(This article is reproduced from the BunnyBearDiary public account)
Just watched Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. The movie itself is disappointing to me as a work, the characters are not too strong, the narrative is a little messy, the story line is numerous and lacks focus, but I think it may be more important as a link, in the long series of movies. This situation is not uncommon. But it is more interesting to look at Grindelwald and his future followers in the context of the current era. I found his followers to be confused and restless, while those with clearer goals and a sense of security were not shaken by the "just world" he used to confuse the masses.
Let’s go straight back to the most meaningful performance. Of course I'm particularly concerned about Nagiri, played by the Asian-faced Korean actor Claudia Kim. In conclusion, I kind of regret the way she interprets it. Here are some of my thoughts:
1. Not relaxed enough, frowning almost the whole time.
Basically Nagini frowned most of the time, and frowned unchanged. This trait is not uncommon among untrained actors. In my opinion, there are two reasons for her continued frown. One is that she is not relaxed enough. Anxiety and tension are directly caused by muscle contractions in the area of the forehead and eyebrows. As the actor is distracted by tension while trying to turn his attention back to the role, these two fighting emotions (tension and confidence) create The asymmetry of the facial features, and this asymmetry is a common reason for the audience (unconsciously) to draw the conclusion of bad acting. A brief mention of the related microexpression theory - "When people try to mask their fear, two sets of facial muscles are at work. Since the actor's mouth is usually used to convey dialogue, the actors appear to be able to control the lower half of their face, But the eyes and forehead are likely to betray you. The contradictory muscles are the periocular muscles (orbicularis oculi) and the forehead and eyebrows (occipitofrontalis, corrugator supercilii).” This is explained in detail in "Photogenic: Don't panic, the camera is not so scary" that I am translating. The second reason I'm guessing she's always frowning is because she's exerting a sense of alertness in the "fighting tension of a blockbuster", mainly in the scene where everyone on the bridge meets at the end What it gives me - only rigid limbs and frowning fixed expressions, no other nuances seen, or impulses rooted in the moment. This kind of performance that is not rooted in the character itself or reacting to other people or the environment, but blindly "playing" a certain emotion is something I want to take as a warning. It also reminds me to regularly consolidate my concentration and relaxation exercises for my forehead muscles. I originally wanted to say that interested friends can wait for the online version to take a closer look, but I just opened the actor's IMDB personal page and saw her frown in all the relevant stills. The problem is not the frowning, but the persistent frowning that lacks motivation.
2. The character work is not delicate enough, it can even be said that it is lacking.
In such fantasy films, character building is the main way to stand out. First, because the imagination of characters in the fantasy world has more space and less restrictions, otherwise how can it be the most attractive Johnny Depp's imagination energy The type of people who are too full. Another reason is that compared to more emotional and delicate dramas, fantasy films don't often have a particularly well-written arc of the character, so the best way to make the performance stand out is to put The character's personality is well-thought-out, delicate and attractive. In my opinion, the essence of character building is boldness and delicacy - boldly choosing a strong, perhaps even adventurous character trait, then sculpting it delicately, adding layers and the tiniest of details on top of it - - Body movements, facial movements, cooperation with props, interaction with clothing, etc. I have always felt that actors are a kind of painter, we use our own limbs and emotions as brushes to outline various contours of human nature. In Kim Soo Hyun's performance, I don't see obvious character traits. What a good character this is. Precisely because this is the first human appearance of a snake, there was a lack of clear descriptions before, leaving a lot of room for imagination. Jin originally had too much room to play - charming and fragile snakes, snakes who refused to admit defeat but were afraid, etc. , draw boldly. She had a very good chance of standing up for the role, and that was the solo performance where she turned into a snake in a circus performance. She has individual playing time and opportunities from multiple angles and scenes, but unfortunately she did not make the most of these opportunities. In a group of British actors known for their roleplaying (yes, I'm ignoring Depp unreasonably, he's more of a British actor than anyone else lol), you're going to be ignored if you don't get the details right.
Everyone else's performances are expected, basically every character has a distinct personality, and the actors have also made memorable shapes around their core characteristics, although I would like to see a little more. The level of surprise, especially on Depp's Grindelwald (of course, writing still plays a major part here). The characters captured by Eddie Redmayne are still so lovable by the audience - full of tenderness and love, overflowing vulnerability, who doesn't love them.
View more about Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald reviews
