what the hell is with the eye thing Pruitt Taylor Vince keeps doing? this is like one of my fav movies but that always takes a little bit away from it.
sharenoone is perfect.
| liked how in this film noone was 'perfect' as they are most modern films.
He doesn't "keep doing it". He has a medical disease which causes his eyes to move like that constantly.
From Wikipedia:
"Nystagmus is rapid involuntary rhythmic eye movement, with the eyes moving quickly in one direction (quick phase), and then slowly in the other (slow phase)."
I've seen him do that in other things, so it's not like he does it on purpose!
shareI gotta say... and I'm not comfortable saying this really, but the guy who started this thread is right. In the age of 20 inch tvs its fine im sure, but it was killing me on my big widescreen. I can't imagine having to watch this one in the theater. It actually gave me a headache. Now I realize it's not PC to say that, but you wouldn't put someone with a speech impediment on the radio (unless you are Howard Stern or NPR) and you wouldn't allow a blind man to get a job driving schoolbuses. It was horribly distracting.
Amateurs built The Ark, professionals built The Titanic.
Now I realize it's not PC to say that, but you wouldn't put someone with a speech impediment on the radio (unless you are Howard Stern or NPR) and you wouldn't allow a blind man to get a job driving schoolbuses.
In such cases I totally agree. However! This one is nothing like that. It doesn't limit his acting capabilities, perhaps he cannot play some characters (for whom such a thing would be unsuitable), but generally it doesn't stop one from acting. I mean, even people with a limp can find acting jobs, they just can't play everybody.
And in this specific case that "damn eye thing" certainly wasn't unsuitable for the character he was playing. Why couldn't it be that the character had such a disease as well?
I agree. Vince is a very decent character actor, based on the several films I've seen him in. Personally, I find these little human oddities to be interesting. If Brando had used this as a specific character choice, it would have been deemed 'brilliant and unique'. Must we all be so blessedly perfect? Still, I'll eat my crow and like it when I finally upgrade to HD.
shareI agree and do like him... as an actor, but please let me know how that crow tastes... especially if its bigger than 50" crow. :) You are in for a headache. And just to be fair, I wouldn't treat the guy any different at all if he were in my living room, it's just that when you see him bigger than actual size your eyes tend to go toward the object(s) moving most, or the eyes. In this case its both. I do agree about Brando, and usually the human oddities, but knowing it's a medical/physiological condition for some reason makes it more distracting not less. I certainly find myself feeling slightly hypocritical for thinking so highly of Marlee Matlin in Children Of A Lesser God because she actually IS deaf, but I don't know if the "damn eye thing" qualifies as a handicap/disability. Wasn't Vince in "Jacob's Ladder" as well? I didn't even notice the affliction there, but it's odd because I doubt he could have ever served in the military with something like that.
Amateurs built The Ark, professionals built The Titanic.
it made the movie suck. Dam that man actor for taking away such a joy from such a film, due to his eyes. dam him. Dan you if youre reading this.
shareWell, it's most certainly very subjective thing then. To be honest I didn't even notice "the damn eye thing" until someone pointed it out and I then watched some scenes specifically for checking it out. And I had seen the movie four times before that!
Whether it's a handicap, well that really depends on how you define it. And army - why not? How does it affect one's abilities? I mean, from what I've understood it doesn't affect your eyesight, right?
Just curious if you saw it on a big screen?
Amateurs built The Ark, professionals built The Titanic.
Nope, haven't seen it on a big screen. Only on a (really) big tv.
shareFirst time I saw it on maybe a 27" regular tv and it didnt bother me. On my 50" widescreen it drove me nuts.
Amateurs built The Ark, professionals built The Titanic.
is it really that hard to look past a little thing like his eyes moving to see the amazing acting? i mean honestly.. this is a GREAT movie, and all people can do is complain about this dude's eyes moving!? i think the acting and the story line more than make up for that little fact. And i think that Pruitt is a great actor in this and many other movies!
shareI didnt think this movie was great. I didnt notice it in Jacob's Ladder, and yeah i overlooked it as much as possible in this one, but it is very annoying. That's all. In long shots it is fine, but in close-ups it was extremely distracting. I don't consider that a huge complaint. If I had made a movie and the only thing people complained about was one of my actors' condition, I'd be pretty happy, and wouldnt hold that against the actor and would rehire him, especially considering everyone has universally praised his performance. No one has impuned the man's talent by stating the obvious.
Amateurs built The Ark, professionals built The Titanic.
I know what you're all talking about. My girlfriend and I didn't know he had a disease or disorder or whatever, but we thought it was really cool when he first did it and I commented on how he'd be great in a Leone film with those eyes. As the movie went on, the eyes were getting to be too much and it did honestly detract, but not all that much. I can see how it could give someone a headache though. It's a shame because if he had control over it, they would be a great asset to his arsenal.
shareNow I realize it's not PC to say that, but you wouldn't put someone with a speech impediment on the radio (unless you are Howard Stern or NPR
I just watched it on a 32" LCD and I didn't even notice "the eye thing". *shrug*
http://www.youtube.com/anotherschmoe
As far as I noticed he might have horizontal nistagmus(repetitive movements of the eyes either horizontal or vertical). This is a medical (ophtalmologic) condition that does not prevent him from acting. And I don't know why you felt annoyed cause the nistagmus seemed to be triggered by intense acting which was somehow more dramatic.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Not directing this at the OP per se but everyone in general who have this problem with "the eye thing"
People need to get a clue that the world is a wonderful and varied place, and the producers of the big screen should not seek to make out as though the world is some perfect little Disney town.
It is absolutly right that his condition should not prevent him from getting acting roles. Max could easily have had this condition anyway.
Yes I noticed it when I watched it too but I realised he wasn't doing it on purpose like a lot of actors and actresses do, so for me I just accepted it as a sort of 'tick' that Max had and got on with watching and enjoying the film. When it annoys me is when the actress does it on purpose as a stupid "look at me I'm so clever acting trick" You will see this in a lot of films when two lovers are looking into each others eyes and the -usually the actress- starts rocking her eyes back and forth - very annoying because people in real life don't do this -it's artificial- and it is done on purpose because they think it makes them look sexy or something, gawd knows why!
Those on this thread who defend PTV for "the eye thing," a medical condition PTV cannot control, seem terribly selfish and short-sighted (no pun intended).
I say "selfish" because such people have no sympathy whatsoever for the viewer. In this particular film, PTV's eye-movement was shown in close-up so many times that I literally experienced vertigo and a sensation of 'sea-sickness'. You don't give a damn about people like me who were so affected by it that on several occasions I had to turn my head completely away from the film -- and miss all the other wonderful visuals -- to avoid throwing up. I'm not exaggerating in any way. I had to fight through the whole film just to see part of it; thank God my ears weren't affected, but I did feel absolutely cheated, trying so hard to watch this beautiful, exquisite masterpiece of cinema.
(A somewhat similar phenom was reported by many who saw "The Blair Witch Project" at the theater, and this was reported in both TV and print news; that many complained that the camera-movements were so 'jerky' that they reported getting ill while watching it, and a sizable number of them actually "regurgitated" at the movie-houses. Google it if you doubt me. Although BWP didn't cause me to feel that, "1900" is the only movie I've ever seen in my life which almost made me puke, and I was watching it on a measely-by-today's-standards 27" TV screen.)
Is that Mr. Vince' fault? Of course not! I blame the director, the person who chose the close-ups and the final editor(s) of the film. THEY could have downplayed PTV's condition easily. I too feel he's a marvelous actor, and people who *made* the film are to blame for not showcasing PTV's talents without focusing on that one drawback. A good example: PTV was awesome in "Constantine" -- in fact IMHO, he was under-utilized -- and in that film, PTV's eye-movement fit his character like a glove. The film-makers used his condition to their advantage.
I did see "1900" a second time -- and due to the music, Tim Roth's incredible performance, and all the other awesome aspects of this film, I know I'll watch it again. But in many spots, I absolutely have to look completely away from PTV, else I'll literally miss even *more* of the picture by having to excuse myself so I can flee down the hall and 'yarp' as though I were a deck-hand on one of the "Deadliest Catch" crab boats. That's just ridiculous.
To those of you who defend one actor's condition to the degree that you ignore it's affect on many of those who struggle to watch him, I leave you with this adage:
'What you refuse to learn through sympathy, [our Creator] will force you to someday learn through empathy.'
Were I you, I'd fear that far more than defending a flawed aspect of a film that PTV is in no way responsible for. Don't get it twisted. Films are meant to evoke emotions, not bodily harm.
God, how bizarre. To be made sick by watching someone's eye movements. I think it's YOUR problem, not Pruitt Taylor Vince (a marvelous actor) or Giuseppe Tornatore, an Oscar-winning film maker.
------------------------------------------------
"Why do people always laugh in the wrong places?"
--Geppetto
You might need to see a doctor about that, you must be 1 in a billion who get affected like this.
A director would have no idea that 6 people on planet Earth (one of which is you) would be so affected by someones eye moving.
Given that the vast vast majority of viewers are unaffected and may only at the most have a prejudice against the eye movement (as shown in this thread) It is absolutely right to keep PTV on camera and yes, even to do a close up on his face. Those viewers with prejudice can get stuffed and the one viewer (you) who has a medical problem with your vision/balance relationship, well, you'll just have to decide whether to watch it or not, you could always hold up your remote control in front of you so you don't see his eye on the screen.
Groovybaby;
Sorry, but you're an idiot. Also, I'm not really religious (although I was raised in church), but if I was I still wouldn't say something as stupid as:
--''What you refuse to learn through sympathy, [our Creator] will force you to someday learn through empathy.''--
over something as trivial as this debate. You're saying people who liked Pruitt Vince in this film and think it should never be changed, despite how you feel about it, are going to burn in hell? You are unbelievably moronic... Unbelievably...
I think you'll find that "the damn eye thing" is often the reason he is cast. I'm not saying that was the case in this film, but at times it suits his characters perfectly (especially when he is playing untrustworthy, "shifty-eyed" sleaze-bags and the like.)
I wouldn't like him half as much if he didn't do that.
That is his trademark, which makes him unique.
shareI thought his eye movement was interesting, I can understand that some people might find it annoying but to say that it was a bad casting choice makes no sense whatsoever; By the same logic I could demand that all actors who I dislike should be banned from films.