Richard Roeper's take on Sasha Grey's "acting" debut
Richard Roeper tells it like it is in his review of Steven Soderbergh‘s, The Girlfriend Experience, and especially in his grilling of porn star Sasha Grey‘s performance.
I love it.
From Richard Roper.com
As for Ms. Grey: she is not a good actress. She photographs well. She does a decent enough job of hitting the on/off switch in her eyes when she’s feigning interest in a man—and when she’s tired of his narcissistic ramblings. (Like almost all johns in the movies, these guys have at least as much interest in talking about themselves as they have in the sexual act itself. Some don’t even consummate with Chelsea. It’s the old cliche about the man who pays a woman for her time so she can give him oral, but also because she HAS to listen to him go on and on about his problems at work, etc.
She doesn’t have the girlfriend/wife option of saying, “Will you PLEASE just shut up!”) But her line readings are flat, and a pivotal scene in which she has to display authentic emotion rings false, especially because it’s shot mostly from a distance, as if Soderbergh knew Grey couldn’t handle too many close-ups on her face. Faking an orgasm onscreen is one thing; conveying true heartbreak is something else.
milesfan420 on Tue, 19th May 2009 8:41 am
Well, acting is not an art, I’m sorry. This is why it’s so easy for porn stars to make “the transfer” to “legit” art.
I understand that this raises a philosophical question around whether there is an objective definition to what constitutes art.
My definition of art is basically that it is the opposite side of the same coin of science, mechanics and engineering.
True art is highly sophisticated, technical and impossible for someone to jump into and perform, even at a poor level. Architecture, carpentry, music composition or performance would be vocations that fall under my definition.
Certainly whoring yourself on camera, whether it be to exploit some deeply submerged emotion from your subconscious, show off your beautiful face, expose just “a little bit” of skin or even exhibit a complete “depiction” of full-on hard-core vaginal sex- I”m sorry, these are not on par with learning to play the violin or construct a museum.
And I can’t help but believe that this was one of the intended messages behind the movie, to exploit the folly of Actor-As-Artist and show that anyone can do it, especially if the aim is not to act but rather simply to reflect the dryness of real life.
Yes, she is dry in this film, but the film is a mock-documentary, meant to show the disparity between real life and actor’s depictions of such.
I’m not slamming acting. I’m just trying to make a serious point and use dramatic effect to do so. After all, I am an actor. Nevertheless, I’m effected by no delusions of grandeur for what acting is.
I recommend that my fellow actors join me in realizing that to be a good actor, is by no means the pinnacle of artistic achievement.
Rather it is just the beginning, an indicator of a gift of Eros that the masses could only dream of.
It is an invitation by the muses to go deeper into artistic vocation but for a more sophisticated and technical aesthetic trade.
Actors are gifted insofar as they are provided with passion, vision and hunger for beauty. That is what the masses are drawn to in actors.
But they should not stop at acting, for that is just the beginning of a more serious artistic evolution that is their responsibility to see through.
Lance on Tue, 19th May 2009 11:21 am
I posted a blurb of this on Twitter and here are some responses (I withheld the names cause I didn’t get permission to re-post them):
People assume that since acting looks like walking & talking anyone it takes no skill. Then put them on a set, and, well…
LMAO! that is just soo wrong!
Maybe he’s only seen Keanu Reeves and Chris Kline movies…and in that case, i agree…no art involved.