There's something that really bugged me about this movie, it was a good story (but extremely slow) and it was Ruth Negga's acting, she was so dry, and would never change her facial expression, always looking dull and confused, even when she gets the great-law-changing news, she remains so dull as if they called her reminding her of a bill she had to pay. It made it look weird while Joel Edgerton did a great job, i don't know if it bugged anyone else
shareI think this thread speaks more to how differently people interpret emotions and personalities. What some may see as "wooden" or "unemotional," others see as holding emotions in for the sake of survival. Less is more.
To "emote," in my opinion, is not equal to being a deeply feeling person. I look at someone like Robert De Niro and on the surface he appears shy, cold even, but I think it's because he is acutely sensitive to his environment, feels deeply.
I heard Casey Affleck talk about this for Manchester By The Sea in several interviews. Many interpreted his character as "unemotional", but really he said the restraint was because if he let cracks of emotion slip, then the whole foundation would crumble, and he would be a mess. This approach is giving his character an internal life which may require more thought and empathy on the viewer's part. I thought to Heath Ledger's character in Brokeback Mountain too.
There is a sense of poise, strength in not emoting at times because certain people have to keep it in. It's like a built-in survival mechanism when you go through hardship, tragedy and you have to keep moving forward despite the pain that's inside. You don't have a choice. I interpreted Negga's character's reactions to be coming from a place where she says to herself, "I'm not going to complain, I'm going to make the best of it."
Have you seen the documentary that follows the couple? The real life couple were very dry people. I don't mean that in a negative way, but they were very simple and country, exactly like Ruth and Joel portrayed.
shareYea i did see how the real couple was and it's that they were dry but i still feel that in scenes like where she gets the good news at the end, no matter how dry you are, I'm sure that anybody would be screaming or running to her husbands arms and sharing the good news or simply shedding some tears, i just thought her reaction was way to simple
shareWell i also thought that they actually tried to portray the real Loving in a way that they were in reality very quiet couple. But again giving a subtle, quiet performance is not just staring at the floor with one face expression and cute smile threw the whole film. Some of her reactions are just not natural in my opinion and some of her lines were forced(although she doesnt have many). Edgerton was much better since we could see threw his facial expressions what his character was feeling, unlike Neggas. I also think that people should separate a written character and what actor bring to the role. Because if we look at Mildred as a character only it is the most heartbreaking character of the year for sure, and Ruth Negga is indeed a very, very beautiful person with very expressive eyes(althought in my opininon they are expressive in just one scene). But again what had she brought to the role? Nothing. Think of excellent Charlotte Rampling in 45 Years, which is also a very quiet performance, but we were able to read from her face what her character was thinking, feeling or doing. She used every second of screentime to show us what her character was, using not just her eyes, but also her face, body movements and even how she is breathing. Creating then a REAL HUMAN BEING ON SCREEN. Sissy Spacek gives another very quiet, yet very powerful performance in In the Bedroom, same with Annette Bening in the kids are all right, Cicely Tyson in Sounder, and if we compare their work and what they brought to the roles(that are also very quiet) or how deep they went into their characters with Ruth Negga and her acting as MIldred, her performance becomes a total joke. Also Loving as a film fails to connect with audiences and both performances have no chemistry at all and its sooo dry to the moment when it becomes even funny. Again i have a feeling that Negga is overpraised for work here, and those raves are mostly because of how she looks in real life(those eyes) and the fact that her CHARACTER is real life person and also very moving, and that is actually what is mostly said in those raves written mostly by a then(in may or whenever Cannes film festival was), hungry for an Oscar-vehicle(becuse it was may and Loving was a first Oscar contender to bee seen there at Cannes), offended by Oscarssowhite, cinephille reporters, Oscar bloggers and Oscar experts who were there at Cannes as ,,film critics,,. I remember that there was already a talk between those experts and bloggers about how incredible Negga is going to be before film was even shown at Cannes, so i guess that is saying a lot.
shareYou've probably watched too many Disney films. The film is based on a well-documented true story. Her reaction on receiving the news from the Supreme Court is probably based on of Mildred Loving in real life - they're not going to change it just for you.
The final scene of "The Graduate" is regarded as a classic. Dustin Hoffman storms the church, gets the girl, they run away and jump on a bus. Sitting there, realising its over, there is no celebration, no smiles or laughter - he's almost expressionless.
I think some people need to be reminded of what acting really is. If you don't give it a second thought that the person really is who they are playing then they have done their jobs. This especially rings true for biopics.
shareYour recall is faulty. She gave a smiling, joyously happy response with words something like "that's wonderful" on the telephone call informing her of the trial result. Expecting any person to jump for joy over something they had a right to, is taking personal emotions a bit too far. She then goes outside to pass the news along to her husband, but sees that he was unconcerned and enjoying life, confident in the eventual outcome. This pleases her greatly, so no communication of the result was really necessary.
Consider if someone squatted in your home, and you had to take them to court to evict them. I doubt winning the factual argument would cause you to jump for joy. You would jump for joy after a court awarded you a financial judgement, but not after a painful, long journey through the court system arguing whether or not you deserve the rights to personhood that almost everyone else can take for granted.
Furthermore, to speak in this way about the acting of the actress, without considering the direction she had received for the part, or for the scene, is just plain amateurish. Perhaps they first did the scene the way you would prefer it, and the director reshot it because he didn't like the result. Heck, maybe they tried it ten different ways... not being involved, I don't know. Do you?
shareI found her acting to be pretty good, not great. Not for the reasoning stated by OP, but just the objective view of someone who has watched eleventy billion films.
I agree. I didn't think much of her acting. I can see why she played it understated, but she went too understated. She wasn't awful, but I didn't think she was great either.
Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Criedshare