Hey actors...
- Thread starter brianluce
- Start date
filmman
Veteran
because they don't just do their bit and give the other actor a chance to do theirs
they're always doing something ... staying in character.
They use the Anthony Quinn method. LOL
In a scene of the Requiem for a Heavyweight, Anthony Quinn had done his line and was sitting in the back of the room, on the floor, doing his schtick -- there was Jackie Gleason (the Manager) in the room with Mickey Rooney (the trainer) as well.
It was Gleason's line. He did a couple of takes, but noticed Quinn was moving and doing stuff with his face (staying in character as Quinn used to do), so Gleason turns to the director Ralph Nelson and says, "Why does he have to do that?"
So the director goes over to Quinn and says, you know, just don't do anything...
Another take and Gleason stops again. "Why does he have to be in the scene?"
Quinn said in an interview, "I wasn't doing anything!"
It was Gleason in a Medium Shot with Rooney a bit to one side -- he was arguing with Rooney -- he was frustrated because the old fighter wasn't holding up as well as he should.
I think finally the director shot a single on Gleason, but in the movie the shot with Quinn in the back is still there. He's mumbling something. He was a great actor ... but so were Gleason and Rooney. That's one of my favorite movies.
Animals and children never quit acting, that's why perhaps they steal the shot.
I love actors that never quit acting.
I don't like it when actors do their lines and I'm still rolling and they turn to camera and say, "scene!" Arrrggghhhh.
they're always doing something ... staying in character.
They use the Anthony Quinn method. LOL
In a scene of the Requiem for a Heavyweight, Anthony Quinn had done his line and was sitting in the back of the room, on the floor, doing his schtick -- there was Jackie Gleason (the Manager) in the room with Mickey Rooney (the trainer) as well.
It was Gleason's line. He did a couple of takes, but noticed Quinn was moving and doing stuff with his face (staying in character as Quinn used to do), so Gleason turns to the director Ralph Nelson and says, "Why does he have to do that?"
So the director goes over to Quinn and says, you know, just don't do anything...
Another take and Gleason stops again. "Why does he have to be in the scene?"
Quinn said in an interview, "I wasn't doing anything!"
It was Gleason in a Medium Shot with Rooney a bit to one side -- he was arguing with Rooney -- he was frustrated because the old fighter wasn't holding up as well as he should.
I think finally the director shot a single on Gleason, but in the movie the shot with Quinn in the back is still there. He's mumbling something. He was a great actor ... but so were Gleason and Rooney. That's one of my favorite movies.
Animals and children never quit acting, that's why perhaps they steal the shot.
I love actors that never quit acting.
I don't like it when actors do their lines and I'm still rolling and they turn to camera and say, "scene!" Arrrggghhhh.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
The old axiom is never *follow* a child or animal act *on stage*. The charm/cuteness factor makes the adult who follows pale by comparison.
As far as films go, I don't think good actors have a problem working with either kids or animals aside from the reverse of what you're describing: their propensity for unpredictability, moodiness, unprofessional behavior, etc., which while quite understandable in either case, can make it much more difficult for the adult.
Good professional kids and animals make for great scenes with adult actors IMO. Kid-wise, Bruce Willis and Haley Joel Osment in "Sixth Sense", Dakota Fanning and Sean Penn in "I Am Sam", Andy Griffith and Ron(ny) Howard (from the 60's TV classic "Andy Griffith Show") are good examples, and there are many others.
As an actor myself, I'd very much enjoy working with a child, though I haven't yet (I have many times as a recording engineer though). Talented, cute kids are easy for audiences as well as actors to love. At least while they're behaving themselves : )
As far as films go, I don't think good actors have a problem working with either kids or animals aside from the reverse of what you're describing: their propensity for unpredictability, moodiness, unprofessional behavior, etc., which while quite understandable in either case, can make it much more difficult for the adult.
Good professional kids and animals make for great scenes with adult actors IMO. Kid-wise, Bruce Willis and Haley Joel Osment in "Sixth Sense", Dakota Fanning and Sean Penn in "I Am Sam", Andy Griffith and Ron(ny) Howard (from the 60's TV classic "Andy Griffith Show") are good examples, and there are many others.
As an actor myself, I'd very much enjoy working with a child, though I haven't yet (I have many times as a recording engineer though). Talented, cute kids are easy for audiences as well as actors to love. At least while they're behaving themselves : )
Last edited:
Michele Seidman
Well-known member
I don't know about theories but I do know a little on the history of it.
Long ago one Mr W.C. Fields made more than one comment about kids...among them were...
"Anyone who hates children and animals can't be all bad."
& "Children should neither be seen or heard from - ever again."
But he is quoted for saying "Never work with children or animals".
It was not because kids or animals stole the scene at all (even though they can and often do), it was because the kids were prone to forgetting lines and cues and animals were hard to get to work on cue too. Every scene took longer and cost production more money. W.C. was not known for having much patience either!
W.C. Fields said this long before Quinn and Gleason were even working actors but the quote stuck and has taken on a life of it's own over the last century! Some even attribute the quote to Mae West but it is best known for Mr Fields having uttered it.
My theory on seeing the same child actors over and over is...if you get lucky enough to find a kid actor who can hit their mark 9 out of 10 times...and who manages to learn their lines and NOT steal every scene...then you use that kid over and over instead of risking using a new kid who might not be so set savvy! But this last part is my theory and the quote was Mr Fields!
PS...marketing is why they dominate the screen these days because studies show they sell product better than anything else!
Long ago one Mr W.C. Fields made more than one comment about kids...among them were...
"Anyone who hates children and animals can't be all bad."
& "Children should neither be seen or heard from - ever again."
But he is quoted for saying "Never work with children or animals".
It was not because kids or animals stole the scene at all (even though they can and often do), it was because the kids were prone to forgetting lines and cues and animals were hard to get to work on cue too. Every scene took longer and cost production more money. W.C. was not known for having much patience either!
W.C. Fields said this long before Quinn and Gleason were even working actors but the quote stuck and has taken on a life of it's own over the last century! Some even attribute the quote to Mae West but it is best known for Mr Fields having uttered it.
My theory on seeing the same child actors over and over is...if you get lucky enough to find a kid actor who can hit their mark 9 out of 10 times...and who manages to learn their lines and NOT steal every scene...then you use that kid over and over instead of risking using a new kid who might not be so set savvy! But this last part is my theory and the quote was Mr Fields!
PS...marketing is why they dominate the screen these days because studies show they sell product better than anything else!
Last edited:
Ted Spencer
Veteran
The W.C. Fields quote I remember best is, when asked what he thought about kids, he said "it depends on how they're cooked".
And a non kid-related one: "I was once stuck at sea for thirty days with nothing but food and water" (WC was quite the drinker).
And a non kid-related one: "I was once stuck at sea for thirty days with nothing but food and water" (WC was quite the drinker).
Michele Seidman
Well-known member
lol..i thought it was 'fried' not 'cooked' but i could be wrong....still funny either way. the man was a serious drinker!