Don't attempt to use hyperbole to defend your stance.
1st use: Where is the hyperbole there? You do know nothing about me. You don't even know my name.
2nd use: Who's being ignorant now? Hyperbole is exaggeration used as a rhetorical device. It's purpose is to argue/convey a point. Why else would I use it?
You should probably look up the meanings of big words before you try to use them.
Furthermore, I could easily use that sentence without using hyperbole. De Niro's Capone is a one dimensional character (one of De Niro's main criticisms was that he wanted more scenes to establish a character, instead all we see of Capone is this arrogant braggart who only seems to take joy from harming others). Human beings, especially those that lead complex organisations are fundamentally multi-dimensional. Therefore De Niro's Capone literally has no basis in reality. His character does not exist in the real world.
I said perceiving it, as in understanding it, not not liking it.
Now you're just saying words for the sake of it. I explained why his portrayal was a poor one in no uncertain terms. You seem to have read an alternative description where all I said was 'I didn't like it', so evidently your comprehension skills need some work (which doesn't do your credibility any favours when it comes to analysing films I might add). I also explained why Stephen Graham's Capone was superior. It's a view shared by many Chicago critics (one of them a Pulitzer Prize winner) and Capone's own family for Christ's sake.
You on the other hand have merely tried to use lots of words that amount to very little in order to sound intelligent (failing for the most part). Nothing has been provided to back up your assertions that you have some deep understanding that us mere mortals are not privy to.
Would you care to defend your stance now in light of that? Or are you just going to say, 'you don't understand acting like I do' some more?
reply
share
TheAdvocator
11 years ago
You do know nothing about me. You don't even know my name.
I know you're uncomfortable with realistic acting techniques. Your name is completely irrelevant.
he wanted more scenes to establish a character,
That's completely different than how you view his dialect and mannerisms. DeNiro wanting to flesh out a character doesn't negate the effort and emotion he put into his other scenes. Why would more character development change how you view those scenes?
You on the other hand have merely tried to use lots of words that amount to very little in order to sound intelligent (failing for the most part). Nothing has been provided to back up your assertions that you have some deep understanding that us mere mortals are not privy to.
I don't have to sound intelligent I just have to point out that you're uncomfortable with a character's sincerity on screen. Whether I am intelligent or unintelligent is moot point.
I tell you what, get as defensive and offended as you want about it. I've had a long day and I've really just ran out of energy to deal with someone who argues white-trash logic. Maybe if you read a book some time you'll not be shocked when someone uses words that you're not familiar with.
"using words for the sake of it", if that's the best you have you won't go far.
Take care, kid.
If you pirate media, you do not get to have an opinion on it.
reply
share
d-abarron
11 years ago
I know you're uncomfortable with realistic acting techniques
There you go again with elitist nonsense that just doesn't mean anything. Anyone can understand what method acting is as a concept, it's executing it that is difficult.
That's completely different than how you view his dialect and mannerisms. DeNiro wanting to flesh out a character doesn't negate the effort and emotion he put into his other scenes. Why would more character development change how you view those scenes?
Can you read? Tell me where I criticised his mannerisms or dialect. I would be disappointed if he struggled with a New York dialect being from New York himself. At no point in this argument have I actually criticised De Niro's ability to act.
I stated that his portrayal was poor (Portrayal: The act or process of depicting or portraying). The character he created on-screen was not representative of Al Capone. It was not a believable portrayal of anyone. He could put all the effort in the world into it and it still couldn't elevate the poor writing of the character. In the entire film Capone was just being evil whenever he was on screen. He was either gloating and smug or he was petulant and aggressive. Given more scenes he may have been able to show more sides to the character and thus make him more believable. If you read my previous post I attributed lots of this to the writing. I don't see how this is a difficult concept. His scenes were called the most disappointing of the film by Chicago-based critics because of these deficiencies. In a similar manner critics have praised Stephen Graham because, without the need for the method (which he called 'a bit too anal for him') his portrayal accurately captures what modern historians consider to be Capone's likeness. These are generally accepted and published viewpoints that you seem to vehemently dispute for some reason.
I tell you what, get as defensive and offended as you want about it. I've had a long day and I've really just ran out of energy to deal with someone who argues white-trash logic
White trash logic? I'm a final year history student. My days consist of analysing evidence (like I have done here, looking newspaper reviews from the time and comments from De Niro and Graham about their performances, Graham actually refers to the Untouchables in his interview) and using it to create arguments. If you struggle with the logic of those arguments I suspect it is you who's at fault.
Maybe if you read a book some time you'll not be shocked when someone uses words that you're not familiar with
I would like to direct you to your comments earlier about how hyperbole shouldn't be used in arguments. I'm curious, how does it feel to live in a glass house surrounded by black kettles?
reply
share