Do movies and TV need performances?

But when it comes to "film performance", I'm afraid even those "actors" who have made movies have only a little knowledge. When we are discussing whether a film needs to be performed, most people involved in the discussion have no idea about the production process including "performance". I just need to give an example to illustrate this problem. When I was in the performance department of Beijing Film Academy, I asked the students a question. What if people can't hear a finished film clearly? The students gave all kinds of answers, such as remake, later dubbing, louder and so on, but they didn't get to the point. I told them that the sound of a finished film is not good, which is none of your business. It's a little harsh This is not a fart matter. But I'm really angry. That's the sound engineer's business. It has nothing to do with actors. When asked again, the teacher who taught them did not know this process. Do you find it ridiculous? Let's not talk about how the actors performed. Do you know this fact? That is, a film actor's performance in front of the so-called camera is divided, which is called dismemberment. A person's words and deeds are the most organic. We can say that in movies, people are the most natural organisms. But how do people treat this most natural and organic body when making it? Why didn't anyone ask this question when discussing whether the film needed to be performed, especially when it was an actor? Why don't you protest? Do you know that when shooting a feature film, the visual action is an independent one, which is taken by a photographer with a camera, and the sound is another one, which is recorded by a sound recorder. You can do the simplest experiment, that is, most directors, photographers, sound recorders and actors don't understand it. Most film teachers don't have this knowledge at all, that is, let the photographer take a long view of you, but put the microphone ten centimeters in front of your mouth and then put it back. See if it's comfortable. No film and television creator in Chinese mainland really objected, and no one really felt uncomfortable after listening to it! Deaf and dumb! Some "teachers" who teach film performances are really mean, and other creative staff never look down on actors. Chinese late dubbing is the most typical example of not treating actors as people. Why does a good man want another person to speak for him by mechanical means? As long as there is a little inaccuracy (not to mention the dubbing in the late mainland), foreign film professors once asked me if you are pursuing slurred speech! ) it's uncomfortable, but it's unrealistic. To put it bluntly, all the creative staff dismembered the actors as props. Those actors are very proud, and so are the students they have taught. When they asked these students questions, they even answered "You can dub them later". This is to admit that you are not a person. I heard that in the performance department or class, some teachers should teach students how to analyze the character of his role. Teach them how to embody a character. However, when shooting, did the photographer ask your advice when setting the location? Do you know that different positions and angles have different images? Is this the image you want? You must stand as the photographer told you. Besides, do you know that light is only used to shape characters? Did the photographer ask you in advance about the use of light by the avatar of this character? Did he exchange his understanding of the role with the avatar of the role? Who cares about you? It's so sentimental. We might as well read what foreign actors who are willing to tell the truth are saying, and look at the position of film actors from what he said, and see what they are thinking at the shooting scene. They don't talk about Stanley, they don't explain their own roles. They said practical. "Don't smoke in a long shot, because when you take a close-up, you should consider when you took a sip of your cigarette, when your cigarette changed hands, and how long is the ash? If this thing is complicated in the main shot, sometimes the whole scene will be cancelled when taking a close-up shot. You often hear some actors desperately trying to be creative. They said, "When he says this, I will unbutton my buttons, and then I will do this and that. "But when it's the turn to take a close-up, the director will ask," When did you take it? " And the actor can only say, "I don't know. "So the main scene needs to be reshaped. The actor wastes precious time and money, and he will definitely reduce the chances of further employment." Also, "when shooting a shot, the shot doesn't necessarily move forward or backward specifically, so it's important to ask how the shot is set up in advance (listen, someone else set it up, so he has to ask someone else). After asking, you will know how to find the right scale for your performance. There is a general rule here: the main lens (or the far lens) can make a big move; Shoot, cut your action in half; Close-up, cut in half. Also know what the scene is, so you know what else is in the picture. In the long shot, you can fiddle with the glasses on your knees, but in the close-up, if you are still fiddling with those glasses, because they are invisible below your waist, then people will ask, "What happened under the frame? "In the distant view, you can shake your elbow, but in the close view, you can. Some directors like big close-ups very much. If you think you are in that situation, you will ask, "How free am I here? "If the director says you can move more than an inch, then you can move more than an inch. In the past, you could know what optical lens a lens used. They usually install a small device on the camera that says "40 mm", you know. Now they have those big zoom lenses, so when they switched to close-ups, I was still playing with those glasses. Ask if you have doubts! " You see, how sad a movie actor is, not how he plays and how the photographer shoots, but how the photographer sets and how he plays. I have not finished my words yet. Do you think only photographers treat actors like this? No, there is a sound engineer. In the process of filming, the actor's voice takes another line, shouting. Theoretically, the voice of an actor is recorded on the vocal cords, but there is more than one voice. Among those who participate in the discussion, some people who support movies need actors to know that when we talk about people in movies, we are not only talking about visual images, but also about sound images. Who is in charge of this audio-visual image? Do you think you are clear-cut and responsible? That's not true. Clear pronunciation and mellow voice, that is the requirement of laymen. Moreover, the person who made this request, I dare say, is inarticulate and does not give orders step by step, which does not affect his official position at all? His people not only understood, but also took notes. Is it still life to ask the characters to speak clearly and clearly in the movie? The film was not made or recorded on the stage. The stage, from the perspective of photography and recording, is an imaginary time and space completely different from the film time and space. Clear pronunciation and mellow voice? Is the world on the movie screen all underworld? They don't talk to people. This is beside the point. Excuse me, did the sound engineer ask the avatar of that character about his voice image before recording and setting up the microphone? Ask him where this microphone is. If you ask the sound engineer the following question, "Why don't you ask the role player's opinion?" How do you expect him to answer? He is either tongue-tied and can't say a word. Or a stroke. I've recorded it all my life, and I have to ask his advice if I haven't heard it. What does he know? Isn't he just an actor? Does he know what sounds are recorded at different microphone positions? Can he use a blender? Does he know what kind of microphone to use under what circumstances? Does he know ... does he know ... does he know ... There is another most deadly and despicable act in China film production, that is, late dubbing. You know, those actors who dub later can't get on the screen and are eliminated. This is a bit unpleasant, but it's true. But when dubbing, they still don't pay attention to you as the embodiment of the role. Did he discuss with you how your character speaks? Word for word, word for word. Damn it. Who cares about you? Do you think he handled the voice and image of the character according to his own understanding without asking your advice? If so, that would be great. They never study it. While they were dubbing, they were knitting, playing poker, chatting and dozing off before it was his turn to read. When it's his turn to read, pick up the desk and read ten centimeters away from the microphone. What inner experience is not inner experience. Go to hell. In this way, you are visually, involuntarily, but the voice is another person's voice. What's this called? Is this called a movie performance? It's called fish soup. I drank too much and my brain went soft. You see, the two most important elements that embody movie characters, light and harmony, are not under the control of actors. He is not in charge, others are in charge. The stage is not like this. But the actor's disaster didn't end there. I only said two fifths. A netizen commented: If there is a so-called "film performance", it must be different from "stage performance". Is this difference "taking into account the lens"? Bullshit! As Miss Zhou said, are you still afraid that the camera won't capture you? Think about it! Film acting classes are actually stage performances, which are not as good as special drama schools. Look at the actors from Beiying, and then look at the actors who are interested in the drama, and everything will be understood. Therefore, if the Film Academy really wants to offer a performance class, it might as well be called a "stage performance class". I think-yes. But only some people (including myself) don't like it. This film form cannot represent all films. However, it is undeniable that this is also one of the forms of movies. It does not destroy the "reproducibility" of the film (it is not that the camera is not allowed to shoot). It can be the object of shooting, but it is not necessary to shoot the film. Can exist, but only in its own name-stage performance. If there is a so-called "film performance", then it must be different from "stage performance". Is this difference "taking into account the lens"? Bullshit! As Miss Zhou said, are you still afraid that the camera won't capture you? Think about it! Film acting classes are actually stage performances, which are not as good as special drama schools. Look at the actors from Beiying, and then look at the actors who are interested in the drama, and everything will be understood. Therefore, if the Film Academy really wants to offer a performance class, it might as well be called a "stage performance class". I think-yes. But only some people (including myself) don't like it. This film form cannot represent all films. However, it is undeniable that this is also one of the forms of movies. It does not destroy the "reproducibility" of the film (it is not that the camera is not allowed to shoot). It can be the object of shooting, but it is not the object of film-necessity-shooting. Can exist, but only in its own name-stage performance. Zhou Note: We call it a stage documentary. This kind of film exists all over the world, but in Chinese mainland, before 1976, China's stage documentary was upgraded to a model film. This has further turned mainland film creation and theory into a pot of porridge. No culture means no culture. Since then, the documentary on the mainland stage has become an authentic film. What I want to talk about next is the film actor who was dismembered by five horses. However, before that, I think it is necessary to remind you of a phenomenon once again. My friends who stand in the position of need in the debate on whether there should be a film performance have never mentioned that he thinks that the performances needed by the whole world, especially the mainland, have collapsed to an extreme. Even I, a person who thinks that movies don't need performances, have a lot of complaints about the bad practice of not respecting props and color blocks-the so-called "late dubbing", and I have criticized these uneducated people hundreds of times, but I have never received the support and response from a person who advocates that movies should have performances. So I can't help but wonder if the actors in the minds of those who think that movies need to be performed are not as good as the props or color blocks we said. If you don't believe me, I can prove it with examples. Prove what? Prove that the director is playing with actors as clowns. Some people will say that what we are discussing now is a theoretical issue. Yes, I know. I'm also discussing theoretical issues. The practice of mainland film and television, especially TV series, proves that actors are dispensable. The mouth shape is wrong, the voice doesn't know where it comes from and what kind of space it is in, but it can still win the prize, which is considered as a boutique. How to explain it theoretically? No, since it is not, why don't mainland film and television theorists and critics mention it? Isn't there a famous theorist who calls these junk quality goods? I'll see if the friends and gentlemen who think the film needs to be performed can show their attitude. In this way, we can at least know who knows the movie and who doesn't.