot of steadfastness and staying power. It's not enough to give a performance as good as possible just one time, you have to do it 'live' in front of an audience over and over again. So, they are used to deal instantly with the incalculable. To me the stage is the root and the basis of acting, it existed long before the advent of film and, in particular, the introduction of sound in the late 1920's. It's the best 'trainings-camp' you can imagine and the experiences you've made are invaluable for your film work as well.
Finally the performance of emotion is the greatest difference of film acting to master. The theater actor can use exaggerated gestures and exclamations to express emotion, whereas the film actor must rely on quivers, facial ticks and e.g. tiny lifts of the eyebrow to create a believable character.
"The stage actor projects an emotion or a character to an audience, whereas a film actor must in some way embody and perform these emotions in as true and believable a way as possible."
(D.W. Griffith)
---
'In Treatment' is a brilliant combination of characteristics and elements from both worlds and should you have ever asked yourself if film acting is an art on its own, you can find the answer in the tremendous performances of emotions shown in this series. It's one of the most glowing examples of the 'small gesture acting' that have ever been done and in its intensity without equal. 'In Treatment' is completely based on emotions.
Just look at one of the first scenes in Episode 16 (Laura week 4), where Laura told Paul in vivid and graphic detail about the night that she had spent with Alex. You have the actual dialogue of Laura's description and Paul's reply on it. But between the lines there is a second dialogue without words, where Laura says, 'You hurt me, now I'm gonna hurt you Paul. So, how does that make you feel, does that finally provoke a reaction from you?' and Paul's answer is something like, 'I know that you don't really care about this guy, that you just want to get back at me.'. And of course Paul is jealous and he is angry with her, on the one side it hurts him and on the other side her description turns him on. All this emotions Gabriel Byrne expresses during this scene, though, even in this moment, he still tries to reduce his reaction in a way that the audience should know, what's going on inside him - but Laura shouldn't. You can find this kind of 'silent, between the lines dialogue' in the whole series.
(That's why the Gina episodes on Fridays are that important. Though some people probably like to kill me for that, it's not really the character of Gina that is important in this sessions. The series needs a place for Paul to put down his professional exterior and to say out loud what's on his mind and what he feels, so that the audience has the possibility to see, if they were right with their thoughts during the week. Besides that we could learn more about Paul's personality, the meetings with Gina on Fridays serve mainly this purpose.)
Alone this single scene, as well as every other performance and especially Gabriel Byrne's work in 'In Treatment', is acting on its highest imaginable level. I think it's just a small number of actors, who could have done that on the same level he did. And there's definitely no-one out there, that would have played the character of Paul Weston, the way he played it - and it's a terrific way. After 'Season 1' it's actually impossible to imagine somebody else in the role of Paul Weston than Gabriel Byrne and apart from the attention IT reached in the professional world of psychotherapy, there are young actors out there that have watched this series in 'slow-motion' and have studied any little move, any raise of an eyebrow, any bite on the lower lip.
The more intimate the scenes are, actors have to play, the more aware they are usually of the cameras. Though there's no sex-scene in it, 'In Treatment' is intimacy from the first to the last second. So, they surely all have struggled deep inside with the cameras in the room, and they all have won their inner fight. Because in the end the performances in IT don't feel like acting at all, and I think that's one of the biggest compliments you can pay an actor of this series.
"My theory of acting is different to the way that I've heard other people talk about it. I believe that my job as an actor is to let the camera into those areas that are private to me. It's not about making believe, it's about telling the truth."
(Gabriel Byrne)
'In Treatment' is a joy, and a gift, and a huge inspiration and, though it's what I think you call in the US an unlikely bet, HBO had done it so far, so 'Thank You' for that! I don't think there are many other companies that would have done a series under this circumstances. One of the most important messages of 'In Treatment' is that our society has lost the ability to listen. So, it would have been a contradiction in terms if this show had broken any 'ratings-record'. It wouldn't exactly have spoken for the credibility of the show, but it is credible and very real. So, once again, please go on with it - it's worth doing it.
---
(written by Daniela1)
***
Completely off topic, a message to a friend:
Dia dhuit Finn! Ta cupla focail Gaeilge agam. Ta suil agam go bhfuil tu i mbarr na slainte. Ta an ceart agat. Is maith an scathan suil charad. Tapadh leat.
At least I've tried Irish ... so, we're both very glad you've left a message on the answering machine. That's finally the only place you can reach us, everything else has changed (cell numbers, e-mail addresses, everything...). You can catch us at home on Wednesday evening next week from 08.00 PM.
~ I've found this in some of our old notes.
~ No, just this one and the review, everything else was a mixed group of our 'Studies'.
~ We had a workshop in August (literature class and script class from the FA) and they have written amazing thoughts on every storyline, on IT in general and how they would go on with it as well as on Gabriel Byrne. Remember that writing exercise we did back in the days with the close shots ... really, really good. You find that in the archives of the workshops. Get a new password by typing in your old one and follow the instructions. You can 'log in' in the workshops from outside the system. Same rules, no copies, no prints, no publishing. You will enjoy it.
~ Remember my father's old bureau, where we look after our 'Studies', that's where I write this. Actually there are currently about 200 different students that have access to this old computer and the children as well. We all don't do these kind of things from our private comp. - bad, bad virus experiences. So, this won't work. But Paul is back after his six months as visiting professor and has found out that we have different schedules at least in the next six weeks, that, though working partly in the same bureau, we won't meet. So, he thinks it would be fun to discuss IT with me in this forum - this way he could train his English and it's better than leaving notes on a piece of paper. Maybe you get something to read. We will see ...
~ Yes, I was told they are ... and ...
~ Yes, the Claddagh Ring shows still inside.
~ A few kilos of 'Bewleys Clipper Gold Tea' and 'Stories from home'.
~ The play premiered successfully, but somebody should write a documentary about the rehearsals. In the last week BB shouted after me that the rats would leave the sinking ship. The rest of the year will be much more silent, promised.
Call us on Wednesday and prepare yourself for the 'don't ever do that again' from Ben. I hadn't thought that this thing could be that useful some day. We miss you. Slan agus beannacht leat. Dani.
---
|
|
|
Posts:
511
Registered:
7/8/09
|
|
(16 of 28)
Re: 2009 Emmy Nominations
Aug 8, 2009 12:05 PM
|
A long time ago, I used to work in theatre and I did a little bit of film and TV as well. I suspect things haven't changed too much since then.
--
"Hello? Mr. Byrne? Oh jolly good, glad I caught you - look here dear fellow, it's about the underwear you owe me - "
|
|
|
Posts:
315
Registered:
7/14/09
|
|
(15 of 28)
Re: 2009 Emmy Nominations
Aug 8, 2009 10:34 AM
|
Thanks for your input Lozzie.
I think you have many good observations and thoughts about acting. I think that it must be extremly difficult to play the role of Dr Paul Weston. Gabriel said he had to react more than to act. Sounds very challenging.
The most fascinating thing with IT is to see how Paul Weston treats his patients. And to observe what they do to him with their words.
--
"I want to move outside of other people's perspectives, and I want to move into my own perspective a little bit more in the next portion of my life." Gabriel Byrne
|
|
|
Posts:
511
Registered:
7/8/09
|
|
(14 of 28)
Re: 2009 Emmy Nominations
Aug 8, 2009 9:14 AM
|
When you are acting on stage, you just have to start and KEEP GOING. You can't just stop and say: "Oh, I forgot my line," or "Oh, I have gas," or "Is that your cell phone or moine?" You just have to crack on.
In films, you maybe have a 'take' that lasts a couple of minutes. Watch a scene in a film or a television show and you will see what I mean. You can tell when the director has yelled "CUT!" and the cameras have shifted around and so on. Sometimes, the actors seem to have changed positions slightly in the middle of a conversation.
Think of Laura Week Six. One moment, Paul is sitting waaaaaay over on one side of the couch, and then suddenly and without any apparent shifting of his lovely (??) bum, he is sitting very very close to Laura. Hmmm. Clever man.
What was I talking about? Sorry, I forgot.
Oh - yes - Gabriel was saying that he often tried to get the director and other cast member to do as much as possible in one single take, because it was slightly less exhausting for him, and the results were better. So you could have anything up to 10, 12 minutes of footage (half an episode!) before anyone yells "Cut! Check the gate! Print!"
This is not how films or television normally work. Not at all. I think the results speak for themselves, though.
--
"Hello? Mr. Byrne? Oh jolly good, glad I caught you - look here dear fellow, it's about the underwear you owe me - "
|
|
|
|
|
