Chapter 2205

It's light, but it's light.

The cloud is light and the wind is light, but the lingering charm is far-reaching.

Once again, lanli completed a wonderful performance. It was just a slight change of eyebrows and shoulders, but it showed a delicate and mixed emotional evolution in the fleeting time. It not only had context, but also had levels and depth, and had both strength. It really made the whole character's conception and connotation go up several levels. It was an excellent and wonderful performance, Let the characters and stories get rid of the shackles of the script lens and confuse the fake with the real.

Is this possible?

Is this real?

The answer is yes.

In addition to Langley, many actors have had such highlight moments: Anthony Hopkins' performance in "silent Lambs", Heath Ledger's performance in "Batman: Dark Knight", Matthew McConnell's performance in "Dallas buyers club", and so on.

There is no doubt that these actors are excellent and outstanding, but "excellent" and "perfect" are two different things. Most of their career, they can only be excellent but can not go any further. When they meet the right role at the right time, they burst out a thrilling spark and really touch the perfect.

Of course, maybe such a "highlight moment" is only once in the whole career, but we must know that most actors can't reach such a height in their whole life. Leonardo DiCaprio lacks such a highlight moment. He is excellent, but far from perfect.

So, why can Daniel Day Lewis, Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson, Robert De Niro, Catherine Hepburn and other actors be called "temple class" actors?

Because they have more than one highlight in their career. To be sure, not all of their works can be praised and recorded in history; But standing in the long river of time, looking back, their highlight moments are as many as two, three or more, which makes them great.

Lanli, too.

Why can Langley have such a strong and profound influence in the film industry? Just because of egot? Just because of the invincible aura? Just because of the appeal of the market? Maybe both, but not only that. The real key reason is that lanli has his own "highlight moment" at a young age.

The first is episode nine of the Pacific War.

The second is the last scene of "crazy love".

The third is the performance of "drunken folk songs".

Even now, the Hollywood industry still firmly believes that the performance of "drunken folk" is undoubtedly the masterpiece of blue ceremony - but this performance did not even get the Oscar nomination, which once again proves that there are numerous factors influencing the award season. The strongest is not likely to win, and the final winner is not necessarily the best.

So, can the "lobster" play become the fourth highlight moment of Langley's career?

Who would have thought that lanli's acting skills had a breakthrough again, but it was in a black comedy?

The whole film industry has always maintained a negative attitude towards comedy performance, just as the attitude towards Comedy in the whole history of art has always been inferior to that of drama. So far, the only one who can break the fixed concept blockade is Jack Lemmon, the first winner of the Grand Slam.

The actor, who has starred in comedy films such as "passion like fire" and "peach apartment", has won the titles of "best supporting actor" in Venice, Cannes, Berlin, British Academy, Oscar and Golden Globe Awards, and has made two rounds - each award ceremony has at least two trophies, while Jack Lemont's first Oscar for best supporting actor comes from comedy, "Mr. Roberts.".

But on the whole, the significance and weight of comedy performance are far underestimated.

Just as Langley got inspiration from Buster Keaton's performance, comedy is actually more difficult than the drama. It takes more energy to master the propriety of actors than the drama. Otherwise, it may become a simple and crude "shit" comedy and lose the irony of the work.

Strictly speaking, "lobster" is an absurd comedy. The coldness of the surface echoes the deep formation of the core. If the actor completes the performance in accordance with the requirements of Argus, the original purpose of the work can also be achieved, because Argus only needs the actor's facial paralysis, and all the black humor comes from the setting of the plot; However, on the basis of the requirements of Eugene, Langley endows the characters with the soul. The vitality of trying to break free from the shackles just becomes the core meaning of the whole work, which is the ultimate pursuit of comedy movies.

It's not easy for Bojun to smile; After laughing, it's hard to reflect.

Lan Li converges the rhythm and strength of the performance, but interprets more afterrhymes. The shock of that afterrhyme is multiplied, tripled, and even tenfold spread.

The whole set is in the middle of thinking——

Of course, the main reason is that they know the script and story very well, and they can easily capture the information released by lenley through performance; As for the audience, it depends on the director's scheduling and editing. It depends on whether the director can convey this thinking to the audience and how much it can convey. This is the final hurdle to determine the quality of the finished product. Otherwise, how can the excellent performances of many excellent actors be submerged?

So, what is Argus thinking now

Big bang!

Now that his whole brain is about to explode, he's noticed the performance of Langley, and he's also noticed the performance of Rachel.

Just as David turns to leave, in the corner of the lens, the figure of the short-sighted woman is slightly stiff.

It's just a flash. It's such a small detail, and it's still a static detail. If you don't really observe it, you probably don't notice it; Even in the process of watching the film, it is difficult for the audience to capture every detail in the picture, often unable to capture all the information given by the director's lens.

But oggs is a director, he must pay attention to the overall situation, he must take care of every corner. So he noticed the details of Rachel's performance.

Then, brainstorming comes! He is now bursting out with infinite inspiration and is colliding fiercely and furiously. In particular, the emotional details of Langley in the last three groups of shots and the performance of Rachel have triggered many associations in his mind——

Should he lock the camera on Rachel and further ask her back to make some emotions, so as to form a kind of contrast? Let the fetters between David and short-sighted women form, and show the struggle and pain of short-sighted women at the last moment?

Or is this too much to be done, and the intention to form a contrast is too obvious to be inferior? May even destroy the setting of myopic women?

No matter what, the next shot will be divided into two lines, focusing on David and the woman respectively, and creating emotional collision with their different actions. But according to the original setting, the short-sighted woman is hard hearted. She stands at the top of the food chain, and those struggles and hesitations are insignificant - Rachel gives her a little softness, but at the same time, Rachel also cuts the softness, which is a fluctuation.

If Eugene didn't show this kind of change, it might be the psychological change of a short-sighted woman. Maybe she was moved by love, but she chose to survive after all; But if oggs is shown in camera, it means that the audience must receive the information, which is too rigid and rigid. On the contrary, it has a sense of forcing the audience - this is obviously a very low-end film expression.

Now the question is, should the director throw out more clues? Or is it enough to rely on the performance of the actors? There's no need to add to it?

However, Eugene was reluctant to give up: because the content presented in this series of performances was too complicated and interesting from Langley's watching the steakknife to his going away. If he gave up like this, he always felt that there was something outrageous - what if the audience could not taste it? According to his style, he is more used to subtraction than addition. It's better to stop the lens. Langley's performance is enough. There's no need for the director to inject more information into the lens.

The source of such contradiction is that lanli's performance is really excellent!

The shooting of "lobster" is coming to an end, but Eugene can't help but exclaim again and again. Langley's performance really has unlimited possibilities - even in the cold and restrained scenes of Eugene, Langley can still interpret countless possibilities of "facial paralysis".

With this skill, the whole movie began to shine.

After thinking about it, oggs didn't hold back after all. "Rachel, finally we add another lens. The camera is aimed at your back, and your shoulder lines are slightly tightened - because you are aware of David's emotion, you understand David's plan, that firmness affects you, and you are a little hesitant. A little bit, just a little bit of emotion is enough. "

Now it's the shooting process. Argus can put forward more requirements, shoot all kinds of ideas in advance, and then slowly decide when it comes to post production. For example, he can edit two versions, and then see which version is more suitable. Then he can choose which version to use. Maybe he can leave it, maybe he can delete it, maybe he can switch shots to bury clues.

But if this possibility is directly ignored in the process of shooting, there will be no room for maneuver in the later editing.

That's how he convinced himself. In fact, in his heart, he also understood that his compromise was finally moved by the performance of Langley——

But how to make the finished film? He didn't have a clear idea, so he had to go one step at a time. But at least, Langley's performance really made the film more advanced. He began to be glad that he had chosen Langley, which was absolutely the right choice.

Engels also began to get excited.