With regard to Radio Flyer
Well it seems to me that before Mikey told his own kids many times about 'their Uncle Bobby', (so they kney well that he's their uncle), but that was the first time when he tells them the _whole_ story - about abuse, violece, suffering - and Bobby's last flight... But for discussing this point deeply I need to watch the movie again. English isn't my native language, may be I just didn't understand the situation in the movie correctly.

I am sure you won't have misunderstood the situation, because as tgsahw said, the ending is supposed to be ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. If you understood the sentence 'History is all in the mind of the teller - the truth is in the telling' then you are doing better than me. This is one of those occasions when you understand every word, but the intended meaning remains unclear.

I personally can't live with the 'Bobby dying' ending, in the same way that I can't take Frodo's departure to the Grey Havens as his death. But that is just me wanting a happy ending. I was pleased that the ending of Bumblebee had been altered from the book to a more positive hopeful finish.

Possible Radio Flyer Spoilers coming up.
Inspired by this conversation, I ended up watching this film again today from an analytical rather than pure enjoyment stance, and what hit me was that the film is not so much about abuse as about 'promises', and the consequences of both keeping and breaking them. If we take the fantasy aspects as being a product of Mikey's vivid childhood imagination (he does say that the visitation from the buffalo was a dream), and accept that if Mikey and Bobby had told their mother, or another adult about the abuse, it may have stopped before tragedy occurred, the tale becomes Mikey's attempt to justify his part in what happened as having been caused by the promises he made.

At the Buffalo ranch the boys promise the owner they will take care of their mum. 'We never broke that promise' says Mikey. This is the promise starts the situation rolling, as they try to put her happiness before theirs.

Next comes Mikey's promise to Bobby not to tell anyone, which he actually makes without knowing just what he is promising and is then tormented by the weight of and conflict between the two promises he has so far made.

Is Bobby's concern as he lays injured in hospital because he beaten so badly while trying to protect the secret hiding place he and Mikey had 'pinky-promised' not to tell about? Mikey's later promise not to spend the money is another one he makes without being aware of where it could lead.

While there are tragic results (whichever ending you choose, since Bobby disappears whatever) from the boys taking their promises too seriously the adults in their lives are adding to the situation by not keeping their own promises. Their mother is making empty promises she can't keep, partly because they are based on someone else's behaviour and partly because she is not stong enough to put the boy's needs before her own, and the king makes a promise to stop drinking that he has no intention of keeping.

The moral of the story - Try to keep promises, but think hard about the consequences before uttering those innocent sounding words.

...and those promises add to the sad realism of the story, IMHO. It's not uncommon for that kind of thinking to keep children in abusive situations from getting help.

Something that I don't think has ever come up here in a discussion of Radio Flyer is how the "legend" of the boy who had flown previously affected Mikey and Bobby--especially after they meet him (or at least think they do). Any thoughts on that part of the story??

from Skater girl:
I personally can't live with the 'Bobby dying' ending, in the same way that I can't take Frodo's departure to the Grey Havens as his death. But that is just me wanting a happy ending.
Well, it may be a bit more than "just" that--since according to what we know about the original intents, you agree with the authors about both endings :) .

Well, tg, time for reflection would certainly have helped, and that's probably what the production schedule didn't allow for when "There and Back Again" was underway. But if WE are all struck by how off-the-wall some of his sentiments and revelations are, I am quite sure his editor, if not his co-writer, must have been too--that doesn't take any time at all. If that were the case, the scenario I imagine is that one or the other of them brought this to his attention and he said, "This is the story *I* want to tell" or words to that effect, and they had to let it go as is in order for the book to hit the fall bookselling season when fans had a little cash between the two DVDs (no accident, that).

Or perhaps the publisher's folks have read so many of these tell-all, bare-all sorts of things that nothing struck them at all out of the ordinary and there were no opposing forces on the steamroller of ego-ridden guilt, or guild-ridden ego. Sean's is the only one I've ever read--maybe they're all like that.

Ceefour, I will try to ask about the editing. I have to admit I am very curious myself! But I have to think about how to do it tactfully in case the publisher ever becomes a client of mine. Unlikely, but still. Any suggestions, you all? :D

from ceefour
Along with the costumes, I swoon for the music. (Am I allowed to do that here?)
I believe swooning for the music is mandatory in here, C4! (says the woman who flew to Seattle to watch Howard Shore perform his music -- bliss!)

Flourish, I'm very much enjoying your discussion about Sean's book. I think your questions would arise out of the situation, depending on how much time you had. If it's an unhurried atmosphere (something I find hard to believe), you can come at it olbiquely: "What did this co-author do? Did you write all the first draft, or talk it through and he wrote it? Did you have to go through it over and over again?" Now, any real writer knows these are silly questions -- but Sean isn't a "real" writer, he's just whacking out this "Behind the scenes" book per deadline and whatever personal drive he had for doing it. But I've found that sounding naive works wonders on getting the subject to open up, and I work with a lot of know-all people who love to go on and on like Sean does. ;)

If there's less time, you'd have to be more pointed. If you ask something like, "Did your editor edit what you wrote?" you'll have to be prepared for a defensive follow-up question, "Why do you ask?" And then have something to say. "Well, there were a lot of typos," or whatever you want to fall back on. But that's my style. I keep my thoughts to myself, and get the subject to open up. I enjoy interviewing people. I'm sure whatever question you have time to ask will throw some light onto the situation. I'd be interested to hear it!

Sean's is the only one I've ever read--maybe they're all like that.
They're not. Michael J. Fox's autobiography Lucky Man takes you through his career, and his mistakes, but the man who wrote it is a much wiser man than the aspiring actor at the beginning, and his Parkinson's disease has given him a lovely philosophy for looking at the world. So there are books that are reflective with lessons learned; whether this is usually the case, I don't know. I just don't read very much about celebrities.

Skater girl, I very much enjoyed your view of Radio Flyer in terms of promises kept or broken, and the consequences. I also saw Elijah's character as being cloaked with guilt -- poor baby! *hugs him*

They're not. Michael J. Fox's autobiography Lucky Man takes you through his career, and his mistakes, but the man who wrote it is a much wiser man than the aspiring actor at the beginning, and his Parkinson's disease has given him a lovely philosophy for looking at the world. So there are books that are reflective with lessons learned; whether this is usually the case, I don't know. I just don't read very much about celebrities.

Most celebrities don't write an "important" autobiography until they reach middle age or beyond. At that point, they've had the perspective of time to mellow the sorts of feelings that Sean lets himself fall prey to. My bet is that were he to have written this many years in the future, his insecurities would seem sort of petty to him. Obviously, Sean's book is an attempt by his publisher to cash in on the LOTR craze. They should then have insisted that the book not try to "place itself" in Sean's development as an actor and human being (because that's much of where the controversy over it lies) but rather, concentrated on the film and NZ and PJ and co. He was much too young to write this book and have it have any real value as a "lessons learned" type of story.

As for Michael J. Fox, he strikes me as a singularly well-balanced, intelligent fellow who has taken his lemons and decided, consciously, to make lemonade out of them (hmm...who does that remind you of?). I'm sure his book was very inspirational, but few younger celebs could've written something like that unless faced with a real challenge, like he is.

Flourish,
I wouldn't find it hard to imagine that the editors/publishers didn't mind at all the tone of Sean's book. These tell all books often sell more if there is dirt. Sean didn't really deliver dirt, just an unexpected (in a way) attitude--but maybe they thought that would be good for sales. I agree that given more time for reflection Sean might have written differently. That seems to be his way of doing things..as spelled right out in the book. He acts, and then later regrets. He should just learn to press the pause button before he speaks. Then wait awhile. Of course sometimes that just means he is holding something in til he might burst with indignation or whatever. He maybe needs to spill before he can go back and repent--but that sure causes problems. Sean is a good guy--but just hasn't matured in that way. I do expect that by this age he could be getting some of that under control--even if it is a reflexive way of acting from his childhood situation. don't know. Oh, and it probably is good to note that his childhood might have been unique and he dealt with some difficult things regarding his mother's illness--but it is probably only fair to his parents to also acknowledge that he said some really nice things about his parents and his family. I figure Sean has lots of great qualities that his friends get exposed to daily. It's too bad that what he has got to get off his chest is what the rest of us get exposed to probably in an unbalanced way. He did it, though.


I need to watch Radio Flyer again to get my thoughts in order about it. I remember having some long family discussions about the ending. did he live, did he die and about 5 other permutations of that....then I threw another thing for fun into the mix of our family talk. Maybe it was an imaginary friend all along...and there was only one boy, Mikey!! My daughter totally freaked. She put her hands over her ears and cried "don't say that!!" It was funny in a sweet way because she couldn't handle that thought but she could handle the thought of Bobby dying. My daughter was 15 at the time but I had to lie in bed with her til she got distracted and could fall asleep. She laughed about it but it freaked her out!!

I need to rewatch it. I jsut picked up a copy from another rumage sale. Oh, and finally I got Paradise, as well.

Oh--I see I've simulposted with Mariole and Achila--hi!! :)

Talk about coincidence! From the new issue of TV Guide dated 11/21-27: The Muppets Hit the Yellow Brick Road. Someone alert the Lollipop Guild: Miss Piggy's coming to town-and she's brandishing a broomstick! This spring, ABC will air "The Muppet's Wonderful Wizard of Oz," a two-hour twist on the classic fable that casts Kermit as the Scarecrow, Gonzo as the Tin Man, Fozzie as the Cowardly-Lion--and Miss Piggy in a tour de force performance as all four witches. "It was an enormous challenge," the ageless beauty admits. "The costume changes alone would have done in a lesser talent, but I perserved." And what about rumours that the Vancouver set wasn't big enough for her and pop star Ashanti, who stars as Dorothy? "We got along famously," Piggy insists. "I like her, she likes me, and I like me. What's not to like?"

Do any of you wonder why we discuss Sean Astin's book so much? I think we talk about it more than the Sean/Sam threads! :lol: C4

Do any of you wonder why we discuss Sean Astin's book so much? I think we talk about it more than the Sean/Sam threads! :lol: C4

Probably because Our Elijah hasn't done anything of note recently, so we've got to fill the time with SOMETHING! LOL

Do any of you wonder why we discuss Sean Astin's book so much? I think we talk about it more than the Sean/Sam threads! :lol: C4

And do any of you wonder why I've shown such restraint in not asking for this off-topic topic to go elsewhere?? :D :D

Actually, you have discussed it far more than the Sean / Sam thread, but because of the 'issues' a lot of people had with the book, I thought it better to just let it run it's course in here. Everyone here has a different perspective on it because of being "Elijah-centric", and as well members of the Faculty choose a more analytical way of looking at things to compliment their emotional response. That's perfectly understandable to everyone here :) , but it might not have been as understandable to people in other threads if the topic had to be moved.

I haven't picked the book up yet, but I still intend to, despite some of the concerns others have had with it. I tend to have a very forgiving nature, so I'm pretty sure I'll get through it without major angst, though I reserve the right to :rolleyes: :rolleyes: a lot. By the time I get around to reading it, you probably will all be talked out about it. :)

Thank you, Narya, for your forebearance. I wouldn't have dreamt of going into the Sean-Sam thread to say what I thought about the book--not just because I never post there but also because it would seem disrespectful to those who do and who are presumably big fans of his. I do think the disappointment a lot of Elijah (or Frodo) fans felt at how much was not in the book has kept our conversation here going for quite a while, along with the lack of any other news, as Achila pointed out.

But I have been wondering for a long time why the Sean-Sam thread never had this kind of conversation about the book, even in positive terms. Does anybody know? I can't imagine that if Elijah wrote a book this thread would be as quiet as that one has been whether we liked the book or hated it. It's very curious.

Alyon, that was very perceptive--thanks for the insight.

Mariole, thank you for the suggestions! I think you might have thought I was going to meet Sean at some point, but that's not me. I merely know someone at the publishing house that put the book out, though as it happens he isn't the person who worked on it. I thought he might know something about it, though.

...and Miss Piggy in a tour de force performance as all four witches.
Yes!! Yes!! It sounds as if the Good Witch of the South is returning to her rightful place!! Someone read the book instead of just re-watching the movie!!

I wonder what else we'll see? A bunch of helpful mice? Silver slippers instead of red ones? The Wizard appearing in a different form to each character? The very well-shown theme that what each person thinks he lacks (intelligence, heart, courage) is precisely what he has more of than the others? And Dorothy running home across the fields at the end to show it wasn't a dream?! Gee, hope I'm not expecting too much from this... :rolleyes: But if anyone could get them to revive a forgotten character, I'd imagine it would be Miss Piggy :p .

----I may be talking myself into getting a new computer. Gateway has this really great deal going on... :o I know I shouldn't... :( But there are so many things going wrong all at the same time, not just with the CPU but also the monitor and the printer, that it's beginning to seem like the simplest thing to do. The CD and DVD drives are still misbehaving, the picture on the monitor is "waving" in and out, and the printer is chewing up paper. (I don't generally buy everything at once--my poor ol' monitor is on its third CPU already, and the printer gets replaced more often than the other parts.) -- It would most likely mean not buying a new SAD lamp this year, but if I didn't have to keep worrying that things were going to fall apart at any moment, it might do more for my mental outlook than a half-hour of "intense light treatment" every day. :rolleyes: I don't know--it's a hard decision to make when the money probably should be going somewhere else. (And of course, considering what I use my computer for, that paragraph is completely on-topic :p .)


ETA:

from Flouish:
I wouldn't have dreamt of going into the Sean-Sam thread to say what I thought about the book--not just because I never post there but also because it would seem disrespectful to those who do and who are presumably big fans of his.
Yes, that's how I've felt, too.

I do think the disappointment a lot of Elijah (or Frodo) fans felt at how much was not in the book has kept our conversation here going for quite a while, along with the lack of any other news, as Achila pointed out.
I think both Sean and Elijah said so much about their friendship and "being like brothers," etc., while the movies were being made, that the lack was unexpected. -- But, then, I don't think "being like brothers" necessarily means an extremely close relationship.

But I have been wondering for a long time why the Sean-Sam thread never had this kind of conversation about the book, even in positive terms. Does anybody know? I can't imagine that if Elijah wrote a book this thread would be as quiet as that one has been whether we liked the book or hated it. It's very curious.
Narya's probably right in that we do tend to "discuss" and "analyze" things more than a lot of the other threads, and many of those threads have more of an emotional slant. Not that there's anything wrong with either way, or that one is better than the other, but I think there is a different approach to things--which is why a lot of people have dual (or triple :) ) citizenship.

So, is anyone up for a deep, analytical discussion of TAMTSNBN :p ? Let's just hope that Elijah's missteps will continue to be ones we can at least laugh about.

Just popping in to say my Photo Site is back up but at a new url....

http://ewnow.photosite.com/ :)

On my LJ, "Primula Baggins" just told me that she's been in contact with Dougie Brimson and that an announcement about US/UK distribution would be forthcoming. It looks like a May or June 2005 release! WHEE!

Achila – Great news about Hooligans. Is that what they’re going to call it? It’s a much better title than The Yank, IMHO.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed thoughts on Radio Flyer. I got the DVD when it came out, and watched it on a weekend when I was really too busy and tired to pay close attention to it. I found the mix of child abuse and fantasy elements quite disturbing, and said to myself, “It will be a while before I watch THIS one again.” Now that I’ve read Faculty members’ comments, I’m definitely going to take another look at it. (I did assume that Bobby escaped and lived, BTW. I’m with Skater girl – couldn’t have stood the idea that he died.)

ceefour: Definitely Janice for Legolas! As for your comment that:

At the rate I'm going, I'll be "grown-up" by the time I'm 80.
What’s the old joke? We all have to grow old, but we DON’T have to grow up! That’s certainly my philosophy.

The other day, one of my coworkers asked to borrow my RotK DVD (she had never seen the movie, and just got the urge). So before turning it over to her, I watched it again (the “abridged” version; i.e., I just looked at all the scenes that have Frodo or the Rohirrim). There are two Frolijah moments where I haven’t decided how to interpret his expressions; so I’d be interested in what other people have to say (you’ve probably discussed this before, but not while I’ve been here):

At the coronation, when everyone bows to the hobbits -- What is he thinking? Is he stunned by all this? Is he too heartsick to be able to appreciate it? Does he feel unworthy? There’s eyebrow action going on, and the nice touch of the open mouth at the end; but I’m not sure what it all means.

On the way to the Grey Havens, when Bilbo asks about the Ring, and says he would like to have seen (or is it held?) the Ring one last time – I’ve always assumed that Frodo was thinking the same thing. He seems (to me) to be staring into some great emptiness – the void left by the Ring, and his ordeal? And then when he closes his eyes and leans his head against Bilbo’s, that seems partly tenderness, but also complete, soul-emptied weariness.

tgshaw: I just checked your “RotK Quick Tour” screencaps of this second sequence, in case you had any commentary. You didn’t, but oh lord – he is exceptionally beautiful there! (Did I ever mention that I used to have to mentally slap myself now and then, to remind myself that Elijah does NOT actually have pointy ears? As a friend of mine remarked, “He has the sort of face that almost cries out for pointy ears.”)

(Did I ever mention that I used to have to mentally slap myself now and then, to remind myself that Elijah does NOT actually have pointy ears? As a friend of mine remarked, “He has the sort of face that almost cries out for pointy ears.”)

THAT's why his real ears look so small! :D I've come to love those big pointy ears!

Skater Girl, I just loved your thoughts on "Radio Flyer." my copy is still shrink-wrapped. I'm gonna have to bust it out, next opportunity.

Achila Good news about "Hooligans!" :cool:

I need to look at my Yahoo! alerts, because they never work for me. I'm following the career of one young actress, who had her debut in an independent film this year. I tried to set up alerts for news on her, but all I keep getting is an obituary notice for a lady who founded a cosmetics shop some where way across the country :confused: And I got nothing matching your own result todayfor "Elijah Wood." :confused:

Pelagia, I think the Coronation moment is a mix of surprise, and humility. I like your interpretation of the moment in the cart with Bilbo, but I think he's also horrified that Bilbo still wants the thing, and he's been without longer than Frodo himself. :(

honey!

Before I forget again ... Hi, Alyon! :k :) :haha:

You're right, Flourish, I got you mixed up with someone who might have maybe been going to see Sean. Well, if you find out anything through the grapevine, I'd like to hear it!

Tg, my rule is that, if the computer is more than 4 years old, it's time for an upgrade. If you push it to 7 years, you start running risks that the electronics will break down on you. So if you try to make your computers last (as I do), it's probably time to get a new one. Get the most memory you can, and the fastest processor, and you'll be good for several years. I'm looking forward to getting a flatscreen monitor when I get my next one.

Excellent news about Hooligans, Achila, thank you! We should consult, and try to view it in little Faculty groups, if the travel isn't outrageous. Wouldn't that be great! :p

Excellent news about Hooligans, Achila, thank you! We should consult, and try to view it in little Faculty groups, if the travel isn't outrageous. Wouldn't that be great! :p

I for one would be up for that. I don't like seeing Elijah's films for the first time with hubby or my usual cinema going friend. I don't have a good logical reason for this, but Black and White and Ice Storm have never made it to a hubby viewing, and I only put Bumblebee on recently as background accompaniment when we were doing a jigsaw and not really watching.

Off topic- Both he and I couldn't speak for emotion at the end of Finding Neverland last night - and I have never in 16 years seen him moved to tears by a film. He couldn't undestand my distress at the end of ROTK.

I am enjoying the wonderful conversation, ladies!
Love the Muppets idea, Ceefour :lol: And I've just realized I missed your birthday :o . I'm sorry! Belated Birthday wishes to you!
Apropos Muppets - when I was taking screencaps of Day-O I noticed this Kermitesque Elijah look:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/whiteling/dayo_frogman.jpg

The more I watch Day-O the more I discover charming little details.



I couldn't neither hear the full remark in German, nor lip read the English, but I think you are probably right. I'd love to see a screencap of this frame. It was also one of my favourite moments, along with his line in the car, where he says something like 'You can drive a car - AND you've got wrinkles!'


Here you go. :)
Grace visits the building where her father used to have his office. She's tripping down the memory lane... and in a great stockroom she rediscovers the outmoded carousel (she has just opened the door of the mini-helicopter in which Day-O had been trapped 30 years ago unintentionally by her father. Grace is too much adult to think he would still exist) Here we witness Day-O's appearance "Star treck beaming style" (TM)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/whiteling/dayo_beaming.jpg


Now he is fully visible. The first he says to her is "Du kommst reichlich spät", literally translated with "You are tardy" (well, 30 years is quite a long time :p Day-O had certainly longer to wait for Grace than Frodo for Gandalf). It is far too dark as to see what he was really saying.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/whiteling/dayo_yourelate.jpg



from Skater girlOff topic- Both he and I couldn't speak for emotion at the end of Finding Neverland last night - and I have never in 16 years seen him moved to tears by a film. He couldn't undestand my distress at the end of ROTK.

Sorry for my ignorance, but was is Finding Neverland? It has something to do with Peter Pan, hasn't it?
IMHO it is a crying shame what patriarchy has not only done to women, but to men also. We've had discussions here several times on the topic of "tpyical masculine" behaviour - they are not allowed to show emotions, to cry...etc. And although times have changed, it is not easy to overcome patterns that ruled for centuries, no milleniums. I think many men are yet not connected to their feminine side. My hubby,too, had to learn to feel his emotions and as next step, expressing and talking about his feelings. It was a long way to go. But now he's crying at the end of "Ice Storm", we cried together at the end of RotK....and I am so glad that we can share those feelings.
That's why I am so attracted by Frodo and Elijah - both seem very well connected to their own feminity. :)
(Thanks for listening)

Finding Neverland...I saw a trailer for that yesterday (went to see Manchunian Candidate...hated that movie...too bad, because I'm a big Denzel Washington fan but the movie was too far fetched IMO and too much focussing and playing into the American fear of Terrorism and all what they see as threatening after 9/11)
Finding Neverland is with Johnny Depp, right? It's loosely based on the story of the author behind Peter Pan or am I wrong?

Big fan of mister Depp...so, I'll probably see that one too. :)


Good news about Hooligans/The Yank. :cool:
So, Belgium is still one of the very first countries of release? Anybody want to come see it with me in Brussels or Antwerp or anything?


I'm still reading the book on Robbie Williams (Feel). It's taking me a long time because I keep putting it down and picking it up again after a while.
His world and his way of thinking is so far away from my own world and that makes it very difficult to read.
He talks about his songs and his lyrics. Those are the lyrics of an alcoholic and a depressive. He adds that he has mental problems and admits that he's not that mature at times (mentally...he's still very young at times).
He concludes that if you really, really understand his lyrics...you probably have a similar state of mind: that of an alchoholic, that of a depressive.

That's probably why I'm fascinated by him but I can't understand him. I can't get through his state of mind. It's too far away from my own mind.

Anyway...he talks about his fans. It bothered me why he talks down to them. He hates them. Later in the book, the author (Chris Heath) sits down with him to talk about this. He says that he loves to entertain people so that people can come to his concert to have a great time or they go out to buy his records and they go home to enjoy his music. He loves that part of it: making people feel good, giving them a great time.
He has a problem with 'fans' as in 'fanatics'.
When people ask his autograph on the streets: he sometimes gives it but not all the time. When he says no to something they want, they are offended.
Who does he think he is anyway? Doesn't he realise that he's this famous and rich because of us? Because we buy his records and go to his concerts? He owes us
He gives the same answer Russell Crowe gives.
No, I owe you nothing of the sort. The only thing I do owe the public is to give my best possible performance as an actor. Besides that, I owe you nothing. You don't go to the mansion of the owner of the supermarket, where you do your shopping, to ask him to do stuff for you because he owes you? He lives in this mansion because you - his customer - do your shopping at his supermarket.

Anyway, it's a great book to read even if I don't understand him at all at times.
Somebody in here mentionned Michael J. Fox's autobiography. I really liked him before but that book really endeared him to me even further. That book was so well written. He seems like a great man!

--------
Whiteling, great screen caps!

-------
Talking about men, still having difficulties showing their emotions.

bear with me for a couple of seconds....I'm going to talk about idol Belgium
My favorite (Wouter, he's 22 or something) is an emotional sort of person. He has ADHD by the way (but that's besides the point...he had a big, big struggle controling that). I see him embrace men (the other guys from idol), kiss them on the cheeks, look male interviewers straight into their eyes (he's a natural flirter...he does it with men and women...great to watch), embrace women. It's fantastic to watch.
Now, he has a girlfriend so he's straight (could be bi of course but that's not important) but still...because of the way he acts around men (not being afraid to hug them), some people assume that he's gay.
I hate that. Why do so many people think that you must be gay as a man if you don't have any problem hugging men?
It's the same thing as with some of the LOTR men. Just because they like to hug each other and so on...they must be gay? (note: not that there's any problem with being gay of course...that isn't my point...I just hate that automatic connection a lot of people make: a guy is seen hugging other men? Right, he's gay)
I find that sad.
Last show, he ended up in tears out of relief that he was still in it but also because of the guy who had to leave it and who has become a big friend of his. Afterwards, a journalist asked him why he was so emotional.
That's so natural for women but when a man does it...they ask why.
He said that he has trouble letting go of people he loves a lot. (the other guy who was sitting in the studio with him was beaming after that showing of affection)
So, he's a big sweetheart with a big voice...I admit, I'm still hooked on idol Belgium. Sad, I know

Finding Neverland is with Johnny Depp, right? It's loosely based on the story of the author behind Peter Pan or am I wrong?

Johnny Depp? JOHNNY DEPP :eek: ! Well, than it's a must see for me too. :)



Good news about Hooligans/The Yank. :cool:
So, Belgium is still one of the very first countries of release? Anybody want to come see it with me in Brussels or Antwerp or anything?

I'd love to come, Moondancer!
If time and money allow, I'm game :) :k .

Johnny Depp? JOHNNY DEPP :eek: ! Well, than it's a must see for me too. :)
Yep, and he's looking mighty fine in the trailer. :D


I'd love to come, Moondancer!
If time and money allow, I'm game
Really? Fantastic! :k

[QUOTE=whiteling]Johnny Depp? JOHNNY DEPP :eek: ! Well, than it's a must see for me too. :)

Yep. It is Johnny Depp. Looking and acting superbly. He manages to look mature and sexy one moment, and then almost boyish the next. At first his Scottish accent irritated me - not because it was bad, but just because it didn't fit the Johnny Depp I am familiar with. Bit like seeing Elijah dubbed wrongly into German. By the end it was no longer an issue though. Reading comments on IMDB, it seems it is quite usual for most of the audience to end up in tears. Most of it is not sad at all, and it was so much better than I had ever imagined it would be. Although I find him really attravice looking, I have never really been a Depp fan, probably because, unlike Elijah, he seems never to be letting any of his true self show through. I would feel very, very nervous if I ever were to meet him.

Thank you, Whiteling, for the birthday wishes and the screencaps. Did you notice when Day-O says, "You are tardy, " he has his arms folded across his chest?! Another thank you for your drawings; they are beautiful.

Pelagia, at the coronation, I think Frodo feels all those emotions simultaneously: surprise ( at the acknowledgment of the King and crowd), sadness and unworthiness. He looks, to me, as if he would rather be anywhere else but there. As for the scene in the cart, you used "emptiness" and "soul-emptied" to describe Frodo. Perhaps the writers were trying to convey this, "It is gone forever and all is dark and empty."

Moondancer, that is a very interesting idea about how Robbie Williams and Russell Crowe feel they owe their fans nothing other than their best performances. Fandom gets fuzzy because of TV, videos, and DVDs because these images are in your house-your bedroom or your living room. People, being people, make connections. A false intimacy develops, and we feel we know these people but we really don't. I think zkgrumpy has said this before.

That said, I think, based on what I have seen and read, Elijah Wood's role in "Everything is Illuminated" seems perfect for him. :rolleyes: I have started reading it; Jonathan Safran Foer has recently arrived at the train station. I can hear EW speaking JSF lines quite clearly in my head. :eek:

:lol: at "this girl Unbelievable."

Hello to all the other fine Ladies of The Faculty! C4

Good morning, all,

This' another little tidbit in the never-ending rumor mill surrounding the Ian Curtis movie, "These Days" -- it's an excerpt of an interview with the producer, Todd Eckert, responding to a question about Jude Law playing the role (note the date -- this was around the time Elijah's name started to pop up on Joy Division message boards and the like):


Todd Eckert, Producer of the forthcoming Joy Division movie faces Poptones.co.uk's QUESTIONS OF DOOM
Sep 07, 2004 - 2:26:03 PM


What do you think of the public criticism of Jude Law playing the part of Ian?

Jude Law is not playing Ian Curtis. We think Jude is an amazing talent as an actor but he is simply too old too play Ian. Jude's thirty-two and Ian was twenty-three when he died. That particular rumour started when we were doing some television and radio press in Manchester for the movie. We were asked repeatedly about who was going to be playing Ian and told them we were not at liberty to disclose the information at that time. People took the interview and made their own inferences, despite the fact we'd not ever mentioned Jude's name. Then someone asked HJooky (I think this' Joy Division's bass player -- A) what he thought and it kind of snowballed. But no, Jude is not going to be playing Ian.


Stay tuned! (oh, and btw -- this movie will be filming next summer, in Manchester)

Sounds like a great idear, Moondancer!!!

Like Whitling sade if only i can come up with the money and the
time it woulde be very funny,too see you all!!!
And the movie!!!! With ladies who feels ,maybe not the same, but
at least know a good actor when they see on!!

Thank you Achila for all the good news!!!

Off topic!!
We are having a terrible winterstorm here to day!!
The electricie cómes and goes! And in some part
of south sweden the snow have caust kaos in the traffic
but so far were i live the snow has stayed away!!!


love you all/wood

ETA: Seen at the top of the screen: "Do you think Elijah Wood is gay? Tell us what you think for a prize!"

Oh good grief. :rolleyes:

As for the scene in the cart, you used "emptiness" and "soul-emptied" to describe Frodo. Perhaps the writers were trying to convey this, "It is gone forever and all is dark and empty."

:::: sniffle ::::

The impression that I got was of two incredibly hurt and weary hobbits. In the book, when Gollum reached out to touch Frodo when he was sleeping in Sam's arms (on the Stairs, I believe), that's how Tolkien described him - as an old, weary hobbit. I thought that Frodo resting his head on Bilbo's was incredibly touching. :::: blub blub ::::

I think that the bow, and the hobbitses reactions, was a bow (and shortcut) by PJ and co. to the Field of Cormallen. I vaguely remember Frodo and Sam having very red faces while the company was yelling "Hail the Halflings! Praise them with great praise!"

I think we talk so much about Sean's book because Sean worked so closely with The One Lad for so long, and we get glimpses, however distorted, of Elijah that way. We talk analytically because we're so wonderfully smart, intelligent, clever, insightful, etc. etc...

I wouldn't have dreamt of going into the Sean-Sam thread to say what I thought about the book--not just because I never post there but also because it would seem disrespectful to those who do and who are presumably big fans of his.
I always think that it's amazing that people cannot tolerate anything negative said about their favorite show/actor/lad/hobbit/whatever. I don't think that negative opinions of the book are disrespectful. I may or may not agree with what's said, and I may have a different perspective that I post about, but disrespectful? :eek:

I don't think it's unreasonable for actors/artists/whoever to cash in on the LotR interest. The entertainment industry is a notoriously unstable way to make a living, and as Sean well knows, there can be long dry spells between successes, and he's got a mortgage. More power to them. :)

... time for reflection would certainly have helped,
I suspect that Sean doesn't do *anything* without reflection. If one can trust his public statements (and his mom's), he's spent his entire life analyzing and reflecting on his surroundings just to maintain some illusion of control while living with someone who's out of control. So I believe that the book was exactly what he wanted it to be. Not perfect - in his own eyes, I doubt that anything that Sean does is quite good enough - but still, basically the story he wanted to tell. And I think the title, "There and Back Again", has a number of meanings to it - not only to Middle Earth and back, but his journey to - oh, I don't know - call it instability - and back again, his constant journeys to self-doubt and back again; the complex, off-kilter mass of emotion, talent, insecurity, and grandiosity that is Sean Astin. If fans took the title to mean just "My journey to Middle-Earth and back" and nothing else, and are disappointed as a result, that's not Sean's error.

But if WE are all struck by how off-the-wall some of his sentiments and revelations are, I am quite sure his editor, if not his co-writer, must have been too--that doesn't take any time at all. If that were the case, the scenario I imagine is that one or the other of them brought this to his attention and he said, "This is the story *I* want to tell" or words to that effect, and they had to let it go as is in order for the book to hit the fall bookselling season when fans had a little cash between the two DVDs (no accident, that).
I disagree with this scenario. Sean's book wouldn't have made it to print if the editors had strong problems with it. I also think that editors don't really restrain content in a case like this - as someone else said, dirt sells. I don't think that any controversy is an accident, and I think Sean knows perfectly well how off-the-wall his thoughts are. I really think that Sean, his co-author, editors, publishers knew exactly what was going out to the public. I wouldn't be surprised if The One Lad saw it before publication (being a major player in the book and all, and presumably a close friend of SA's), and said something like "Wow, cool - go for it". :)

~grumpy(best quote from installation of new kitchen sink yesterday: "Wow, I've never seen a gas pipe used for a water pipe before!") :eek:

Wow, go away (from a thread) for two days and look what happens! I've just done an "ad" for your thread, by the way, over at the TORC thread. We are such no-nothings compared to you all.

Moondancer, you were talking about a biography of Robbie Williams (I am embarrassed that I don't know who he is; but I didn't know who Ian Curtis was, either, though I would be THRILLED if E.W. was cast, from what you all have said)...

Anyway...he talks about his fans. It bothered me why he talks down to them. He hates them.
(...)
He gives the same answer Russell Crowe gives.

No, I owe you nothing of the sort. The only thing I do owe the public is to give my best possible performance as an actor. Besides that, I owe you nothing. You don't go to the mansion of the owner of the supermarket, where you do your shopping, to ask him to do stuff for you because he owes you? He lives in this mansion because you - his customer - do your shopping at his supermarket. (My emphases)
Russell Crowe said this? I take his point. Technically, he is right. But he should save his breath to cool his porridge. The relationship between an actor and "his product" cannot be compared to that of a business owner and his product. It is a silly comparison, in my opinion. When I go to the supermarket, there is no explicit relationship between shelves full of food and the person who owns and manages the business. I don’t look at a carton of milk and say, “I sure would like to meet this carton of milk!" I might want to meet whoever was behind putting this milk in the dairy case -- but even then, who? The dairy man? The stock clerk? The truck driver? The accountant? Probably not the store owner, the least personally involved member of the carton-of-milk-producing team.

Actors, even more than singers or dancers, are necessarily identified – in a very personal way – via their minds, emotions and physical bodies -- with what they "produce," which are dramatic performances. Of course, what every performer creates in a performance is discreet from his (or her) private self. Yet, if he are convincing in his performance, it really is created out of the stuff of his very being -- his thoughts and feelings as experienced through his own body -- even his most intimate personal experiences are used, upon which he draws to produce the performance. (I know, I know, you’re going to tell me Elijah, the exception, doesn't use his personal experiences; he just "becomes" the character.) But almost any other actor does work out of his own store of personal emotional experience. ;)

Every artist works through a medium (or media), but the more that medium is one's own self, the more intimate is the relationship between the artist and what the artist produces. In his own mind, and definitely in the minds of those who view (or hear) what the artist produces, this is so. Musicians have the intermediary of an instrument; singers and dancers seem even more intimately connected, because their instruments are bodily. They, of course pour their thoughts and emotions (and souls?) into their creative efforts, too, but with acting, it really does seem to raise that marriage of the person and the person’s art to exponentially greater levels of perceived intimacy. Some actors go out of their way to portray characters that look and sound very different from their private selves, so the connection is more veiled. This helps dissociate them from their portrayals, personally in the eyes of their beholders. But many actors play roles “dressed” in their own easily recognizable voices and bodies. The more this is so, the more identified the actor is with his portrayal, in the viewer’s mind.

It is silly, in my view, for an actor (especially one who does not play extremer “character” parts, which serve better to “disguise” the actor as a person) to behave as though they are completely divorced from what they produce, in their own eyes, or in the eyes of those who view/experience their work.

An author, even, may pour her most intimate experiences and thoughts into her work, but, if she uses a pen name, fans of her work need never make the connection from the work to her, as a person. But an actor does not have a "pen name." In ways few other artists must, they put themselves on the line, intimately, whether they will acknowledge it or not.

Having said that, I would agree that actors do not "owe" their fans the right to invade their personal lives. But they are fools -- and unrealistic -- if they think it wrong or surprising that their fans should want to know about them personally. A really good actor allows himself to be "known," in a real way, even if it is oblique, when he portrays a character. This gives audiences the false impression they have had a chance to know the actor as a person, it is true. Yet, to produce the performance, the actor really has had to allow himself to be "known," intimately, at some level, even if through the prism of a fictional character. That is the “intimate knowledge” the audience picks up on, even if they misapply it.

Actors who know how to handle their fans graciously, demonstrate their understanding of what really pertains, as they try to deal with it wisely and sympathetically. "Fandom happens." Actors shouldn’t be surprised by it, nor take umbrage at it.

Oh, I'm talking myself into a circle. I suppose that comment really aggravated me. It is ungracious but more, unrealistic.

~ Mechtild

Mech, wonderful post. I've heard some really nice first-hand stories about how cordially Patrick Stewart deals with fans, and I think that, like the rest of us, some actors choose to deal otherwise and thereby cut their nose off to spite their face.

Sean's book--now, zk, I really MUST find out what I can about it. Of course I don't think the publisher would have put the book out if there were real problems with it. But even in my own line of work (which is not celebrity bios, I freely admit), we sometimes have to be pragmatic and let something go to press that could, in an ideal world, have been better. Tempis fugit, money talks, etc.

All I'm guessing at here is that someone saw the flaws in the book, because that's what objective readers like editors are supposed to do and they're really obvious, and pointed them out, and someone else, my guess is Sean, said, Well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I'd be surprised to find out that Elijah saw a pre-pub copy. One reason our discussion here is still going on is that he isn't a major player in the book, to our disappointment. What he thinks of it, I have no clue.

"Disrespectful"--By that I meant that if I suddenly showed up in the other thread to discuss the book it would certainly look as if my only reason for dropping in was to upset everyone who might reasonably be expected to have liked it, by saying a lot of negative things about it and disappearing. Not very sporting behavior in an Internet community, call it what you will.

Actors who know how to handle their fans graciously, demonstrate their understanding of what really pertains, as they try to deal with it wisely and sympathetically. "Fandom happens." Actors shouldn’t be surprised by it, nor take umbrage at it.

Well said as usual, Mech. And I would also add that were it not for fans, these actors would not get the opportunities to play the roles they do. That's not to say that they should bend over backwards to invite their fans into their livingrooms, but a little humility and gratefulness isn't a lot to ask for. Of course, not everyone's a Peter Jackson, who intrinsically understood that without the fans' blessing (at least SOME of the time), The Lord of the Rings would've been a failure. He and Fran and Philippa were already Ringers themselves, and lovingly included their audience in their decisions -- they never HAD to do that, but they obviously wanted to, and knew the value of doing that.

Elijah, too, knows what it means to be a fan. He can turn into an adoring fanboy himself, on a dime, so he tends to be more sympathetic than other actors often are.

Well, I don't agree but that's fine :) :)

Robbie Williams is a singer from the UK. Very famous in most parts of the world except in the US (I think).

Robbie Williams and Russell Crowe really do have a crazy sort of fame, I think.
You see the craziest things of them both in the press. Lots of it exaggerated because their fame is 'bigger than life'. Not every celebrity has their sort of fame.
I'm a big fan of Crowe, the actor and I'm a fan of Robbie, the entertainer.
Having read the book of Robbie (almost finished), I don't think I could be friends with him and I assume that it would also be difficult with Crowe. I could be wrong but their way of doing things (or how I perceive it from a distance) seems to be too different than my own way of living, but I would love to sit down and have a good conversation with them both. That does not stop me from enjoying their films/music/concerts. I know people who can't be a fan of somebody they don't really like. For me, it's a nice bonus but it doesn't need to be like that. For example: I'm a bit of a fan of the music from Oasis (British band) but I do not like the Gallagher brothers AT ALL (based on the impressions I have of them, that is)
I really can't compare those two (Williams and Crowe) with Elijah because I have never ever seen a celebrity be so understanding and kind to his fans as Elijah. :) I don't know if his fame can be compared to the sort of fame Williams and Crowe have but it reminds me of an interview with Paul McCartney when he was asked about Michael Jackson and the sort of crazy fame he has. (an interview at the end of the '80s, I think). Paul said that he walks around in his home town and in the city and people usually give him space and don't bother him too much. It all depends on the way you behave and present yourself. It's a choice. If you act in a 'special' way...people will respond to you in a 'special' way. If you send off messages that you are a person just like them, they will treat you in a more 'normal' way (whatever that is). That reminds me of how Elijah seems to behave towards 'fans'.

However, I do think that celebs don't need to sign their lifes away when they become famous. Reading the book, it's amazing how Robbie is confronted with fans, press, other celebs,...lots of people who want a 'piece' of him. Sometimes, he just needs some peace and quiet.
Wherever he goes in the UK or in Europe,...he's always confronted by fans who 'want' something from him and he's a favorite target for the trash press. They all want something from Robbie, the 'celebrity' and this has nothing to do with Robert Williams, the man. That's a crazy situation for somebody who admits not having the strongest mindset.
Robbie talks about giving autographs. He says that it's work for him. When he's walking on the streets in his free time and he's confronted with fans asking autographs. It's part of his job. Suppose that clients from work are constantly surrounding your house, phoning you up, asking you to sign stuff in the streets,... When you stop working and you go home, you not only need to relax your body but also your mind.
He needs some peace of mind and freedom from the crazy sort of fame and it does not work if people 'bother' him all the time.

About the supermarket comparison: Robbie says that he offers 'a service', just like supermarkets. He makes music. If you like it, you buy the music (and not the entire person who makes the music). If you don't like it, fine...don't buy the music.


I quite agree with Robbie and Russell, though. If I would see them and I would find the courage to approach them and ask for an autograph (not something I would do easily, certainly not if they're not 'working' but having a meal with their partner or something), I would understand if they said no.
That has nothing to do with their work as an actor/singer for me and I do separate their private life from their public life.

Flourish, we meet again in a thread. Obviously, I agree, that with celebrity comes fans.

But Moondancer, you point out an interesting thing, which is, how differently one fandom can behave, compared with another. When I lived in NYC, John Lennon and Yoko Ono could walk around the neighborhood and no one bothered them (until he was shot -- by an insane fan); they were local fixtures. People respected their privacy. But, that was part of the New York attitude, too. New Yorkers are too egalitarian, a lot of them, to single out famous people to fawn over, "just because." As if to say, "Who do they think they are? I'm as good as that guy!" But that was decades ago; it may be very different now.

Your wrote,

Robbie talks about giving autographs. He says that it's work for him. When he's walking on the streets in his free time and he's confronted with fans asking autographs. It's part of his job. Suppose that clients from work are constantly surrounding your house, phoning you up, asking you to sign stuff in the streets,... When you stop working and you go home, you not only need to relax your body but also your mind.
This is a very good point. Dealing with fans in public sounds tiring to me, too. But, I think it's "part of the deal," however draining it is. Like being a pastor. A pastor friend told me that his parishioners considered his time at their houses, when they have invited him for dinner, or at weddings receptions or rehearsal dinners to which he is invited, as "off-time" for him, as if they were occasions for him to enjoy, sheerly as social pleasures. But, from his point of view, they are all part of his work day. He is "on duty," as a pastor, in his public office as a minister, at all these functions, so how could it be considered recreational?

I don't know how many celebrities actually enjoy giving time to their fans; probably not many. But it also depends on the fans. Nice, polite fans are surely easier to be kind to than hyper, grabby ones. From what you have said, Williams and Crowe draw the latter to a higher degree. Although I am too clueless about all modern music to know a famous music person when I hear his name ( :rolleyes: -- DOH!), I do know who Russell Crowe is, thank heaven. I think he's a fantastic actor, and have seen most of his films. No, I am not his "fan," nor could I imagine being one. I just appreciate him as an actor. So, he'd have got, in me, just what he wanted. He's just not the "fan" type. I am surprised that he has a big, crazed bunch of fans out there, actually, though I know gossip columns love to diss him and tell tales about his rowdy this or that. But that's not the same as having a devoted fan following.

It would seem that if a celebrity exuded "do not approach me," no one would come up to them, except the most brazen. Maybe that's why such "go away!" stars seem to experience the most unpleasant encounters with their fans. Only the most desparate and shameless will crash their privacy in order to do so.

Just a thought. :)

But Moondancer, you point out an interesting thing, which is, how differently one fandom can behave, compared with another. When I lived in NYC, John Lennon and Yoko Ono could walk around the neighborhood and no one bothered them (until he was shot -- by an insane fan); they were local fixtures. People respected their privacy. But, that was part of the New York attitude, too. New Yorkers are too egalitarian, a lot of them, to single out famous people to fawn over, "just because." As if to say, "Who do they think they are? I'm as good as that guy!" But that was decades ago; it may be very different now.

Nope -- it's still pretty much like that. When in the city recently with Flourish and honeyelf, I saw Tim Curry crossing the street at the same time we were (they didn't notice him, btw). Now, Tim is one of my all-time favorite performers and anyone else might have made a big deal of it. But I'm a Native New Yorker (though I don't live there anymore) and as Flourish and honey can attest, I kept my response as neutral as possible until he passed by (after which I went, "Oh my god, do you know who that was?!"). He did notice me recognize him, though, and we exchanged smiles, but that was it. Don't know exactly why this is the case for New Yorkers, though. Maybe the fact that we see famous people all the time -- you tend to get a little used to it.

I think the circumstance has a lot to do with a celebrity's receptiveness to fans. If he or she is at a con, signing autographs, their warm interaction is expected, and the celeb knows that. Some of the fans may get a little "squee-ish" and that's tolerable. But if fans approach him or her while they're having dinner in a restaurant (which is unforgivably rude), you would expect a totally different reaction, and rightfully so.


ETA: BTW, I found out why Tim Curry's in New York -- he's going to be in Spamalot, the play based on Monty Python and the Holy Grail that opens in the spring. I am SO there!

I remember being really impressed, Achila, that you recognized somebody famous. I never do. And points to you for being so coolly "New York" about it, too, even though you were clearly excited. That whole incident was such fun.

Well, in the short time since my last post, I found the address of the person I knew at the publishing house, wrote, and got a reply. He knows nothing about Sean's book, so speculate away! I think I'm finally done with the subject. *Narya gives a huge sigh of relief* ;)

Russell Crowe fans...a very devoted bunch.

I used to visit a message forum. Met some very nice and very friendly fans there. A percentage of them just goes overboard and crazy and there were regular, ugly fights with other forums.
Very weird.
I lost interest in that message forum because of those forum wars and during the time Russell's son was born and there was this big discussion about paparazzi.
Russell refused to show his son, let him be photographed and he hated the fact that his wife was 'stalked' by paparazzi when she was pregnant and just out with her friends or something.
Some fans really wanted to see the baby pictures, regardless of the paparazzi and they argued that he needs to live with them. He might as well give in because the paparazzi will hunt them down anyway and besides...the fans want to see the boy. That's the price of fame. Let his son be photographed.
I remember writing on that forum that I would love to see the pictures of his baby boy also but I respect the fact that he doesn't want it. His boy doesn't have anything to do with his life as an actor. So,that's why I stopped visiting that forum. That's where I draw the line. You don't force a celebrity to give up his private life just because you're a fan and he owes you.

Williams lives in the US most of the time, because he's not famous there so it's much easier to walk around in his free time. Only trouble is that the paparazzi follow him even in the US. In the book, he talks about one time, when he was just at a sports game somewhere - just a guy, out with his friends at a sports game. The paparazzi followed him, surrounded him and started taking his picture like crazy (lots of flashing lights in his face, pushing their camera in his face,...) with a lot of surprised Americans around that group, who were trying to figure out who the hell the guy in the middle is. So, he can't even escape it in the US, but at least...there are less fans there. He says that this is why he does not want to break the American market because he will lose that bit of freedom if he's famous there.

The British gossip press is known for playing the game very hard and it is especially tough when you're one of their favourite targets and Crowe and Williams happen to be just that. Probably because are they are both "bad boys" ;) at times. It's more difficult to come up with juicy articles about somebody who seems to lead a more quiet life as Tom Hanks for example.


Elijah Wood is a different sort of celebrity than Williams and Crowe. If he started to behave more wildly in public,...the press would start to see him as a good target and he would become hunted by them as well, I should think.

When I lived in NYC, John Lennon and Yoko Ono could walk around the neighborhood and no one bothered them (until he was shot -- by an insane fan); they were local fixtures. People respected their privacy. But, that was part of the New York attitude, too. New Yorkers are too egalitarian, a lot of them, to single out famous people to fawn over, "just because." As if to say, "Who do they think they are? I'm as good as that guy!" But that was decades ago; it may be very different now.

I suspect it's much the same as it was, and I suspect it's why Elijah Wood, from what he's said, loved it so much. Besides that there was, like, *weather*. ;) ;) He could slap on a backpack, go to stores, and although paparrazi followed him, I suspect the majority of fans just let him alone. BTW, I have a friend who grew up in Brooklyn; her favorite expression is something along the lines of "So what does he know from nuthin' "? :)

I don't know how many celebrities actually enjoy giving time to their fans; probably not many.
I would think that there are times when they don't mind, and times when they want to be left alone. The times when they don't mind, they sign a few autographs, or shake a few hands. Times when they mind seem to sometimes end in somebody getting punched in the nose. :eek:


But it also depends on the fans. Nice, polite fans are surely easier to be kind to than hyper, grabby ones. It makes me angry that so many of those trying to get autographs turn around and make a profit from them. I don't blame these guys for shutting down at that kind of thing. There's a big difference, too, between recognizing someone and then hobbling by ;) ;), or, like some actor (or someone) did when EW walked into a restaraunt where the other celeb. was giving an interview: "HEY, MAN, YOU ROCK!" :) :) (Does that count as squeeing if it were a fan?)


From what you have said, Williams and Crowe draw the latter to a higher degree. Familiarity breeds contempt. Think of the nose-dive we've seen in some fans in their opinion of Sean Astin after he laid his soul bare in his book.

It would seem that if a celebrity exuded "do not approach me," no one would come up to them, except the most brazen. Good heavens, they're *actors*! If anyone could portray "do not approach; I bite", or become part of the furniture, it would be those guys. I remember reading an interview with Harrison Ford, where two women were walking toward him. The interviewer said that his whole demeanor changed; he got the "do not approach" thing and they didn't approach. I also remember a documentary about Marilyn Monroe, where a friend said that they were walking down the street one day, and MM asked, "Do you want to see me turn it on?" And in a wink, this unnoticed woman became Marilyn Monroe, and everyone suddenly recognized her.

~grumpy (Oh, heck! I'd better get home! Smallville is on! Tom Welling! SQUEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!) ;) ;)

Interesting discussion of fandom, celebrity rights, etc. I agree with Moondancer that:
You don't force a celebrity to give up his private life just because you're a fan and he owes you.
I was thinking about this in connection with the pictures that someone posted a few days ago, of Elijah waiting in line for tickets. I don’t know whether they were taken by a fan or by a (whatever the singular of “paparazzi” is – or IS that the singular??), or how close the photographer was to him. The first picture showed him in profile, but in the other two, IIRC, he seemed to have deliberately turned his face away from the camera, and to have lowered his head a bit. It was rather sad, as if he were quietly trying to get away from this person. When you consider EJW’s reputation for taking time with fans, and giving autographs and photo ops, it seems rather rude and intrusive for someone to go for something like these pix.

Going back to earlier posts, honeyelf wrote:
I've come to love those big pointy ears!
I’ve been meaning to do some research on ears in LotR. It struck me one time, when watching the farewell hugs at the Grey Havens, that Frodo has especially pretty ears. Sam’s are less dainty, and some hobbits’ ears (such as Bilbo’s) seem almost horizontal on top, rather than tapering to an elegant point as Frodo’s do. Even Galadriel’s ears aren’t as nice. Not that I’m biased.

ceefour wrote:
As for the scene in the cart, you used "emptiness" and "soul-emptied" to describe Frodo. Perhaps the writers were trying to convey this, "It is gone forever and all is dark and empty."
That’s the line I had in mind – couldn’t remember the exact words from the book.

And zkgrumpy wrote, about the same scene:
The impression that I got was of two incredibly hurt and weary hobbits. . . . I thought that Frodo resting his head on Bilbo's was incredibly touching. :::: blub blub ::::
Oh, definitely blub. I pretty much cry from “You bow to no one” until the end of the movie (except for the return-home/Green-Dragon/wedding scenes, which allow me to replenish the Kleenex supply).

I second Mariole's suggestion of "small Faculty groups" gathering to see Hooligans. All in the name of scholarship, of course.

Off topic to wood: Hope your terrible weather improves! Or has winter set in to stay, over there?

Achila, I think what you have reported about New Yorkers and their ability to keep a distance from celebrities is accurate, for when I was there. I think there was even a pride in it -- "See? We can control ourselves among the rich and famous. We are not hicks." When I would be out walking, if we saw a famous person being accosted for autographs -- "Tourists!" we would say to each other, rolling our eyes. But I wasn't a fan, then. And I was young and intolerant. :D

Now, you point out, Moondancer....

Elijah Wood is a different sort of celebrity than Williams and Crowe. If he started to behave more wildly in public,...the press would start to see him as a good target and he would become hunted by them as well, I should think.
Here is a very true thing. EW just doesn't have a rowdy enough personal life to attract the attention of the usual hoard of story/pic-hungry rude press people. (From all that you have related, it is press people who are the bane of a celebrity's existence, not fans.)

Unlike I was in my young NY days, I would feel very differently, now, about approaching Elijah Wood. Not anyone else, probably. Just him. Not only am I a fan, I am a very grateful fan. On my knees, am I (nothing prurient, this time :p ) in gratitude for his work in LotR, as well as for his graciousness, personally, as an ensemble cast member, and as a hard-working, faithful public voice for the whole project. Seriously, folks. I am so glad they cast him, and that it worked out so well. That's not the only reason I would dare to approach him, as a fan. As this recent series of posts has pointed out, there are some celebrities who are warmer and more indulgent towards their fans than others. I would approach Elijah Wood, and not someone else, because I would know beforehand that he is approachable. I know that he would not brush off a well-behaved, appreciative fan. (I can be that, honestly.) Since I wouldn't be bothering him at dinner (unless he was eating a hotdog from the street vendor), or bursting in on a romantic carriage ride around Central Park, I would feel assured he would treat me kindly.

P.S. Moondancer, I am surprised to hear, still, that Russell Crowe has a fan base so gung-ho. Not that he doesn't deserve a ton of acclaim, but, well, just because he seems so serious and -- yes -- unapproachable.

Edited to add, because we simul-posted:

zkgrumpy, you seem to know the "New York spirit" very well! Pelagia, I hang my head before you. I saw those pics of EW buying tickets on this thread. One of them was the first fetching shot I'd seen of him in months. I saved it. (Mea culpa! *slink, slink, slink*) But at least I didn't interrupt him during dinner or his shower to get it (vicariously speaking).

Russell Crowe and his fanbase...you would be surprised how enthousiastic they can get.

Unapproachable? Well, from what I've read, he's very demanding on himself at work. One director (the director of The Gladiator, I think...am not sure) approached another one who worked with him before because the first one was thinking of working with him but he had heard of his reputation as a 'tough one to work with'.
The director who had worked with him asked the first one if he's prepared to answer a LOT of questions. The first one said yes. Well, good...and you'd better be ready to answer them and actually know the answers. If you're prepared to answer his questions...he's a gem to work with and he will give you a top job. Russell said afterwards that if he takes on a role, he's prepared to fight for his character. If he finds that a certain decision is wrong, he will ask questions.

The fans and Russell Crowe. I can only say what I have read on fansites. It depends where and when you approach him. If you do it in his free time, when he's out in a restaurant or doing some shopping with his family...the chance of receiving 'no' as an answer is very big. If the fan does not accept no...his counterreaction will be fierce.
If he's at work, you don't shout at him when the cameras are rolling. During the shooting of The Beautiful Mind, there was this big incident that was splashed in lots of newspapers and stuff about how rude he is and so on.
What happened was that they were shooting on campus and while he was working, a student was leaning out of the window and trying to attract attention. Russell was annoyed by that and ....to use a British expression: "he flipped the bird" :D
Result: student was offended and journalists who were watching it made a big story out of it.

That's how his bad reputation gets blown out of proportion (not that he's a pussy cat but he's not as bad as most people seem to think)
During his last movie (Cinderella Man...about a boxer), there was another big scandal about him being a prima donna and demanding that he had an extra beside him just to light up his cigarettes because he - big star - wanted somebody else to do that for him. Big story: See how bad he is?
Now, an other actor said that Crowe is a bit of a chain smoker. Problem is that he had boxing gloves on. Ever try to light up a cigarette with those gloves on? That's why there was an extra.
Another story blown out of proportion.

Now, from what I've read...if you approach him on set or near the filmset when the camera's aren't rolling...he's very nice to his fans, sits down to talk, is patient, will take out a lot of his time, is fantastic with kids (I read that a lot),...
As a fan...you just got to know when to approach him.


I think that Crowe makes life tough on himself sometimes a bit by behaving the way he does sometimes. Elijah Wood seems to be more wise in that aspect.

from Achila
ETA: BTW, I found out why Tim Curry's in New York -- he's going to be in Spamalot, the play based on Monty Python and the Holy Grail that opens in the spring. I am SO there!
I wish I were! :p This is so totally cool! Report, please, if you go! :)

from Mechtild
On my knees, am I (nothing prurient, this time :p )
*collapses in a heap on the floor, laughs self into unconsciousness* Yes, dear. I believe you. ;)

Actually, I don't care to approach any celebrity personally. I have a favorite fantasy. I'm in an airport and "celebrity" drops his wallet. I return the wallet. He says, "Thanks." I say, "No problem." There, that is my star-meeting fantasy. Maybe, someday, it will come true. *stakes out bench in the airport*

I will say that I get quite frantic about people photographing stars (or anyone famous) when they are just living their life. But I am a fiercely private person, so I'm probably mapping on extra irritation. A more outgoing person might find it less odious, but for myself, I don't like it. I do enjoy the news snippets that I learn, but the lying-in-wait-stalking-photographs I really don't care for.

Gosh - What a lot there was to catch up on this morning.

Russell Crowe is a good example of how the press can choose to represent someone in a bad light and influence people unfairly. I had never seen a film with him in it, and I just knew of him as a bad tempered film star. I assumed he was a 'star' rather than a good actor, and would never have purposely watched one of his films. Then, fortunately, I saw Master and Commander on account of Billy Boyd being in it. My impression of Crowe as an actor changed, and now I would make an effort to see his films.

I feel very sorry for Robbie Williams. He started out as part of a manufactured boy band, whose management needed and used the press to put these guys out there, and now the press just won't leave him alone. Right from being a teenager, this guy hasn't had chance to find out what 'normal life' means. It must be one hell of a lonely existence for him.

I know Elijah has been quoted as saying he doesn't want to marry till he's in his 30s, but my wish for him would be that he meets that special person and settles down before he ever reaches the level of general public interest that people like Crowe and Williams have had. He might have been the main focus of publicity for the biggest film ever, but there are still many people would would respond to his name with 'Who?' He isn't a saint, he does go out partying and drinking, and once drink is involved there is the opportunity for situations to get out of hand, become fodder for the press, and put an unfavourable image of Elijah into the arena of the general public.

Actually, I don't care to approach any celebrity personally. I have a favorite fantasy. I'm in an airport and "celebrity" drops his wallet. I return the wallet. He says, "Thanks." I say, "No problem."

I feel like you. I always think that by the time people get well known they will start to lump all fans together under one banner. I have felt quite comfortable going up to top skaters at competitions, as it feels like we do have a connection through a shared sport, but I wouldn't have that same connection with someone like Elijah. Most celebrities I would not care to meet anyway, but my fantasy meeting with him would be slightly more involved than Mariole's, and I would end up with him in some situation where I was not put in the position of fan recognising celebrity, and could just interact on a stranger gets chatting to stranger basis.

What ho all.

Submerging from the murky depths as usual with nothing much, but a little tidbit - in the UK, EW is on the front cover of this week's mag TV and Satellite Weekly (I think that's the title, there's about a million of em with slightly different titles!) and there's a small interview inside. I would've bought the thing and transcribed it but from reading it in the shop there's nothing that hasn't been already covered - EW referred to 'The Yank' there, BTW, but who knows how old the interview was. Nothing on Joy Division, alas.

Am loving your posts, beautifully written and thoughtful. I don't know another board that has such eloquent people on it! (Or is it the One Lad that inspires us? :D)

Mechtild, no reason to hang your head. That first picture of Elijah WAS very fetching. What I didn’t like was the other two pix, which gave the impression that he was almost being hunted. I had to laugh, along with Mariole, at your comment:
On my knees, am I (nothing prurient, this time
THIS time??? :lol:

The only “celebrity” I ever approached was Andre Braugher (Pembleton from “Homicide: Life on the Street”), whom I spotted in the Baltimore train station. I found myself walking down to the train platform beside him, and I just told him how much I liked his work on the show, and he said thank you, and that was it.

Skater girl, so-o you don't think behaviors such as, say, bursting into convenience stores demanding adult magazines and chocolate (demanding chocolate I understand :D) and using public fountains as restrooms would create "an unfavorable image of Elijah?" ;) It's interesting some famous people can cruise along under the radar and others are targeted more aggressively.

zk, your interpretaion of the title of Sean's book is perfect.

C4.

Skater girl, so-o you don't think behaviors such as, say, bursting into convenience stores demanding adult magazines and chocolate (demanding chocolate I understand :D) and using public fountains as restrooms would create "an unfavorable image of Elijah?" ;) It's interesting some famous people can cruise along under the radar and others are targeted more aggressively.
C4.

Both these incidents took place before LOTR had been released, so he wasn't famous and there weren't any paparazzi around to cover the events. My point is that as he gets more generally well know as an adult actor, away from the LOTR connection, he probably wouldn't get away with it so easily. ESOTSM is the only one of his post-LOTR movies to be released with any publicity in the UK.

I am never too sure about that porn and chocolate story. If he doesn't remember doing it, who told him about it (Dom the Joker?), and were they sober enough to report it accurately? It didn't come across as all that amusing either when he told it on Leno's show. To me it sounded like the sort of story a 16 year old would tell to try and impress his friends. One of his more cringeworthy moments in my book.

Point taken, Skater girl, that when these events occurred EW was on the far side of the world, and not as well known.

He relays these tales with such utter guilelessness that it is... beguiling!(Although, as you did, I found myself wincing as I watched.) C4

Truly, I put it (i.e., porn and chocolate) and other similar incidents down to "boys will be boys" and leave it at that. He does relate these stories in such a cute manner, though.

But even that, compared to what some celebrities have done, is so mild as to be not newsworthy.

ceefour, Achila, and Skater girl, I had wondered if Elijah didn't mention the porn and chocolate incident (and others that are comparable) simply to beat the press to it. That is, knowing that this or that little embarrassiing bit had begun to go around, E.W. decided to speak first, so the event in question could be reported straight from the horse's mouth, before it had a chance to get mutilated further in the passing around of tales.

Random, there are a lot of interesting posts in this thread, aren't there? That's why I started lurking myself, along with the sheer volume of E.W. related info. that was available here.

Pelagia, I am pleased to know I may again lift up my hoary head (as in, silver-haired; I've got quite a few coming along, now ;) ).

ceefour, Achila, and Skater girl, I had wondered if Elijah didn't mention the porn and chocolate incident (and others that are comparable) simply to beat the press to it. That is, knowing that this or that little embarrassiing bit had begun to go around, E.W. decided to speak first, so the event in question could be reported straight from the horse's mouth, before it had a chance to get mutilated further in the passing around of tales.

Don't mean to chain, but this story was reported in several places (including by Elijah himself in the interview in Premiere magazine) long before he told it on the Tonight show. So I highly doubt this was the motivation. I'm sure it had more to do with Jay saying to him before the show, "So Elijah, tell some funny stories from when you were in New Zealand", or something to that effect, and that was the result. Lij LOVES to get laughs, loves the reaction, so I wouldn't look deeper than that.

Okey dokey, Achila. :)

What I got out of the Porn and Chocolate story, is two guys out goofing around. I immediately got a picture of Elijah and Dom doing and saying that sort of thing, making like an older brother (Dom) taking his little brother (Elijah) out for his first drink, the only difference is, the two guys had more money than the average Dudes out Partying. :lol:

Then I laughed when I realized it was just two guys being For Real, and two good looking guys having to demand It? :lol: How funny is this Anyway.

I also realized that if I saw either one of them out in the street, to not be afraid, because They aren't really Jerks. :D

Another opinion of fame and photos. Do any of you receive the LIFE magazine supplement in your Friday papers? In today's issue is an interview with Johnny Depp and Kate Winslet.

Q: Do you try and protect your children from your fame?
Depp: What's very confusing for them is why there are people who want to take Mommy and Daddy's photograph. So we have a little game where we hide our face in Daddy's shoulder. When we get to the car and we've passed all the photographers, then we can bring our face out. They don't need to be exposed to the absurdity of that frenzy. Lily-Rose asks, "Why do they want to take your picture?" My answer is always the same: "I don't know." Because I don't.

Rikka, how was the concert? C4

Yikes!!!
I sit down with my coffee on a Saturday morning to check into the Faculty and find there are more posts to catch up on than I can. I've been skimming all the posts about Russell Crowe and Robbie Williams and how the famous should deal with fans or what they owe them

Without getting too analytical--because I just really can't on my leisurely Saturday morning--I have to say I fall on the side that the famous don't owe themselves to their fans outside of the job that they do. I don't mean they should be rude or ungrateful. But they do their job. They turn into someone else and they do their job as asked--and I don't think that means they have to forfeit an expectation of privacy. Of course getting into the business they know the reality of it--that right or wrong, their privacy is going to be intruded upon. But they don't owe it to us. Just as any of us who do our job don't have to be open to "clients" or whatever taking our picture in private moments and putting it on the internet.

I'm like Mariole, a privacy nut, and it is what seems the least appealing thing about being famous--having no control over private moments.

(And yep, Mechtild, even having said all that I can't help but look :o --when it's a gorgeous pic of EW standing in line...but I would hope that if it was an unflattering picture--caught in the act of picking one's nose or something (but we know Elijah never does that!)--that people would have some sort of discretion and not post. People with camera phones and quick pics should at least take that responsibilty).

That all said--I like a person who can handle such encounters with grace. I think that is special. Even if a person can't handle a bunch of interactions, it is nice if they can cut them short with a smile and a polite denial--because there is no reason for them, in turn, to be disrespectful to a fan. And some celebrities are just made in a way that they can handle more. Moondancer mentioned Paul McCartney. He is known for looking a fan in the eye and remembering them. After years of the deluge I know of fans that he sees in a crowd a few years after an encounter and he smiles and may even ask them a personal question about something they talked about years ago. I know of one kind of sad case that he was quite worried about, and tried to talk to her about his concerns. I've heard that again and again about him. A minor reporter he may have talked to years ago will be at another press event and Paul will ask about his wife by name. I guess Paul is also blessed with a pretty good memory. ;)

Anyway, obviously a celebrity has to make themselves available at times--they have to promote their products, etc. But I can't blame anyone for just wanting to know they don't have to be on guard all the time with secret eyes on them. Who likes to have to look good all of the time? :eek:

Okay--Another photo posting question. Moondancer tried to answer this for me but I'm still not sure that I get it. I now know how to post photos. But do you have to do it from photobucket (or some such account)?? Am I doing something wrong if I find a pic from another site and use that URL (that I have found when I click properties on the pic)?? Is that hotlinking and if so is that always wrong? or do they lock it out if they don't want you to do that??

Back to Elijah--I do think he seems more and more saavy as I've seen some progression of interviews from Fellowship times thruogh Rotk. He's gotten older, and more practiced. I likely haven't seen as many as some of you, but the difference between the first Letterman interview I saw for FotR, and the last Leno, was pretty big. I can say more on that, but will leave it at the moment. Except that before Lotrs, his interviews were probably done less frequently--and also he was being interviewed as a kid. The hosts treat kids differently. They don't capitalize on the innocent thing and turn it around and make a joke out of a kid's openness, the way they might when you are perceived as an adult actor.
I'm going all over the place now--but I think he was the kid on set--being ushered by his older buddies into a more partying adult (albiet young adult) world of fun. He got initiated into the world of dom and billy humor and pranks and had a blast with it. He got to let loose and have fun. "kids" need to break loose, grow up, and explore a little at some point. Porn and Chocolate was probably a blast for young elijah. Even if it might seem silly to older Elijah (as it might to us older fans). It was probably so exhilarating just to have that kind of fun with some mates--older guys. But I do wonder if in that time he has learned to rein himself in a bit. ON the red carpet, Dom is still mugging while Elijah is poised and calm. I just wonder if he would have made the same disclosures this year as he did when they were all interviewed together for Premiere.

I find it all okay. Didn't all of us have some things we did at that age -- no matter how mature we were--that we would still blush at now??? I do. I was so mature in some ways and yet when I look back there were some pretty naive things I did.

So I am not in the least worried about Elijah's partying and pranks. He really has it in him to pull back and moderate as he needs to. For a such a young person I think he has done exceedingly well at having perspective about what he does or doesn't do. Ultimately, I think Elijah knows it isn't the worst thing he can do to get drunk on occassion. Experiencing a little excess is sometimes good for the soul and the learning process IMVHO. It is when the person doesn't have the capacity to ever think ahead --- to moderate and be thoughtful, that excesses can become out of control. Elijah does not come off as rash in any way that I can see. I don't think he will get into trouble. I think it is the mark of someone quite thoughtful that he says he doesn't want to marry until in his 30s (not that someone marrying early isn't mature!! I just mean it shows he has thought about what is good for him). He isn't going to just jump into things. (there are recent things that surfaced that it was franka who wanted to jump into things before Elijah was ready...and yet he had the maturity to still say no, even though it seems that they were quite in love. this isn't a gossip thread, but I just give it as an example of someone who tries to use some cooler judgement, not just plunge into things).

I'm sorry--I am rambling!!! It always seems quiet in here on the weekends, so I guess I'm taking the casual slow ramble approach while there is likely no one in the room for awhile. :) I should stop. On monday morning slow ramblings will look ridiculous!! :o
bye!!

Alyon I thought you were making a lot of sense, there. Not to stray too far from the topic, but I wonder whether Johnny Depp is being a little disingenuous when he claims not to know why photographers want to take his picture. He's been an actor for a long time, and known all along as much for his looks as for his ability. C'mon, Johnny, gimme a break. No one makes the choice to become an actor without knowing what the consequences are--we have them thrust in front of our faces all the time in the media and we pay to keep it coming. I agree that actors (and any public figures) should not have to give up ALL their privacy, by a long shot. But I also agree that, obviously, some of them handle it with more grace than others.

By the way, a very funny novel that deals a little bit with media frenzy in this sort of context (a couple of tabloid reporters doing their despicable jobs while dreaming of better things) is "Trust Me on This" by Donald Westlake.

ETA--Flouish, I guess I was taking Johnny Depp's statement as the answer to a more philosophical "Why"... :p Something along the lines of, "What is it in human nature that causes people to want to look at photos of famous people?" I know that's not what his daughter is asking, but I think it might be at least part of what he means by saying that. (And, if she's like most kids that age, "I don't know," is probably the best way to stave off an ever deepening cycle of "why's". :p ) :)

-----------

Just because I can't figure out how to work this into the rest of the post :rolleyes: , I'll say it first. I have a hard time with the parallel between a performer and a grocery store owner, because a grocery store owner's living doesn't depend on people knowing who he is. I doubt if many people look in the newspaper and say, "Oh, John Smith is opening a new grocery store. I really like how he runs grocery stores, so I'll go shop there tomorrow." But a lot of people will say that about deciding what movie to see, or concert to go to, or CD to buy. People might very well shop at a particular grocery store regularly because it's well run, but they're not very likely to link that to a particular person/name/face. So, while I certainly don't think a performer/celebrity owes the fans his entire life (more on that below), I just don't think that particular analogy holds up.

I have to say I fall on the side that the famous don't owe themselves to their fans outside of the job that they do.
How about... they don't owe anything to their fans, but you don't necessarily have to owe someone something to give it to them? Celebrities can decide to give gifts of time and attention to their fans, and there's nothing wrong with the fans accepting the gift with appreciation and gratitude; that's where I'd put public appearances, autograph and/or photo opportunities that the celebrity chooses to do, etc. The celebrity's standing there holding out the gift--it's not impolite to take it.

There are also fans who can be like grabby little kids ("Ooohhh, is that for me?). That's where I'd put fans coming up to the celebrity on the street, etc. -- And I think the excitement of seeing someone they really admire can make a lot of people very much like little kids :p . The celebrity can either smile, say, "Sure, it's for you," and hand the person that gift of a few moments of lost privacy, or can say, "No, I'm sorry, that's not for you," by ignoring them or putting on that "don't come near me" act. As with gifts that are "things," each person has only so many resources, and can't be handing out gifts to every grabby little kid until there's nothing left for him, his family and friends. And the limit will be different for different people. (There's also charitable giving, such as Elijah visiting the cancer hospital during EII filming.)

There are celebrities who--for whatever reason(s)--don't want to give any gifts to fans, and while the fans may be unhappy about it, the celebrity does have that right. There are also people (most of them probably not fans, from what's been said here) who will take any opportunity to steal what they can from the celebrity, whether the celebrity is one who gives "gifts" or not. What they steal might be privacy, through candid photographs, or cameras in the celebrity's face--or multiple autographs. I consider autographed items for sale on EBay to be ill-gotten goods; even if they're not illegal, they were obtained under false pretenses (that the person who received it wanted it personally--not to sell it).

I was going to move this quote to the end of my post, but I think it actually fits in here:
Okay--Another photo posting question. Moondancer tried to answer this for me but I'm still not sure that I get it. I now know how to post photos. But do you have to do it from photobucket (or some such account)?? Am I doing something wrong if I find a pic from another site and use that URL (that I have found when I click properties on the pic)?? Is that hotlinking and if so is that always wrong? or do they lock it out if they don't want you to do that??
When the internet was "young," the definition of hotlinking was linking to anything other than a site's home page. I wouldn't be surprised if that definition has changed, but my guess is that linking to a picture would still be called hotlinking. The reason it can be a problem is because every time someone downloads that picture (say, every time someone opens a page of this thread that has a picture posted) it uses the bandwidth of the site it's on; when you put it into your post, you're not copying it, you're linking to it on that site, so you're actually using that site's bandwidth every time someone looks at the picture (that's why, if a picture is taken off a site, it won't show up in the thread anymore).

Sometimes using a site's bandwidth causes problems for it and sometimes it doesn't. It would cause problems for just about any large site, because so many people would be linking to it that they'd not only have to buy more bandwidth, but could even crash. So a lot of large sites will block the process rather than depending on people to refrain from it when asked politely.

It's actually the person doing the linking who's in the position to be "asking politely." If a site doesn't block the linking, it's a courtesy to ask the site owner if it's okay. Some may be surprised to have you ask, because so many people will just take, even if they know they should be asking. And probably more don't even know they should ask.

Now, I've given blanket permission to any Faculty member to link to any pictures on my site--my traffic is so low that the last thing I have to worry about is bandwidth :rolleyes: . I've--jokingly--said that if my webhost gives me notice that I'm up to 80% use, I'll ask people to stop. Well, you never know ;) .


I'm going all over the place now--but I think he was the kid on set--being ushered by his older buddies into a more partying adult (albiet young adult) world of fun. He got initiated into the world of dom and billy humor and pranks and had a blast with it. He got to let loose and have fun. "kids" need to break loose, grow up, and explore a little at some point.
I can't remember if Elijah's personally said this or not, but a lot of people have compared his time in New Zealand to a kid going off to college [using the American meaning of the word]. First time on his own, and all that (and he was 17 when he arrived). Now, if we put Dom and Billy in the role of older frat brothers :D ... Well, what can I say? Anyone for a game of tig?? ;)

IMHO this statement by Shadowcat is important:
I also realized that if I saw either one of them out in the street, to not be afraid, because They aren't really Jerks.
There are so many in the world who really mistreat, use, abuse, and run roughshod over others that drinking too much and getting too silly don't seem like major things (as long as they don't drive home afterward--and I mean that! :mad: ).

My mother has gotten melancholy on occasion because of problems in the family (there are three generations after her, now) -- people not going to church, a few divorces, babies born "out of wedlock", financial difficulties... things that would make most 88-year-olds unhappy, I expect. When she gets melancholy about it, of course, she thinks she must have "done something wrong," as a mother. So I remind her that she must have done something right--she now has 6 children, 12 grandchildren, and 8 great-grandchildren, and not a single one of them would ever purposely do something to hurt another person. I think PJ did something right as a casting director, too, realizing he needed actors who had enough character (in the deep meaning of the term) that they could work together instead of ripping each other to shreds--the latter could have happened, very, very easily.

-----Good heavens! It may not read like it, but I've spent two hours on this post. I think I need to get something else done today. :o

How about... they don't owe anything to their fans, but you don't necessarily have to owe someone something to give it to them? Celebrities can decide to give gifts of time and attention to their fans, and there's nothing wrong with the fans accepting the gift with appreciation and gratitude; that's where I'd put public appearances, autograph and/or photo opportunities that the celebrity chooses to do, etc. The celebrity's standing there holding out the gift--it's not impolite to take it.
Well, that's beautifully put, Tg.

But, if you're being 'ambushed' by fanatics all the time...they stand outside your house, approach you in the streets, bother you when you have a coffee, tap you on your shoulder when you do some shopping (and contact the press to tell them what you were buying),...
In short...when every little part of your life is invaded by people wanting something from you...I wouldn't speak of a 'gift'.

It's alright if you come in contact with those sort of fans sometimes. But for some celebs who do get the crazy sort of fame, it's very different.

Also, I do agree with the grocery analogy.
For me, it is like a 'service' and they do sell a product. Entertainment, music, movies.
For both the grocery owner and the actor or singer...their reputation is important. The owner needs to guard the reputation of his shop and take care of 'goodwill' (to use an accountancy term). The singer/actor needs make good music/movies and take care of his image.
But that's it.
When I buy music or go to the movies...I don't take the entire life of the actor of the singer into consideration. I don't know a lot of most of the actors or singers I admire. I know that Denzel Washington is married but how many kids does he have, how old are they, what's his background? I have no idea. That's the case with most of the celebs I like: I like them for their talent...that's the 'product' or 'service' I'm interested in.
Just like I want to know that my grocery shop has all the items I like to buy and his products (fruit, bread,...) are of a good quality.
With the singer, I need to know if his music is still good before I buy the CD but that's it.

I don't know if I make any sense here.


By the way, I'm starving for some news on Elijah's next movie projects. This is again a good test of my patience.

Just a quick poke of the head in the door that it's been another good lurk.

tg, I thought your extended explanation comparing a celebrity's way with fans, to ways of giving and receiving gifts -- rather than to what is owed) -- was just excellent. Thank you for taking the time to work that out so articulately. I will continue to draw upon it, when thinking about this topic in the future.


P.S. Flourish, and the rest of you who have been talking about celebrities who have not wanted their children photographed. Perhaps because I share the paranoia of my own country and its culture, I had been assuming it was mostly a safety concern. The child of a famous (=wealthy) person is not only the object of interest to well-meaning fans, but of stalkers and even kidnappers. Or, of just plain, dangerously unbalanced persons. If I were famous (nope, not a chance of that), I would want to try to keep my family out of public view, too, just for their personal safety.

P.S. #2, Alyon, I very much enjoyed your discussion of Elijah's growth in demonstrated maturity (i.e. poise, graciousness and prudence), as seen in his interviews, over time. That was very helpful in putting all his various behaviours in perspective.

~ Mechtild

I wanted to edit this but I see that Mechtild has posted. :)


Also...I do not make a connection between the personality of an actor and the quality of his work.
It's a fantastic bonus if I like the actor and I read nice things about him. It makes the person more attractive as a human being of course but it's not necessary for me to enjoy his movies.
Just like I do buy the CD's of Oasis but I think that the band members are complete idiots. They make good music at times but I don't like them as a people (well, as far as I can tell...I've never met them).

I know that not everybody sees it like that. Some people can't enjoy the music if they don't like the personality of the singer.

But, if you're being 'ambushed' by fanatics all the time...they stand outside your house, approach you in the streets, bother you when you have a coffee, tap you on your shoulder when you do some shopping (and contact the press to tell them what you were buying),...
In short...when every little part of your life is invaded by people wanting something from you...I wouldn't speak of a 'gift'.
I thought I was covering that in the rest of the analogy (grabbing, stealing)... No?

For both the grocery owner and the actor or singer...their reputation is important. The owner needs to guard the reputation of his shop and take care of 'goodwill' (to use an accountancy term). The singer/actor needs make good music/movies and take care of his image.
But, with the grocery store owner, people recognizing his name isn't important. It's not linked to him as a person, at least in most cases. His living is dependent on people thinking his store is good; it makes no difference at all if they know who he is. IMVHO, that's a bit different with a performer, at least one who's recognized individually (as opposed to, say, the New York Philharmonic). I don't think recognizing the fact that he has fans means he has to "give his life to them." Maybe I'm missing a step in-between here somewhere? :confused: Or maybe we have different definitions of "fan". If you go to movies with Denzel Washington in them, because you think he's a good actor, in my mind you're a fan. Most of us here are never going to meet Elijah Wood, but we go to his movies and buy his DVDs--we're fans. I don't think it's wrong for a performer to acknowledge that there are people who go to movies, buy CDs, whatever, because he's connected to it. I'm also a fan of Hy-Vee grocery stores, but I can't link them to a specific person.

I really think it's a very small percentage of the people that I'd define as "fans" who are the grabbers and stealers.

My skills of the English language may be failing me tonight. It would be great to be able to write this in Dutch.

Let me think about it again in the morning (it's late here) and my mind can come up with better ways of describing what I mean after a good night.

I don't think it's wrong for a performer to acknowledge that there are people who go to movies, buy CDs, whatever, because he's connected to it. I'm also a fan of Hy-Vee grocery stores, but I can't link them to a specific person.
No, it's not wrong. That was not my point (in my poor attempt to be clear).
To me, the connection of the CD with the singer is not really there either.
I mean...it's there but it's not what the CD is all about.
The CD is about his voice, his music. Not his personality. Sure it's nice to know that the singer has a great personality but that's not important.

Just like it's not important to find out about the grocery owner but we do prefer to know that the owner pays his people right, that the people behind the cash register are friendly to the customers,...
But that's not what counts.

The grocery shop needs to have high quality products. Full stop.
The singer needs to make good music. Full stop.

I do realise that not everybody sees it that way.
A lot of people I know just don't seperate the singer from the CD like I tend to do.

from Alyon
Who likes to have to look good all of the time? :eek:
I remember when I first really decided I loved Julia Roberts as a person. The interviewer went to her house, Julia's house, early on a Saturday morning. And Julia opened the door and -- get this -- SHE HAD NO MAKE-UP ON! Her HAIR WAS NOT DONE! She was lounging around the house in her regular clothes and her real-life face and hair, early on a Saturday in her own home! THE NERVE!!!

The interviewer went on and on about this, how awful she looked, the nerve of not dressing up, etc. etc. I read that paragraph (I think I was waiting to have groceries checked out), and I gave Julia a big-old thumb's up. I was delighted that she would grant an interview, at such an unreasonable hour, and undertake it just as herself. No glitz, no show. It cracked me up how scandalized this reporter was, but it endeared Julia to me forever.

After I posted my remark about Johhny Depp I wondered whether I had made myself clear enough. I guess not.

Of course I see that he wouldn't want his children photographed, nor should they be, in a well-mannered world, and I see and understand and even sympathize with his prevaricating for now in answering his daughter's question about why people want to take his (or her) picture. That is a conversation she is too young to understand.

What I thought was disingenuous were his final three words in the quote:

Lily-Rose asks, "Why do they want to take your picture?" My answer is always the same: "I don't know." Because I don't.

I'm sure he does. I hope he does, because someday soon he'll have to tell his kids what this is all about.

If it were me (hahahahahaha), I don't know how I would handle most of what he (or any well-known actor) has to put up with. But I would certainly have a more concrete answer than "I don't know" for when my kids were old enough to understand it. I think they would need to understand, and to know that I had an answer, that there was a reason our lives were like this. Otherwise those events would just be too frightening for them--being surrounded by loud eager strangers pushing themselves forward and having to think that Daddy (or Mommy) has no clue what this is about--?

I hope Mr. Depp is kidding, that's all.

There's a distinction between Depp, the actor and Depp, the family man.

I don't think that Depp has any problems with his picture being taken when he's on some red carpet, when he's doing promotion for a movie or another professional event.
But why take his picture when he's just a dad, out with his kids?
I would have difficulty explaining that one to my kids also.

I understand Depp (I think) when he says: "I don't know" because it's odd when you really think of it.

I like to see pictures of Elijah from movies or from professional photoshoots but I don't really need to see pictures of him with his family or friends,...

Why does a celebrity have to attach every part of his life to his professional career?
Why does a famous person have to accept that people take his picture when he's just enjoying a nice day with his kids?

Because people want to find out about the man behind the actor?
Why?
What does that have to do with his movies?

I don't get it either but maybe that's because of that link I don't make:
The singer as a private person and the CD.
The actor as a private person and the movie

Okay--I think people are pretty much on the same page with some wobbly variations. An actor deserves consideration, and an actor should be considerate. Best case scenario is a pleasant give and take. I'm with you and agree with your explanation of that TG. :)

Well, that was simplistic of me but I think sometimes we differ on small semantics.

But now I say something that many won't agree with. :p
Moondancer:
Also...I do not make a connection between the personality of an actor and the quality of his work.

I'm not sure I'll say this right--but if it's work I really want to believe in--that sort of has some intent or message or inspiration--it really does mean something to me that the artist is as good as his/her work. Now, I'm talking about art, music, stories, film that has some sort of inspiring content for me. I dont' want it to be all talk. I sort of want it to be real. I know a number of people as activists (now getting into politics) who can write a great many idealistic things, but then they don't necessarily live it--I mean they might talk about the working poor and defend them (for example)--but not be so nice to the waiter at dinner. That disappoints me. I like Elijah as an actor, but I wouldn't likely follow him so much if he wasn't such a good example as a human being. I like his life choices. As a community these connections--that go beyond just looking at the abstract (good ideas or "art"), or at what people produce--are important to me. I will always choose the artist over the art, if I can. What I mean is that if someone is an artist with his or her life--life as art-- but not so talented with the things he or she "produces"--that person will likely be far more interesting to me than the "artist" who produces well, but is not very admirable to me as a person. I don't care as much about product, as about people.

I think we of a certain age were told as we grew up that being interested in "people" was not as serious--it was down right trivial--as compared to being interested in "art." So I have a thing about that because I think women (straying here into dangerous territory) have traditionally been community builders and relating to people within their community was useful, necessary and sustaining. I think a more men dominated society trivialized what grew out of women's strength. The interest in people.

Saying all of that--of course--like anything. Moderate. Be thoughtful. Balance that interest with other things. I am not advocating for the crazed fan or the overboard interest. (And I think I love good product, too. I think I'm fairly discerning in that way)

and of course that gets us also into the territory of charisma--which can go for good and bad...and how to approach that....but I think that's stepping over the line into another topic.

I don't think you were saying that you didn't appreciate the personalities of the people you like, Moondancer. After all, I think we have all admitted to being drawn to elijah for many of his personal qualities. And you ahve a point about separating art from the artist. I just love it, though, when I can really like the artist. And it doesn't mean in turn I will like all of his/her work. But I LIKE that I can like them. I think it's better for the world to have a bunch of admirable people (admittedly this also gets subjective) than just great art. And if the art is inspiring, people will believe in it more if the artist is also inspiring. The most potent combo is both. :k

Okay--but I can listen to a good CD and not know anything about the musicians--but if I get really into it, I likely will try to find out something..

I rushed that through and I see many places to clarify what I mean, as again, I feel like I was rambling. but I must run. Getting busier in here this weekend!

Last thing I say about this before I annoy even more people as I think I have.

There are very few celebs I'm that interested in and for whom (is it whom or who?) I go on the internet to look up stuff. Elijah is one of them.
Judging on his fantastic acting skills, I would still go to see his movies even if I knew that he wasn't such a great person (as far as we can tell anyway).
I'm a fan of actors such as Jack Nicholson, Denzel Washington, Jodie Foster, Al Pacino, Johnny Depp and many others. I can honestly say that I don't know much about them, their background or their real personality and I don't feel the need to look things up on them.

Now, on the other hand...I do like to read biographies from time to time.
William's book has been fascinating to read, but that's not because it gives me an insight in his life (it doesn't...I don't understand his way of thinking anyway). I love reading how other people handle life, certainly if they are different than me.
I've read Michael J. Fox's book. If it was just a book by an actor, I wouldn't have picked it up. But because we get to read how he deals with such a big blow in life - Parkinson's - it's amazing to read how he copes with it (and he does much more than coping)
I read non-fiction books about people who aren't famous at all but who have some special story to tell.

I don't think you were saying that you didn't appreciate the personalities of the people you like, Moondancer. After all, I think we have all admitted to being drawn to elijah for many of his personal qualities. And you ahve a point about separating art from the artist. I just love it, though, when I can really like the artist
I fully agree with this. :)

I love to find out that the actor or singer I like has a great personality.
It's not necessary to like the movie or the CD but I love the CD even more if the singer is a great person.
You're right. I will admit this. :)

Where I live, I can choose between many supermarkets. I prefer to go to the supermarket where the people are friendly, helpful and they work fast. The other store is more fancy but the people behind the cash registers are so unfriendly. It puts me off.
Because the fruit and stuff like that...have the same quality in both supermarkets...I will go to the supermarket with the friendly faces.
So, indeed...it does matter to me but it's not that essential.
If the supermarket with the friendly people didn't have fresh and delicious items, I wouldn't go there. No matter how friendly they are.

Like with idool 2004...my favourite has a great voice and that was the first thing that struck me. But after listening to that voice and getting more glimpses on his personality, I found out that he's a sweetheart and he seems like a brilliant person full of life and energy. It's been so much fun seeing what a great and fun guy he seems to be. It endears him to me more but the main reason of me becoming his fan is the voice and the way he performs.
If he gets the opportunity to make a CD: I will buy it for the music and his private life belongs to him...not his 'fans'. Like you said, Alyon...I think that most people in here agree with that.
But if he does get a record contract...I do not need to know about his private life. It would be great to see interviews and how he reacts to people in general but I don't need to know details of who he really is behind the scenes.
The music, his way of performing and his voice is the core.

I've seen sites where people discuss Elijah's life to every detail - or at least, what they perceive as his private life.
I went to look on them because I'm a nosy person :p but I have stopped looking at them. It goes too far for me.
I do searches on him - to find out more about his next projects, to read interviews,... but I tend to avoid the sites where they go too far (for me, that is) in analysing every detail of his life.
That's why I love this place. We can discuss his movies, his acting skills but we all respect his private life.

One time I came close to meeting a famous person I admire was in a book store. I thought about approaching him but I didn't. He was there to sign his book (but I wasn't planning on buying the book...I should have done so because it's apparently a good book). Anyway, there was nobody in the book store so I felt a bit sorry for him. So, when I left the store...I just gave him a smile and...he gave me the most friendly and most devine smile back, full of warmth.
This endeared this person to me.
It hasn't changed my view on his work.


OK...I'll stop talking for a bit now. I promise. :) ;)

Yay!! ((((moondancer))))

You are not in the least annoying. Smart and insightful is what I would call you!! :k

And I'm pretty sure we all pretty much intersect on this one, we just say it in different ways with some slight differences in emphasis

Good grief! I popped in here about noon time (EST in the US) and there were no new posts. Came back about 9PM and there were 14 new, insightful posts. The Faculty members for whom English is a second language just amaze me.

The Google ads are offering pictures of Johnny Depp! Even better, "ELIJAH WOOD'S SHOP FOR HOME FURNISHINGS!!!" Where is this place and why have we never heard of it? What do you suppose it sells? Brown velvet comfy chairs with ice blue satin pillows? Purple velvet setees with teal velvet comforters? Tan courderoy ottomans? Do you suppose EW handles all sales personally? :k Yikes, I'll be posting in the Harem next.

C4

The grocery shop needs to have high quality products. Full stop.
The singer needs to make good music. Full stop.
Yes--I don't think we're completely disagreeing here. But, how are you going to know if the singer makes good music? All I'm talking about is connecting the individual to the music in that sense--not the sense of connecting their "person" to the music. (And the English can be ambiguous there, can't it? I'd originally written "person" where I now have "individual." I changed it because I realized I was using the word "person" in two different ways within the same sentence :o !)

To the grocery store owner, it doesn't matter if you know his name, but he's sure going to advertise his store's name, because he wants people to know about it.

If a friend tells me she's just heard a great CD from a new artist, and I ask her who it is, I don't want her to say, "Why would you want to know that? It's only the music that's important." Sure, that's true, but I'm not going to be able to find the music (or at least it's going to be a lot harder) if I don't know who the performer is.

If I'm at the store and see a laundry detergent that I've used before and liked, and sitting next to it is one I've never heard of (at the same price), I'm most likely going to buy the one I'm familiar with. If I know Johnny Depp is in a movie, I might be more likely to buy a ticket to it than to the show they're selling tickets to at the next window.

So, that's all I'm talking about. In politics, I suppose it would be called "name recognition." The difference between the store owner and the performer, as I see it, is that the store owner needs people to recognize the name of his store, while the performer needs people to recognize his name. If your favorite singer from "Idol" does get a recording contract, you--and a lot of other people--will be able to buy his first CD because you recognize his name from the program. That helps you get good music, and it helps him sell CDs.

That's all I'm trying to say when I disagree with the grocery store parallel--it's simply a matter of which name is on the "product." I don't think it has anything to do with invading someone's private life.

--------

Reading through the last several posts, all I can think of is what complicated creatures we humans are :) . There are so many factors feeding into what we think of someone or how we feel about them, that I think often we can't pull them all apart. Especially Alyon's post--an actor doesn't have to be a good person to be a good actor--but it's nice if you're able to like the person, too--and that's especially important if the movie they're in is meant to inspiring... I agree with every word :) , but our wiring is complex, isn't it?

------Elijah Wood's Shop of Home Furnishings? I haven't seen that one! :D Maybe he and Dom decided they wanted something a bit more upscale than t-shirts :p . I did see a site a few days ago that was selling Spiderman and Britney Spears posters as "home decor"... :confused:

Did you hear about the time Elijah Wood said about Privleges? If you have, you might have noticed that he only metioned as an actor, Traveling as a Privlege. What about the other privelege of acting,like not being forced to work in a job you don't like, dismal working conditions like at a Post Office, and not worrying that Someone will lose it and blow your head off? :confused:

Oddly, he didn't mention that. :mad: Or maybe it's not important to him. :mad He should remember that. It makes me wonder if he was raised right. :D :eek: :o

So I've been reading ALL the posts regarding celebrity, and the obligations inherent therein. (Wow! This place has been busy for a weekend!) And I've had time to digest and think (gave me something to do at the sadly mediocre bluegrass concert I found myself leaving in the middle!)

Does a performer "owe" his audience anything? I'd say yes because, after all, it is myself and my fellow audience members paying - for example - $10.0 a seat to watch his films. (Actually kind of bargain if you compare it to tickets to see some of today's top music performers!) After passing through many hands, part of that ends up in the celeb's bank account, on his plate of foie gras, and on his suede-covered walls!

What does a performer "owe" his/her public? Graciousness springs to mind. But this does not mean an artist must become a door-mat for their following. One can graciously say "I'm a private person," and leave it at that. Part of Elijah's appeal for me, is that he can do that very graciously. As an example, however provoked, there are very many more gracious ways of saying "I'm working, leave off for right now," than flipping the bird. (Even if the fan is kind of asking for it. :rolleyes: )

It matters to me that I like the performer. Years ago, (when EJW was still crawling!) my husband and I bought Michael Jackson's album "Thriller." I think we even had a copy of that "We Are the World" tape for a while. Today you couldn't give me a Michael Jackson CD! And that was before all the legal stuff he's found himself in. He overstepped his part of the performer/audience relationship by making his person part of the show. His ego has got in the way of me enjoying his music a long time ago.

My husband reads Wil Wheaton's (Wesley Crusher, Star Trek: The Next Generation ) blog everday. Mr. Wheaton has in interesting model of the audience/performer relationship apparently. He will write about how he's become closer with one of his step-sons since going to an auto-show together. But if someone at one of his book readings behaves in a fannish way, like metioning that they liked his work in ST:TNG, he get's very squeamish. I only mention this, because there are many, many ways to be gracious to one's fan-base.

My husband asked me would I read Elijah's blog if he kept one? After thinking about it, I had to say 'no;' Elijah wouldn't BE Elijah if he behaved as though we were fascinated by his every movement. I like that he doesn't need to be cool to us. He just goes about his life, enjoying it.

Mariole, that story about Julia Roberts is really interesting. When a performer agrees to an interview, it is as a professional. Ms. Roberts opening the door "in mufti" as it were violated the professional relationship. It's a bit like a lawyer going to court in sweats and trainers; it's just not done. It implied a bit of intimacy on Ms. Robert's part that the reporter clearly did not want. I'd have to come down on the side of the reporter on that one.

OTOH, I loathe those supermarket tabloids where the headlines scream about which stars have cellulite! That's just cruelty! I saw one the other day that said Lara Flynn Boyle had cellulite! We've all seen here in "Chain of Fools." If she lost anymore weight the photons wouldn't stick, and she wouldn't show up on film!

'Kay, that's my two-cents worth on the subject!

honey!

Hi HOney!! :k

I have to disagree with you about make-up and Julia Roberts. Who says make up equals professional? And here we are talking about a celebrity being "themselves" and making themselves accessable as real people. And the interviewer is likely interviewing her at her home to see her "real".

IMHO I find it refreshing. I vote with Mariole on this one :D

Erm...I'm sorry...I know that I promised to stop talking about it :o but it's not often you can talk about an issue like this and get so many thought-provoking and insightful messages back.
This place is really full of amazing and smart people. :k

If a friend tells me she's just heard a great CD from a new artist, and I ask her who it is, I don't want her to say, "Why would you want to know that? It's only the music that's important." Sure, that's true, but I'm not going to be able to find the music (or at least it's going to be a lot harder) if I don't know who the performer is.
Right, but suppose I'm standing in a CD store, flipping CD's. I'm holding up one CD and it's obvious by my reactions that I know about that singer (that I have listened to his music before).
And suppose,the person next to me asks me if that's a good CD, I would give answers like:
Oh yes, he usually sings about topics like..., his lyrics are very good, his voice is like..., the music genre is..., his concerts are usually very entertaining,...
I would talk about the style of music. I would NOT say things like:
Oh yes, the singer is really a great person, he does a lot for charity, is always nice to his fans, he's very attractive as well, he is married and has a kid,...

You know what I mean? I would respond by talking about his music and not about his personality because that's not relevant. Saying who the person is doesn't say one thing about the music but it can add to the general flavour of the CD (I admit that). If I tell you that Koen Wouters has a great personality, is a great people-person (is great in talking with people and handling various people) and has sparkling eyes...do you have any idea what sort of music he brings in Flanders? It's nice to know who he is maybe but that doesn't tell you one thing about the artist behind the man.
Besides, you don't need to know much about an artist to find his CD's: just his name and the music genre and for the rest, you'll be needing your ears. Nothing else.

Honey, I own Michael Jackson CD's and vinyl albums.
I love the Off The Wall album and Thriller. The fame that came with Thriller was too much for him, I guess. Since then, it's been downhill and it's sad and horrible to see what has become of him.
But...I still find songs like 'Rock with you', 'Billy Jean', 'Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough' brilliant. I still enjoy listening to them...even if I'm horrified by all that's happened to, with, by Michael Jackson and I can't possibly understand him or what he has done to his face.

So it comes down to levels of curiosity. Moondancer is happy with the performance. Others of us are more curious about the artist behind the performance, to varying degrees. Ah, but why are we curious? Is it because many artists do what we can't do (sing, act, write, etc.) or that their drive to excel is stronger and we are attracted to that? If by finding out more about the artist, do we hope to understand (and feel like we are a part of) what he/she does? C4

Curiosity and I'm sure a lot of other things--we're even getting into consumer habits, now, and whether it's possible or desirable to separate disliking a performer and enjoying his music. But in all those things, I think, there are so many personal variations that it's impossible to sort it all out--especially when we're looking at things such as liking/disliking, enjoying/not enjoying, since those things are so involved with our emotional reactions rather than just to a rationally thought-out process. (Which is probably one reason it's so fascinating to talk about ;) .)

Did you hear about the time Elijah Wood said about Privleges? If you have, you might have noticed that he only metioned as an actor, Traveling as a Privlege. What about the other privelege of acting,like not being forced to work in a job you don't like...
That's what I remind my boss of when he says things like he doesn't understand why anyone would ever need a holiday [using the American meaning of "holiday": one day off work, like Christmas]--people should just want to work every day :rolleyes: --that is, that he's fortunate to have a job that happens to also be what he loves to do. I also remind him that other people have to do things like clean, repair things around the house, take care of their cars, pay bills, do their taxes, go grocery shopping, write letters, etc.... all things he doesn't have to worry about because other people take care of them for him--which is probably true of a lot of celebrities, also. (His children are long grown and gone, but from the relationships he has--or doesn't have--with them, I'm not sure he was much involved with caring for them when they were young.) He depends on my work enough that I can get away with saying things like that--when he's in the right mood. ;) I think he's beginning to realize that I actually mean it when, for example, I say I can't work on a particular Saturday morning because I have to go to the bank or take my car in for repairs, and Saturday morning is the only time they're open when I'm not at work. That is, it's not an excuse I'm making up (even if he doesn't openly accuse someone of lying, he's very good at eye-rolling :rolleyes: ).

I think it's more a case of just not thinking about it than it is of not being grateful for it when he [i]does stop and think about it. For him, it's everyday life, and I suppose it's human nature to assume other people's lives are like ours unless we're shown differently. And since acting has been Elijah's "everyday life" for most of his life, that's probably even more true for him.

It's also part of maturity, perhaps. My boss is 76 years old, so has less excuse for it than Elijah does, IMHO. Warning that I don't remember any details of the following: There was an interview with Elijah when he was in his mid-teens (about Flipper age, IIRC). He made a somewhat cliched remark about wanting people to know that if they work hard for something they can achieve it, and the interviewer asked him what he'd say to people for whom that hadn't been true. Elijah stumbled around a little in his answer. I don't remember exactly what he said, but it was pretty clear that the question was something he just hadn't thought through yet. I also got the impression somehow that it was something he would be thinking about in the future. IMHO, at the age he was then, both of those reactions were appropriate. [As I said, I don't remember much about this. It's possible that the remark was about his knowing he'd been blessed because of how his life had turned out so far, and the interviewer asked what he'd say to people who hadn't been so blessed. But I think the point would be the same either way.]

A later event: I don't know if the following happened at the same time that he mentioned traveling, but sometime after FotR Elijah was asked what the good things were about becoming a celebrity, and the only thing he talked about was getting to meet some of his favorite musicians. At that point he seemed to be trying hard to say that his life hadn't changed, and to "downplay" his celebrity status, which I think he's gotten a bit more comfortable with since then.

Fascinating discussion, great posts by everyone!

So it comes down to levels of curiosity. Moondancer is happy with the performance. Others of us are more curious about the artist behind the performance, to varying degrees.

Ceefour, it's certainly curiosity to some extent. For me this topic touches also the old question of "Can the artist distinguished from his art". Some people don't make a difference between artist and art. IMO these two are two separate "beings". I believe that the artist is more or less a "channel" for what wants to be expressed. I see an artist as an instrument who gives his individual skills and his personal colouration, but the outcome is an entity by itself, like a child - it is your flesh and blood with half your genes and yet a completely singular human being. It's kind of paradox - works of art are independent from their maker to a certain degree but you cannot separate them from their maker because there would be no art without that special maker. I must admit that is is sometimes hard to accept that people I cannot stand personally produce great art. Like Alyon, I prefer clearly artists I can relate with. Moondancer, Michael Jackson is also a good example for my need to separate the art from the artist - I can enjoy his music whereas his personal life actions come over as irritating and inapprehensible.

Sometimes you have to separate the art from the artist, because the artist's convictions are simply completely unbearable. When I was 15 I was for the first time at the opera and saw Richard Wagner's "Parsifal". I was overwhelmed. I sat there for 5 hours and was totally happy and deeply moved by the music. Then I started to read about Wagner (I always want to know what kind of person the artist is or was) and I was shocked. Richard Wagner must have been a really awkward customer - extremely extravagant, arrogant, anti-Semitic... the list of nasty traits seems endless. I hardly could believe that such a dislikable person should compose music which moves me so deeply.

Need I say that my Elwood fandom is much less conflicted :p ?
How wonderful the young lad who played Frodo is such a good natured person. :z:

Whiteling, I was hoping you would contribute to this discussion, as an artist yourself.

Wagner is an interesting example. For some people, his beliefs made his music more acceptable; others will not listen to him at all because of them.

Good heavens! It may not read like it, but I've spent two hours on this post. I think I need to get something else done today.

Hearing this makes me feel so much better, as it takes me ages to write posts, and I always assumed everyone else was just rattling them off.

Does a performer "owe" his audience anything? I'd say yes because, after all, it is myself and my fellow audience members paying - for example - $10.0 a seat to watch his films.

As cinema goers pay for the product before they see it, I’d say actors definitely owe it their audience to a) try and make good choices about what they appear in and b) make it clear when and how something they are veers from the format their fans have come to expect from them. Musicians are in a slightly different position, since you tend to hear their new stuff for free on the radio, before you decide whether to purchase it or not. So far Elijah and his advisors have done really well on this score, but will his slightly less devoted fans start to drift away if Hooligans, EII, Happy Feet and future films turn out to be rubbish? I saw written somewhere that when Ash Wednesday came out that some people were put off by seeing the once cute child star and beautifully spoken Frodo swearing and killing people. Elijah had therefore let a small portion of his fans down by doing this film, and he might be taking a similar risk with Hooligans, a film he may have done more for himself in order to try and make him be taken more seriously as an adult actor, than for the watching public.

This also ties in with the question of whether you have to like an actor to like their work. There are only two actors whose lives/personalities I have researched: Alan Rickman and Elijah. The more I saw of Elijah, the person, the more I wanted to see, and it has to be said that the normalness and underlying niceness of his real self is an integral part of every character he has played, all of whom I like and can relate too. Alan Rickman is just the opposite. He became known to me as Professor Snape in Harry Potter and then through Love Actually and Robin Hood – Prince of Thieves. I rather liked him, went on fan sites, read his biography and got hold of as many of his films as I could. The more I got to know about his character, the more I realised I would feel thoroughly uncomfortable in his presence, and that he was the sort of person I wouldn’t strike up a conversation with on the train or at a bus stop. He seems to a very awkward, difficult, complicated, introverted person, and this actually shows up in quite a lot of his roles. I now wouldn’t go to see a film just because he was in it.

Not having anything more to say on the celebrity-privacy issue, I’ll turn to a comment by tgshaw:
There are so many in the world who really mistreat, use, abuse, and run roughshod over others that drinking too much and getting too silly don't seem like major things (as long as they don't drive home afterward
I would agree with that. I actually thought the “porn and chocolate” story was pretty funny – not the fact that they were drunk, but that Elijah was requesting such an incongruous combination: “corruption” (if you will) plus innocence? (Well, I think of chocolate as innocent, anyway.) It just seems very Elijah-ish to me, somehow.

Inspired by all your comments about Radio Flyer, I watched the DVD again this weekend. As I did, I was thinking about tg’s question:
Something that I don't think has ever come up here in a discussion of Radio Flyer is how the "legend" of the boy who had flown previously affected Mikey and Bobby--especially after they meet him (or at least think they do). Any thoughts on that part of the story??
Certainly, right at the beginning, the narrator says that “His legend would change our lives forever.” Obviously, Fisher’s flight (along with Chitty Chitty Bang Bang – wasn’t that the movie they were watching??) was an inspiration to the kids. But I also noticed that when Mike and Bobby first talked about Fisher, Bobby insisted that he had been killed, while Mike said he had survived. That made me wonder whether Bobby intended his own “flying away” as really a suicide attempt: if Fisher had been killed, why wouldn’t Bobby expect to be, too? He was so miserable by that point that even death would seem like an escape. But when the boys ran into Fisher at the gas station, and Bobby saw that he WAS alive, that gave him (Bobby) hope of TRULY escaping.

However, then I look at tg’s “or at least they think they do.” Are you saying that they don’t meet him? That “Fisher” is another piece of magical realism, like the visitation by the buffalo? But then who is pumping the gas???

About the semi-faceless stepfather: In addition to the effect of disassociation from the abuser that tg mentioned, I think this also makes the character more sinister. Spielberg did something similar with Peter Coyote’s character in the first half of E.T.: The Extraterrestrial (I noticed that “The King,” like Coyote, had jangly keys), and with the unseen (except for an arm) truck driver in Duel.

As for the relative “cuteness” of Elijah and Joseph, maybe in conventional terms Joseph MIGHT be cuter, as someone on here suggested. But Elijah is so intense and so vivid that he’s far beyond cute. Didn’t Sean say something in his book about how he (EW) can project an earnestness that few actors are capable of?

Funniest line deliveries (IMHO) by Elijah in Radio Flyer: “Turtle” (in response to Bobby's stuttered "It's. . . It's. . . It's a . . ." on finding Samson) and “Ho-ly crap” (on seeing the devastation wrought by the pressure cooker).

Skater girl, I agree with you that:
If you understood the sentence 'History is all in the mind of the teller - the truth is in the telling' then you are doing better than me. This is one of those occasions when you understand every word, but the intended meaning remains unclear.
All that makes me think of is a line from a very funny spoof of British history called 1066 and All That, which states: “History is not what you think. It is what you can remember.” (There’s more truth to that than we like to think.)

BTW, I got together last night with Achila and ylla for dinner -- my first actual meeting with any Faculty members. Great fun, many laughs, and, yes -- some swooning. ceefour, you'll have to join us next time!

As cinema goers pay for the product before they see it, I’d say actors definitely owe it their audience to a) try and make good choices about what they appear in and b) make it clear when and how something they are veers from the format their fans have come to expect from them.
You'd hope that people would know something about a movie before they go see it, but of course not everyone will. I think Elijah's pretty upfront about what his movies are like when he's talking about them, but not everyone will read/hear those interviews, either. We had a rather strange (I thought) case in Omaha recently, where a mother bought her daughters tickets to a Britney Spears concert, thinking Britney was still the sweet, innocent, young singer she used to be--then wanted her money back when she found out differently. I don't know if she got her money back or not, but I wasn't very sympathetic. Especially when you're paying that much money for tickets, you need to know ahead of time what you're in for (unless you don't care). It's easier to walk out of a $10 movie than a $75 concert.

So far Elijah and his advisors have done really well on this score, but will his slightly less devoted fans start to drift away if Hooligans, EII, Happy Feet and future films turn out to be rubbish? I saw written somewhere that when Ash Wednesday came out that some people were put off by seeing the once cute child star and beautifully spoken Frodo swearing and killing people.
The word "rubbish" to me means poorly-made, just plain lousy movies. Elijah's been in a couple of those, and it could certainly happen again (I'm still holding my breath a bit over Hooligans on that score). But that hasn't been a common problem for him, and I expect it'll be even less of one now that he can pick and choose his roles more than he used to. Just from knowing something about the people behind them, I have no fear that Sin City or Happy Feet will be badly-made movies, and after reading the book I hope EII won't be. So, I don't think Elijah has let people down that way (well, AW was one of the "couple" I was thinking about, but that doesn't have anything to do with the swearing or the violence).

But that's just one part of the equation. From what's been shown already, I believe Sin City will be a magnificently-made, groundbreaking, mindblowing movie. But I'm not planning to see it in the theater, because I know what kind of a movie it is and also know that I'll have nightmares for a week if I go to it. But I don't consider that Elijah's letting me down because of that, and I won't consider myself less of a fan for not going to it (I expect I'll buy the DVD, so I can watch parts of it--after the lovely people here who see it in the theater give me an idea of which parts to watch ;) .)

Elijah had therefore let a small portion of his fans down by doing this film, and he might be taking a similar risk with Hooligans, a film he may have done more for himself in order to try and make him be taken more seriously as an adult actor, than for the watching public.
Hmmm... You can probably guess already that I don't see Elijah as "letting people down" by doing a variety of movies/roles. People who know anything about his earlier career (i.e., pre-Frodo) will expect it from him, because he (and his mother, I suppose) never let him be seen as someone who makes a particular "kind" of movie. By the time he was old enough to go to an R-rated movie without a parent, he'd been in a half-dozen of them (interesting for someone who started acting at age 7, his first--and still only--G rated movie was TAMTSNBN, which he made when he was almost an adult).

The career I imagine Elijah having is a continuation of what he's always done, playing a variety of roles in a variety of types of movies. Actors that come to mind include Kevin Kline and Robin Williams. If someone tells you Kevin Kline is in a movie, that doesn't tell you anything at all about the movie--except that it will probably have at least one well-acted role in it. It could be anything from Dave to Consenting Adults--or singing and dancing in The Pirates of Penzance. Robin Williams does similar shifting--he was probably filming One-Hour Photo [not sure if that's the right title] and doing the voices for Happy Feet not very far from each other, time-wise. He's a brilliant comedian, and I've loved him in every dramatic role I've seen him in (I've never seen him sing and dance, though ;) ). I'm glad Elijah's had a chance to work with both of those actors, and I hope working with them has given him some support in looking at a similar kind of career.

Frodo was the role of a lifetime, and Elijah knows that. Elijah certainly may be one of those actors whose best movies came before he was 21--not because none of his later movies were/will be any good, but because FotR, TTT, and RotK would be hard for anyone to top. There are people who will always know him only as Frodo--he knows that, too, and says it doesn't bother him, because he thinks so highly of the character. There may be thousands--millions--who saw him as Frodo who'll never see him act another role (partly because they didn't notice what his name was!). There will be lots of people who don't want to see his other movies simply because they don't like the kinds of movies they are. But there's not much he can do about that, even if he wanted to. How would you ever find a role "like" Frodo, or a movie "like" the LotR ones? He said once, after finishing LotR filming, that no one had had the *** to send him another fantasy script, and that he wouldn't take the part if they did--he'd been in the best, so why should he want to do something less? I hope he'll be able to say that about a lot of kinds of films before he's finished.

from Pelagia:
However, then I look at tg’s “or at least they think they do.” Are you saying that they don’t meet him? That “Fisher” is another piece of magical realism, like the visitation by the buffalo? But then who is pumping the gas???
No, I didn't mean it that way. I haven't seen the movie for quite some time, so I may be remembering this wrong. But, IIRC, the boys never actually know that the kid at the gas station is Fisher--they just assume it from his limp and from what he says to them (and so does the audience :) ). So I think the guy at the gas station is real; I'm just not positive that he's Fisher. Let me know if my memory's faulty on that. I also hadn't remembered that Bobby thought Fisher had been killed. That could make the meeting even more significant--that is, for Bobby to find out before his flight that Fisher was still alive. If Bobby had been thinking of it as suicide (even subconsciously; kids that age don't usually quite understand death), I'd think that meeting would have made quite an impact on him.

tgshaw wrote:
The career I imagine Elijah having is a continuation of what he's always done, playing a variety of roles in a variety of types of movies.
That’s exactly the type of career I hope he has. I'd rather see him go in that direction than try to be a conventional "leading man." He has already shown that he’s very versatile. And he has the ability to take even a supporting role and make it important and memorable. And I agree that he doesn’t “let people down” just by appearing in some kinds of movies that we may not particularly want to see, or that we may not approve of. I don’t even feel that he lets his fans down by appearing in not-so-great movies, so long as he gives a good performance. I’m let down only if I don’t think that he has done his best work.

Your comparison with the careers of Kevin Kline and Robin Williams is interesting. As I recall, Williams initially had the same problem that many comedians do, of getting people to take him seriously as a dramatic actor. But I thought that his low-key killer in Insomnia was one of his best roles. I think that Elijah has a tremendous advantage simply because, even though he is still very young, he has already played such a wide variety of roles, and --even after Frodo -- is by no means typecast. Another actor who comes to my mind in this connection is Michael Caine. He has (as he admits) made some clunkers in his time; but he has always kept working, in many different genres. And he gave one of his finest performances just a few years ago (at the age of what? – in his 70s, surely) in The Quiet American. And then the other possible exemplar for Elijah is, of course, Johnny Depp.

tg also wrote, about Radio Flyer:
IIRC, the boys never actually know that the kid at the gas station is Fisher--they just assume it from his limp and from what he says to them (and so does the audience
Actually, he had a label bearing the name “Fisher” on his uniform. And I THINK that someone inside the station called to him, and called him Fisher. Also, the fact that he gives Bobby detailed advice on how to manage his flight would suggest that he’s Fisher. At the same time, it may not matter whether he’s Fisher or not, so long as the kids BELIEVE that he is.

Pelagia--Thanks for the info from Radio Flyer. After reading your earlier question, I had the feeling there was something there that I'd forgotten. That's one of a number of movies I really need to watch again--it's been too long.

The first dramatic role I saw Robin Williams in was Good Morning, Vietnam. I don't know how "planned" it was, but IMHO that movie was the perfect entrance for him into drama (or maybe I should say the perfect entrance for the audience to accepting him as a dramatic actor--it worked for me when I saw it in the theater). It made use of his manic comedy style without turning the movie itself into a comedy or his character into a comedic figure. Since then, I've loved him in Dead Poet's Society, Good Will Hunting, The Fisher King... and I feel like I'm forgetting something. He's had some clunkers, too, and there are a lot of his good ones I haven't seen, but considering I see very few movies, that's not a bad number for me :p . IMVHO, The Fisher King--and especially Robin's acting in it--didn't get nearly the attention it should have. A powerful movie. I highly recommend it--but be prepared to have your heart shredded. In a fit of insanity (I can't think of any other explanation :rolleyes: ) I got rid of my VHS of that movie during a cleaning spree. I think at the time I thought it was just too difficult/heart-wrenching to ever watch again. I've seen it on TV since then, and need to get another copy.

-------

I also wanted to thank Whiteling for giving an artist's perspective on the discussion about connecting art with the artist.

-------

ETA--We now have Alan Rickman ads at the bottom of the page ;) . The Elijah Woods Home Furnishings link is also back up. Well, of course, I clicked on it! For Moggy, you know :p ! It is posters. Evidently shopping.com classifies posters as home furnishings. :rolleyes:

Hi all!

First off, a little personal note to Pelagia -- just came home from putting ylla on the plane -- we had a wonderful time at dinner on Saturday and I am very much looking forward to getting together again (yes, ceefour, you must join us some time!]

tgshaw wrote:

That’s exactly the type of career I hope he has. I'd rather see him go in that direction than try to be a conventional "leading man." He has already shown that he’s very versatile. And he has the ability to take even a supporting role and make it important and memorable. And I agree that he doesn’t “let people down” just by appearing in some kinds of movies that we may not particularly want to see, or that we may not approve of. I don’t even feel that he lets his fans down by appearing in not-so-great movies, so long as he gives a good performance. I’m let down only if I don’t think that he has done his best work.

I think this is very true. I don't feel like Elijah owes me anything in terms of his choice of roles. If he does work in a film that he feels good about, that's more than enough for me. I'm more interested in seeing that he finds projects that challenge him artistically and intellectually. If I like it, great. If not, that's OK too. And usually, the need to please the audience and the need to please oneself as an actor intersect somewhere. If Elijah likes the role, likes his performance, etc., some segment of his audience will too. That's not to say that everything he does will be universally loved by every one of his fans -- if an actor tried to do that, they'd never make another movie. But I think what it boils down to is, if he's happy, then so am I. I care about him as a person, and I wouldn't stop just because he were in a movie I didn't like.

The one whose career I'd most like to see him emulate is Dustin Hoffman. Not considered a conventionally handsome leading man, he has played a variety of very interesting roles over his career. Sometimes the part's small, sometimes it's the lead, but you always notice his perfomance. Another one like that is William H. Macy, who I adore.

Elijah's situation is a little different. Although widely regarded as attractive (and considered "beautiful" in some circles!), he's a bit on the short side (although tall to me!), and the types of parts that go to the Brad Pitts of the world may not ever be available to him. That's just fine with me, to tell the truth. The expectations and pressures on these guys are so huge that they can easily get in the way.

Just wanted to throw in one comment about the subject you guys were discussing over the weekend -- about having to like an actor or singer or artist or whatever to enjoy their work. I own hundreds of CDs and vinyl albums and tapes, and have probably seen hundreds of films in my lifetime. If I had to make a personal investment in every entertainer I ever saw, I'd never have time to do anything else. BUT, for me to follow an actor or singer at a level beyond a casual fan, I HAVE to care about them as a person. As I said here before, if it weren't for the person Elijah is, I would've been out of here long ago. I'm not the type that develops crushes just because a boy is cute. There has to be much more for me.

Now -- does it work the other way? Sometimes. There was quite a bit of talk about writers who were anti-semitic -- Norman Mailer comes to mind. Also E.L. Mencken, etc. Would I not read their work because of this? No. However, would I go to a movie starring OJ Simpson? Probably not. But it would most likely have more to do with whether I even liked their type of music/books/movies etc. in the first place.

Achila wrote (I added the bold italics):
I'm more interested in seeing that he finds projects that challenge him artistically and intellectually. If I like it, great. If not, that's OK too. And usually, the need to please the audience and the need to please oneself as an actor intersect somewhere. If Elijah likes the role, likes his performance, etc., some segment of his audience will too.
That's a good point, for which we see plenty of evidence here in the FL. There are some of his films (LotR, and probably The War, to name two – or four, I guess) that just about everyone seems to like, and others (All I Want, for example) on which opinion is divided. The only one that EVERYONE here really seems to hate is the one always referred to by all those initials that I can't remember. (Nearly everybody here seems to detest Ash Wednesday as well, but I didn't think it was a terrible film. It wasn't great, but I've seen worse.)

(BTW, Achila and ylla -- Did you get my PMs?)

Dustin Hoffman and William H. Macy are interesting suggestions, as models for EJW. I particularly like Macy. Of course, The Lad has considerably more going for him in the looks department!

tgshaw wrote, regarding Robin Williams:
IMVHO, The Fisher King--and especially Robin's acting in it--didn't get nearly the attention it should have. A powerful movie. I highly recommend it--but be prepared to have your heart shredded.
That's the one that also stars Jeff Bridges, doesn't it? (A very underrated actor, I think.) I heard that it was excellent, but never got to see it; will have to look for it.

Just wanted to throw in one comment about the subject you guys were discussing over the weekend -- about having to like an actor or singer or artist or whatever to enjoy their work. I own hundreds of CDs and vinyl albums and tapes, and have probably seen hundreds of films in my lifetime. If I had to make a personal investment in every entertainer I ever saw, I'd never have time to do anything else. BUT, for me to follow an actor or singer at a level beyond a casual fan, I HAVE to care about them as a person. As I said here before, if it weren't for the person Elijah is, I would've been out of here long ago. I'm not the type that develops crushes just because a boy is cute. There has to be much more for me.

Achila, I think I really agree with you on this. I said that I couldn't take Michael Jackon seriously anymore because his ego had become too much of his "art." If an artist makes good art, that I enjoy, and keeps his personality and proclivities out of the public eye, I can continue to enjoy his art. But when an artist seems to be of the mindset that says "love my art, love my bizarre lifestyle/plastic surgery choices/political opinions/etc." then I tend to steer clear of them. Because I can no longer enjoy their art without alot of baggage being associated with it in my mind.

And I agree that I wouldn't be here only if Elijah were attractive. It's that he seems to know the kind of man he wants to be . And paradoxically, also that he is a private person, keeping a bit of an aura of mystery.

On an amusing personal level, it surprises my husband that I'm still fascinated by EJW given the drinking, and the "porn and chocolate story." I pointed out to my husband that when he was about the same age Elijah is now (before I knew him) he indugled in (ETA) all of the same vices. (My husband turned out just fine. His biggest personal flaw is a tendency to "mother" everyone. :) ) It is that Elijah has a personal goal that he is aiming toward that makes me unconcerned with his wilder moments.
honey!

hallo girls!!!

I have to agree with what have been sade in here lately!!
Aspecilly Achila and Honey!!!!

That man has to do something realy awfull if my love
shoulde end!!!!!!

I have finally seen The Good Son!! Thanks Ylla!!!!!
And i must say it was a very good movie!!!!
I have to put this one in my favurite list!!!

And in my thoughts there were something,
Maculkin played the evil soon and what happens to him later in life?
Elijah playes the good son and look at him!

Am i totaly wrong here or is there not a parallel here?

I hope ypu enyoyed ypour weekend Ylla,Achila and Pelagia!!
I coulde been with you but i was in my thoughts!!!

love you all/wood

I'd like to join those who express their appreciation for Whiteling's contribution above. :) :)

Hello you wonderful Faculty-ites! It’s a privilege to be here again and read all those fascinating posts.

from Honeyelf:
On an amusing personal level, it surprises my husband that I'm still fascinated by EJW given the drinking, and the "porn and chocolate story." I pointed out to my husband that when he was about the same age Elijah is now (before I knew him) he indulged in some of the same vices.

Good for you, HE. Of course he did! Who didn’t? And if not, why not? ;)

What amazes me is how seriously some people seem to take those minuscule misdemeanours on our Lij’s part. Is he not allowed to be both a celebrity and a human being? And why on earth should he cease to be fascinating because he sometimes does what most of the adult population does most days of the week? Well, OK, maybe we don’t all stagger into 24/7 stores in Wellington, NZ every night calling for porn and chocolate, but if we did, no-one (except maybe the staff of said store, but then they’d have been killed in the stampede) would bat an eyelid. The only reason anyone cares one jot about that incident is that it involved a celebrity, and an innocent-looking one at that.

Which leads into one of the main themes here this past few pages: the responsibility that goes with being a celebrity. I’d guess that that kind of responsibility is something no-one consciously chooses. It’s rather like greatness in the sense that some are born with it, some achieve it and some have it thrust upon them (pace Malvolio in Twelfth Night – would still love to seee Elijah in Shakespeare …. but I digress … :) ). Elijah had it thrust upon him as a by-product of the prodigious acting ability that ultimately made him (more or less) a household name. And now (or rather, since the age of 9 or so) he is likely to be called on to give opinions on everything from religion to global warming. As Tg illustrates, having to talk publicly at age 15 (?) about such existential issues as whether hard work is always rewarded by success is no small matter:

from Tg:
He made a somewhat cliched remark about wanting people to know that if they work hard for something they can achieve it, and the interviewer asked him what he'd say to people for whom that hadn't been true. Elijah stumbled around a little in his answer

No wonder. It takes a huge amount of wisdom and experience to come up with any acceptable view on that one (I for one am still wrestling with it, decades after I ceased to be 15!). In Elijah’s case it was almost certainly his innate gifts even more than his hard work that took him to the top of the tree, but he clearly couldn’t say that to an interviewer even if he himself was aware of it – which he may not have been.

So, to come to Shadowcat’s annoyance with EW’s failure to mention that one of the privileges of being an actor is not being a Post Office worker:

you might have noticed that he only metioned as an actor, Traveling as a Privlege. What about the other privelege of acting,like not being forced to work in a job you don't like, dismal working conditions like at a Post Office, and not worrying that Someone will lose it and blow your head off?
Oddly, he didn't mention that. Or maybe it's not important to him. He should remember that. It makes me wonder if he was raised right

…. there’s no universally acceptable answer he could have given to that question either. If Elijah had said he was privileged not to be a Post Office worker, Post Office workers would have felt insulted, and factory and farm workers might well have claimed to be even less privileged. Not to mention the unemployed, the disabled, the mentally ill and the inmates of Guantanamo Bay. There are people who would give their right arms to be Post Office workers. I used to be one myself – admittedly only as a vacation job while at college, but boy, was it better than working at an abattoir or a glue factory or emptying bed pans as a ward orderly – I did that too, and even that had its compensations because you felt you were doing something useful for the patients. But secretly I dreamt of being a postperson! Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that every job – and every life situation - is what you make of it. With power or celebrity comes huge responsibility – responsibility for every move you make in the case of Elijah or the head of the Post Office - and not everyone wants that. Is it better to be a Post Office worker and be able to go home every night and forget about the job, or to be in charge of the whole show and have to worry yourself sick about the implications of your latest decision - including the impact it might have on your workers, your family, the US economy and world peace? Many, many people actively choose the easier route, even if the conditions seem worse.
Even being a Hollywood actor is not necessarily a bed of roses. I've just read a very interesting interview with Franka Potente (more on that later) in which she talks about the acute fear factor amongst actors. I sense that in Elijah too, sometimes. A friend of mine who was an extra (and a social worker in RL) reported on how depressed and exhausted Elijah seemed during the filming of EII and said that Liev Schreiber did not give him an easy time (I tried to keep off that subject back in June and maybe should not be mentioning it now, except that that episode is over …. anxiously awaiting the movie). Ally from the EII yahoogroup said something rather similar (though misunderstanding the cause, it seems).
Anyway, the further you rise in society, the greater the demands on you, and the further there is to fall (not that I expect Elwood to do anything but rise further, but I hope you know what I mean). Moreover, being a celebrity of Elwood’s stature could well make you even more vulnerable to armed nutters than Post Office workers are. Hence the need for bodyguards.

To end on a happier note – sorry! – I too loved your post about artists being channels, Whiteling :k We’ve talked about that before, of course – way back. It’s the age-old mystery of where works of art come from. Frodo and Sam in the movies (not to mention many other characters – Boromir for one!) were walking works of art, and those creations were partly artifice and partly the sheer magic of the performers who embodied them. There is no way you can separate Frolijah from Elijah. And (especially after reading Sean’s book) didn’t the lives and personalities of the actors reflect Frodo and Sam? I still find that uncanny. And as wood points out:

Maculkin played the evil soon and what happens to him later in life?
Elijah playes the good son and look at him!
What was it Sir Ian said about Frolijah? “Unalloyed goodness is one of the most difficult attributes to act” - the implication being that the goodness came from Elijah himself. So – to bring this long post (sorry!) full circle, I guess we can forgive him the occasional ordinary human failing.

And I agree that I wouldn't be here only if Elijah were attractive. It's that he seems to know the kind of man he wants to be . And paradoxically, also that he is a private person, keeping a bit of an aura of mystery.

And what got me interested in the first place, and still occupies most of my "fan" efforts: He's the most amazing actor I've ever seen.

from Pelagia:
That's the one that also stars Jeff Bridges, doesn't it? (A very underrated actor, I think.) I heard that it was excellent, but never got to see it; will have to look for it.
I had to check to be sure (I get those Bridges boys confused--but not their dad ;) ), but, yes, Jeff Bridges. I also checked something else I thought I'd remembered--he was also in Starman, which wasn't the greatest event in cinematic history, but I liked it enough to buy it.

My favorite line from him as an alien who has to learn how to act on earth by observing other people:
Red means stop. Green means go. And yellow means go very, very fast! :D :D

BTW, The Prisoner of Azkaban is coming out on DVD tomorrow, and I saw the cover when I was over at IMDb. IMHO, someone in the marketing department has taken notice that Daniel Radcliffe is growing up nicely, too. :) He's said that he'd like to act with Elijah sometime. Get those two together on screen in a few years (give Daniel a little more time ;) ), and there will be swooning in the aisles. And I mean that in a good way :p . Maybe Elijah could get one of the guest-star gigs in an upcoming Harry Potter movie. ;)

I was being very cool and not asking who William Macy was when he was being talked about earlier. But, oddly enough, I just saw this at IMDb, too. I'm sure he's being slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I take his point:
Macy Selling Himself Out
Actor William H. Macy is turning his back on critically-acclaimed, independent films to star in big-budget blockbusters. The Fargo star is proud of his filmography, but now he's a father to Sophia, four, and Georgia, two, he claims it's time he started bringing home the big bucks. Macy, who recently tasted big-budget film-making with his role in Jurassic Park III, says, "My a** is for sale, and I want to do big movies that pay a lot of money to shoot in LA. Starting right now: no more art. Recently, I realized I've got all these artistic frequent-flier miles and so, I'm cashing them in. I want to do big, fat movies. I've got two little kids. It changes when you have kids. You quickly do an inventory and wonder if you should start apologizing in advance. But my daughter just tore the seat out of a chair - so that's worth one movie right there. I'll just remind her of that when she's old enough."

And what got me interested in the first place, and still occupies most of my "fan" efforts: He's the most amazing actor I've ever seen.

:o I did kind of leave that one out, didn't I? :o But with us, that's just a given isn't it? :)

My husband never sees movies because a specific actor is in it (well, unless he's drug there by his wife! ;) ) He'll buy a ticket because of the director, or the writer.

He'd never read LoTR before he saw the Bashki version, but he said he could still see there was an amazing story underlying the mess there. I asked him what there was to see in that particular depiction. He said it was the story elements; the broken sword, then ents (even though tree-beard is on screen for a whopping 30 seconds!) So it was the fantastical elements of the storythat drew him.

For me it is the relationships between the characters, particularly Frodo and Sam, that make it so meaningful. If the fantasy elements are background to me.

But what made me look at the movies again, and then read the books, was the way Elijah touched me. His acting is so evocative that I almost believe I can read Frodo's mind at certain moments.

But my husband attributes those "filmic-psychic" moments to excellent direction, and to good editting. I wonder if his perspective on films is typical of males?

honey!

Serena's comment to Whiteling about artists being channels having been discussed before made me wonder what was talked about in The Faculty Lounge at Imladris before moving. I have read all the posts here at KD; are the other, older posts available to read?

Pelagia and Achila, thanks for the invite! C4

But my husband attributes those "filmic-psychic" moments to excellent direction, and to good editting. I wonder if his perspective on films is typical of males?
If Elijah had those "filmic-psychic" moments only in the LotR movies, that might be an arguable point. But, of course, that's not how it is.

The LotR movies are special, IMHO, because everything came together in them. Not only the story, the directing, etc., etc., but also the unique connection between Elijah and Frodo. I think the moments you're talking about are probably many of the same ones that I think of as "inner Frodo" moments--when I see what book-Frodo must have been feeling, even if he didn't express it outwardly.

But a lot of Elijah's other characters have some pretty good "filmic-psychic" moments, too... Huck, Mikey Carver, Barney, to name some of the obvious ones. Even Leo, Jack Dawkins, Sean Sullivan and Patrick have flashes of them. (I was going to list Stu, but he's so open with his emotions that we don't really need much psychic reading from him.)

Serena's comment to Whiteling about artists being channels having been discussed before made me wonder what was talked about in The Faculty Lounge at Imladris before moving. I have read all the posts here at KD; are the other, older posts available to read?


You've read all of them? I bow to you, C4 (can't claim to have done that :o ).
Nor do I know what was talked about at Imladris - that was before my time. Here at KD we may not have talked in so many words about artists being channels, but we've certainly discussed the nature of works of art - their being found rather than invented (Tg wrote a lot about that at one time - apparently it's very much a Tolkien theme). If I find the pages I'll let you know.

Serena, not all the posts at KD, just The Faculty Lounge posts. Which leads to new thoughts about what artists owe their fans. EW and PJ need to come to my house and help me finish a ton of jobs that have been neglected, because I've spent the last several months prowling aound the Internet reading massive threads (like The Faculty Lounge) when I should have been doing my work! "Research," I kept telling myself, "A valid use of my time."
"It's awwfully dark in here. Oh, the windows need to be washed. But there's a cloud. Might rain. I'll just see who's posted what over at KD. This will only take a few minutes...." :rolleyes:

ETA: According to the Council of Elrond, "Forever Young " is scheduled for broadcast on Lifetime on Thursday, November 25 @ 1:30 PM.

Which leads to new thoughts about what artists owe their fans. EW and PJ need to come to my house and help me finish a ton of jobs that have been neglected...
:lol:

I'll second that... except I've spent more time on screencaps than I have surfing the net (the value of research collaboration... each person has a different focus, and all the results can be shared :) ). Maybe they should have a contest: "The person whose life has been most disrupted by the LotR movies" and they could wash windows... clean up clutter... write letters to relatives... balance checkbooks... :p

from serena:
...but we've certainly discussed the nature of works of art - their being found rather than invented (Tg wrote a lot about that at one time - apparently it's very much a Tolkien theme).
Very much... Tolkien said clearly that he felt more like he had discovered Middle-earth than invented it. That's the assumption I come from in just about everything I write, but here are a couple of the most obvious essays on it (in the archives now):

This one is the first in a six-essay series, all of which are basically about that topic (name of the series is "Is Middle-earth Real?"). But this first one is the one that most specifically talks about the relationship between the art and the artist (the subcreation and the subcreator). It was written before I knew Whiteling :) ; it'd be interesting to see how an artist would feel about it: What Does a Subcreator Create? (http://www.frodolivesin.us/Archives/id15.htm)

This is the very last pre-movie essay, reflecting on the readers' relationship to Middle-earth (and, while we didn't stop the army of Elves at Helm's Deep, we did seem to scuttle the plans for Xenarwen ;) -- There's actually a version of her in one of the latest video games :eek: . Doesn't look much like Liv, but that's definitely Hadafang she's wielding :eek: ) : No One But a Tolkien Reader... (http://www.frodolivesin.us/Archives/id13.htm)

But infinitely better than any essays I could write is Tolkien's "Leaf by Niggle," the one piece of fiction he wrote that he admits openly is allegory--with himself being represented by Niggle and LotR being represented by Niggle's painting--so it says more than any non-fiction could about how he saw his relationship between himself and his work. He wrote it at a time when he was beginning to despair of ever finishing LotR. "Leaf by Niggle" is short-story length and can be found in The Tolkien Reader (along with other goodies :) ).

Tg, thanks for the links to your essays. I read them a while ago, but will re-read them. I have not read "Leaf by Niggle." That's next, after I finish EII.

Over at TORN, new interviews from Oscar night are posted. EW talks briefly about having to film Mt. Doom twice.

Now, I must get off this blasted computer and go buy a turkey! C4

Just to admit it up front....

This is OT, I wish to find something out so I thought I'd give it a try at K-D.

A friend at TORC is trying to find out if the writers of LotR (Boyens, Walsh, Jackson) have ever responded to queries about controverted changes for Frodo's character in the first film, The Fellowship of the Ring. That the Ford of Bruinen was changed to give a more heroic moment to Arwen (from her Xenarwen days), seems to be the universal view.

But what about Weathertop and the battle in Balin's Tomb, in Moria? I have read loads of argumentation about these scenes between fans, but have not read or heard any comments to justify the decisions from the writers themselves.

Any leads? Any tips for looking in K-D -- most likely forums, etc.?

Thanks so much,

~ Mechtild

This one is the first in a six-essay series, all of which are basically about that topic (name of the series is "Is Middle-earth Real?"). But this first one is the one that most specifically talks about the relationship between the art and the artist (the subcreation and the subcreator). It was written before I knew Whiteling :) ; it'd be interesting to see how an artist would feel about it: What Does a Subcreator Create? (http://www.frodolivesin.us/Archives/id15.htm)

Tg, that's one great essay. Wonderful :) .
from Tg's essay:
A true subcreator recognizes the greater reality behind his or her creation. You can't bring forth a true secondary creation without acknowledging the primary creation that allows it to exist. And each of us is a part of that primary creation on which Middle-earth is founded. Rather than provide escapism, a subcreation leads us deeper into the reality of that tiny corner of primary creation from which it springs.

I like your connection to religion (in the broadest sense). I, too, do believe that our own human creativity is an echo of the eternal creator's creativity. And one has not to think of this power as a person. You can see it as person but it is not essential. I myself cannot say what is floating through my whole being in moments of inspiration or during an art process. It was and will always remain a mystery to me. And I have the feeling that this is good. It is an attitude of humility towards the greater power of creation (or the primary creation, in Tg's terms).
"True" (sub)creation is IMHO an archaeological process... you follow an inspiration and just discover what is already "there" (the question is where is this ominous "there"?). I think it has to do with the artist's ability to give up on his own person.
There are artists who simply spit out their emotions, say, they paint a picture in an angry mood. They slap a coat of paint on canvas and claim it is art. I'd rather say basically it's "expression" which caused a trace on a piece of fabric. It can be a work of art, but not necessarily. This kind of expression has often to do with the painters' ego (or Persona), not that I say, that isn't OK, but if an artist approaches his art via the channel method, it is more likely he reaches a deeper level, a level which is more universal and archetypical. In the first case (painters ego) we look at his picture and say, "I think he was angry when he did this." In the second case we look at the picture and recognise a genuine trait of Anger, it's like as if the painter shows us a glimpse of a type of universal anger and we can relate to it, we recognise it as a part of our own.
We've often discussed it here, Elijah's approach on acting seems not so much the "role of" way but the "character itself" way. He disappears completely into the character. Where do he get this character from? I wish I could tell. Just as well one can ask where art begins. I don't know either.

I loved "Leaf by Niggle" - I could very much relate to it. The process of (sub)creation can give an artist the highest bliss on earth as well as the deepest moments of despair. Tolkien knew that pretty well.

Hi everyone!

I just stopped by to post a link. I think many of you who keep an eye at A&F already know about it, but all the same I think it's really quite interesting analysis and it would be a shame to miss out for anyone who thinks a little deeper about Elijah and the fandom.

http://fandom.ejwsites.net/fanzines.htm

Thanks for the link, Eandme. Interesting commentary and analysis, even if the chosen pics are not always the ones I'd choose (which of course fits the analysis!). C4, thanks for your TORN hint, too :)

But really I wanted to say how happy I was to see this from Tg:

He's the most amazing actor I've ever seen.

I've just been involved in a couple of stage plays directed by a professional stage director. During one of our post-rehearsal chats, the subject of ESOTSM came up (it had finally reached here and lots of people I know went to see it, I'm glad to say - and it still gets rave reviews, even from a highly intellectual set of BBC critics who praised it as the one current film to whose heights others ought to aspire [beams with pride :cool: ]). So I casually dropped in Elijah's name as one of the cast. The response from my director friend? "Oh, so he's got a job at last?"

I'm not entirely sure what he meant by that (I avoided pursuing the matter) but I suspect (from what has been hinted at before) that it was meant to be disparaging. I find the extent to which so many people completely misread Elijah as an actor extremely weird. As many of us have said before, I think it really must be because he is TOO GOOD - so good that people assume he isn't acting. I was slightly taken in on my first viewing of FOTR; it was only when I discovered that that beautiful, graceful young man with the perfect English accent wasn't English - and remembered where I'd seen him before - that I realised what a stunningly good actor he is. A lot of people, including some who should know better, just haven't bothered to give the matter any thought, I suspect. They see Elijah Wood as a very young guy with big eyes, and assume that's all there is to him: he was chosen for his looks alone. (I wish more people had heard what Ian McKellen said in that post-ROTK Oscars interview.) Also, they haven't seen Elijah in anything else. It really is frustrating that most of Lij's post-LOTR exploits have sunk without trace or been cancelled or not yet appeared - even if he did deliberately choose low-budget, quirky indie films. As for the next few, I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I really can't imagine how EII is going to turn out - all I know is that it will be hugely different from the book. Hooligans? Praying that that goes on general release ..... :z:

ETA: http://fandom.ejwsites.net/images2/v21k1.jpg

Jeepers mighty. A person could write books about that picture!! Wow!


I believe that Elijah could not have done Frodo so well without that Nail-that-boy's-shoes-to-the-floor-so-he-doesn't-float-away characteristic that he has. It's best portrayed (in Elijah) in that picture of EW and SA with PJ, in one of their first meetings, where Elijah looks like he's about to float off the couch compared to Sean. That quality fed into the increasing fragility and transparency (well, Gandalf thought it!) of Frodo as the story progressed. Someone's said that it's difficult to play someone who is all good; I think it's also difficult to play someone who's barely there - physically and emotionally. Try to imagine stocky, solid Sean Astin playing Frodo at the Grey Havens :::: sniffle blub blub :::: and if your brain doesn't short out, you'll see what I mean.

I hope that they have the cheesey-hobbit-costume clip in the EE DVD. I hope that they have some of the audition tapes - white background and all. I'd love to try to look through PJ's or casting person's eyes and try to see what they saw in The One Lad. I suspect that it had something to do with that barely-touching-the-ground thing that His Ladness does.

~grumpy
(Sekrit message to Whiteling re: avatar:
----------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
--------------------
_____________________
+++++++++++++++++
;) ;) ;) )

Not very much to say!!

But thanks for the link Eandme!
And thanks for the gourges picture
of Elijah and Ian!!

And as i sade before,He is too good,some people
just can`t get that and that makes me so angry! :confused:

Why can`t people see and what will it take for them to see??
I know we are intaiteld too have diffrent opinions but i just whant
people too see what they are missing!!!

Fore there own good!! ;)

love/wood

Also imagine skinny, anorexic Frodo (the limp, Rag Doll) lifting Sam's considerably much larger frame, up the hill at Mt. Doom. :lol:

I believe that Elijah could not have done Frodo so well without that Nail-that-boy's-shoes-to-the-floor-so-he-doesn't-float-away characteristic that he has.

What a wonderful way of putting it. When I read this and thought about it, it brought to mind the words of Mikey in Radio Flyer when he says about Bobby that he knew about a special thing that all kids know about, only he knew more. Elijah becomes rather than plays the characters in films in a way that kind of suggests he has been here before and is in some small part not quite of this world. Yet at the same time, he was just a normal kid, and is just a normal 20 something.

zkgrumpy wrote:
I hope that they have the cheesey-hobbit-costume clip in the EE DVD. I hope that they have some of the audition tapes - white background and all. I'd love to try to look through PJ's or casting person's eyes and try to see what they saw in The One Lad.
Oh, I would pay good money to see that (cheesy-hobbit-costume clip)! Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any indication that it’s going to be included (I had hoped that it might be this EE’s “Easter egg,” but apparently not).

A very happy Thanksgiving (one day early, since I won’t be online tomorrow) to US members (and anyone else who celebrates this holiday).

Keep in mind the following advice from the Krichinsky family, on how to have a peaceful Thanksgiving:

1. (The one rule we ALL know) NEVER cut the turkey until all family members are present.

2. Never let food items touch each other on your plate. (“I hate when food touches! I hate that!” – Michael Kaye)

3. Do not attempt to explain aunts and great-aunts – much less first cousins twice removed – to small children after dinner.

Thanks to the Faculty for providing entertaining, thought-provoking conversation, and stimulating ;), aesthetically satisfying (read: “swoonable”) pictures. And thanks to the most excellent Elijah for providing the subject matter.

Thanks to Eandme for the link--I have not explored the whole site (no time this week!) but I did check the link zkgrumpy pulled out, that lovely shot of EW and Sir Ian. What great guys, both. Mech and I were just talking about them, in a slightly different context.

I recall reading that they were actually modeling those sweaters they're wearing, though I've forgotten who the designer/label was, and that is, I believe, the entire story behind the photo (again, I don't know what it says about it at the site--apologies if I am repeating her commentary).

If anyone has a copy of the other picture zk referred to, of Sean and Elijah and PJ early in the script-reading process, would you link or post it please? It's been mentioned a few times and I don't think I've seen it. Thank you!

Happy Thanksgiving tomorrow to all who celebrate it, and a happy Thursday to those who don't. ;)

A very happy Thanksgiving

On this day, Nov. 24, 2004, I am thankful that I am not a turkey.

Keep in mind the following advice from the Krichinsky family, on how to have a peaceful Thanksgiving:
This usually involves large quantities of amber fluids. ;)

1. (The one rule we ALL know) NEVER cut the turkey until all family members are present.

This is the issue in our family that makes the Faculty Lounge discussion look like Miss Frances's Ding Dong School: Is dinner ready when the food is on the table, or when the people are seated? See, the men think the food should be on the table first; the women think that the family should be seated, and *then* the food comes out. My family avoids the issue by having buffet style.

2. Never let food items touch each other on your plate. (“I hate when food touches! I hate that!” – Michael Kaye)
Blasphemy! :eek: Gravy dams forever!!!

Thanks to the Faculty for providing entertaining, thought-provoking conversation, and stimulating ;), aesthetically satisfying (read: “swoonable”) pictures. And thanks to the most excellent Elijah for providing the subject matter. Agreed.

Didn't Dominic M. say in an interview that several of the lads are going to Hawaii for T-day? Who was it - Viggo and Orlando? Billeh? Anyway, happy T-day to all!

:::: packing Maalox and Prozac for tomorrow ::::;)

~grumpy

ZK
I believe it's Viggo and Orli sharing Thanksgiving with Dom
Then Billy and Lij sharing New Years with him
I love that these guys still have a bond....wish I could be a fly on the wall when they get together...and I'm also happy for Dom's hit series...I still keep track of all the members of "The Fellowship"
I love all the references to Avalon and Thanksgiving...my grandaughter also can't stand the food "touching each other"...I'll keep an eye on that as I prepare her plate tommorrrow :D

Pelagia..thanks for the great pms
You were a delightful dinner companion...wish we could have stayed there longer...many handsome waiters and all :D
Ohhh I'm so turning into my Mother...who loved looking and sometimes flirting with young handsome guys :o I remember when I was younger that ALWAYS embarrassed me...NOW I understand it :rolleyes:
I think when she left me I may have been possessed by that part of her spirit ;) Sooo I'll just blame her as I embarrass my own daughters :eek:
Happy Thanksgiving Faculty :k

eandme, thanks for the link--I won't have time to look at properly, either, til at least next week, but it looks interesting.

I was kind of glad to see that the person with that site is studying fandom; perish the thought that anyone, anywhere should outdo us in actual Elwood research :eek: ! The best title I've come up with so far for our ;) book is: That Kid from Deep Impact: Appreciating Elijah Wood's Acting. My main difficulty is knowing whether it should be set up by topic (a chapter on microexpressions, a chapter on eyebrow acting), or by movie (addressing the various topics in the context of watching each movie). I'm leaning toward the latter--with annual updates to include his new movies. And I hope no one thinks I'm kidding :mad: -- If not us, who?

from Pelagia:
Keep in mind the following advice from the Krichinsky family, on how to have a peaceful Thanksgiving:
from zkgrumpy:
This usually involves large quantities of amber fluids.
I think that piece of wisdom is actually from the Sullivans :p .

Happy Thanksgiving!

And remember that happiness is no longer having to sit at the little kid's table :) .

http://www.frodolivesin.us/ejw/1ccfa8c0.jpg

We don't want to forget that other Thanksgiving movie, which can certainly help us think of many things to be grateful for.

http://www.imagemagician.com/images/tgshaw/off topic/capA2630-85.jpg

Now that "family celebrations" have moved on a couple of generations and a couple of thousand miles west, it's just my mom and me together for Thanksgiving. We've developed a tradition of always going to the same restaurant for Thanksgiving dinner (helped along by the fact that it's usually the only restaurant in Fort Dodge that's open on Thanksgiving ;) ). They serve special dinners on Thanksgiving with all the traditional fixings--as long as you get there early enough--so we've decided there's no reason on earth to go through all the trouble of cooking them for ourselves, or washing the dishes afterward!

Well as a swedish girl i don`t celebrate Thanksgiven!!

But i know about it so i wish you all a very Happy Thanksgiven!!!

love/wood

Thank you for that picture from Ice storm TG!!
I love that movie!!!!

As a little Thanksgiving treat, I've heard it reported that the official site is going to release a 2 1/2 minute preview on Nov. 25 of the 6 minute trailer of the ROTK-EE on Nov. 29. A preview of a preview--only in America.

Anyhoo, hope it's true. It's supposed to be all new footage we haven't seen before, which I hope means more Frodo/Sam footage.

I realy hope its true!! Eresh thanks for letting us know!!!

And i realy hope it is for downloading!!!

love/wood

Happy Thanksgiving to the Faculty, both near and far, here and there. I'm thankful for all of you-- and coincidentally -- this guy too:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/aquila0212/lordpre12.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/aquila0212/twopussycats.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/aquila0212/e3_2004.jpg


:k :k ,

Ann

Happy Thanksgiving to all my Faculty friends! :k http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/honeyelf/angeleno.bmp

I'm thankful to have friends all over the world!

honey!

ETA just ran across these, and they illustrate ZK's lovely post about Elijah's seeming ethereality, and Sean's ...um... solidity. :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/honeyelf/lightness.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/honeyelf/weight.jpg

On this day, Nov. 24, 2004, I am thankful that I am not a turkey.
When I think about it, I am grateful perennial that I am not a turkey. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/whiteling/turkrun.gif


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/whiteling/seansbookshelob.jpg

Phew, that was a narrow escape! :D



Happy Thanksgiving to all who celebrates this feast! :k

Many thanks for The Faculty Lounge! :D C4

Well, I'm off to my mom's. I'm thankful she's still healthy at 88, and thankful to have all of you to be back with in a few days :k And I'll be really thankful if I get there on time!



Seems to me I've done this before, but I'm leaving with my quote as the last one in the LotR quote game in the Green Dragon, so I'm posting a clue here so people can avoid it if they want to, or can peek. ;)


Clue for LotR Quote Game







This is spoken by someone who's been looking for a sign.






End of clue









Have a good weekend, all. :)


ETA: I haven't mentioned it til now, and of course it's not finished (finished--what's finished :rolleyes: ?). But since the "official" holiday shopping season starts tomorrow, I might as well announce the opening of the Bywater Shopping Mall (http://www.frodolivesin.us/Bywater/). I've tried to have a little fun with it :) .

tgshaw: I had forgotten that The Ice Storm is a Thanksgiving movie, too. (How could anyone forget Christina Ricci’s “blessing”?) As for how to organize “our” book on Elijah’s acting, maybe we could have it both ways. Half of the book could be by movie, since we would want to have detailed analyses of how he develops each character through the course of the film, and the other half could be by topic (eyebrow acting, etc.), for those who want to delve more deeply into technique. That arrangement would make for a longish book, but do we care?? It would just provide an excuse for even more illustrations!

Achila: So glad that you posted the picture of Elijah with the lynx (or bobcat??)! Ever since you and ylla told me that story, I’ve been meaning to go in search of more details.

honeyelf: Perfect picture to go with zkgrumpy’s post!

zkgrumpy wrote:
This is the issue in our family that makes the Faculty Lounge discussion look like Miss Frances's Ding Dong School: Is dinner ready when the food is on the table, or when the people are seated? See, the men think the food should be on the table first; the women think that the family should be seated, and *then* the food comes out.
Sounds like MY family; and it’s usually because the men don’t want to have to be torn away from the football game until it’s REALLY time to eat.

ylla: Hey, flirting is fun! And if not with young, handsome guys – what’s the point??

honeyelf: Perfect picture to go with zkgrumpy’s post!

That's the picture! See what I mean?

BTW, I was listening to the last audio tape of TTT, where Sam is kneeling by Frodo's supposedly dead body. There's a line; don't remember all of it, but something about Frodo's face being beautiful with an elvin beauty or something like that; pretty well describes The Lad, doesn't it?

~grumpywithturkeytoxicity
"See? See? SeeSeeSeeSeeSee?" -- Dr. Daniel Jackson

Thank you for the picture, Honey! That certainly looks like the one I was trying to imagine from the conversations.

I watched "Forever Young" yesterday and enjoyed it very much. (The commercials were handy; ran out to the kitchen to mash potatoes one time, snip green beans the next.) I think my favorite parts were "It's the dead guy!" :lol: and the looks on EW and the other little boy (it's a shame for most of these little boys who acted with EW--it will always be EW and "the other little boy") and Mel Gibson's character were sizing up the poor doctor boyfriend little, tiny swoon for Mel Gibson--especially in "The Year of Living Dangerously" C4

ETA-I was wandering imdb and the screenwriter of "Forever Young" was J.J.Abrams, one of the creators and writers of "Lost."

Hi ladies!!

Hope you enjoy your holliday!!!! :k :k

I have just seen t´he fellowship!!
After seeing it so many times i still don`t get it
how does he do it!! So many faces in one caracter and
one actor!!!
It is a mystery!!
Maybe thats why we all love him so much.He is a mystery
that wont be soulved!!!!!!!

And he is so good looking so wonderful too look at!!!

Love/wood

BTW, I was listening to the last audio tape of TTT, where Sam is kneeling by Frodo's supposedly dead body. There's a line; don't remember all of it, but something about Frodo's face being beautiful with an elvin beauty or something like that; pretty well describes The Lad, doesn't it?

And for a moment he lifted up the Phial and looked down at his master, and the light burned gently now with the soft radiance of the evening-star in summer, and in that light Frodo's face was fair of hue again, pale but beautiful with an elvish beauty, as of one who has long passed the shadows. And with the bitter comfort of that last sight Sam turned and hid the light and stumbled on into the growing dark.
...and with that, I will stumble off to bed. Was going to write a bit more, but that will have to wait, I'm afraid. [ETA: And some people don't think the Professor could write :rolleyes: .]

Did want to wish dear Maeg a happy birthday, though, before the day is past. :k

Happy Birthday Maegelin!!!!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v399/erendil/2556Paradise-Lost.jpg

I Hope I`m Not Too Late!!!

Love/wood

Hooligans picked up for UK distribution (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/variety/20041128/va_fi_in/brits_get_soccer_kicks_1)

another website is saying that this article says Hooligans has been picked up for US distribution, but it looks to me like it's only UK distribution, IF I'm reading the article correctly. :confused:

Happy Birthday, Maeglian!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/honeyelf/bdayphone.jpg
You really should give up that antiquated dial-up modem. You never know who might be trying to call, and wish you many returns! ;)

honey!

Thank you for the birthday greetings! :) :) :)

The article that honeyelf linked, about Hooligans, talks about “the disproportionate DVD success of another low-budget drama about soccer violence, Nick Love's The Football Factory," and then notes:
UPI [Universal Pictures Intl.], primarily U's video arm but an increasingly aggressive all-rights buyer, is clearly hoping Hooligans will appeal to the same crowd of young male DVD buyers.
:D Ha! That just goes to show how little these people know! They don’t even realize that they are missing a large demographic segment here! (This makes me think about the backers of Gladiator, who targeted young males for that film, too, and then were surprised when they learned that audiences were running about 50/50 men/women. Um -- Russell Crowe, anyone??)

wood wrote:
I have just seen t´he fellowship!! After seeing it so many times i still don`t get it how does he do it!! So many faces in one caracter and one actor!!! It is a mystery!! Maybe thats why we all love him so much.He is a mystery that wont be soulved!!!!!!!
That’s one reason why we can watch his films over and over again (apart from the sheer pleasure of just looking at him, of course!). And also, because there is so much going on in his performances, each time I watch (particularly LotR), I see something he’s doing that I didn’t notice before.

Happy birthday, belatedly, to Maeglian!

PELAGIA: That is so true!!!!

Isen`t that the main reson we look over and over
again at his movies!!!!!! Even if they aren`t specilly
good???? I mean, i don`t look at a bad movie if there isen`t
any thing gourges to look at!!!IF you know what i mean!!!! :p :D :k ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v399/erendil/3236ghf-med.jpg

I diden`t swoon did i?????? Well you all know by now my true
feelings so there is no reson to hide is there?? :D :D :D

Love/Wood

I just viewed the extended trailer for the EE and am quite surprised I didn't spontaneously combust! :D Can hardly type! Am speechless!

WERE C4 !!!!

Please can you give me the link!!!!????? :z: :z: :z:

love/wood

sorry! It's at www.lordoftherings.net. The offixial mivie site.

That’s one reason why we can watch his films over and over again (apart from the sheer pleasure of just looking at him, of course!). And also, because there is so much going on in his performances, each time I watch (particularly LotR), I see something he’s doing that I didn’t notice before.
Oh, absolutely! And one of the main reasons I think everything in the LotR movies is so well meshed--at least concerning Frodo. This is how Tolkien wrote, which is why his writing, especially LotR, can be read over and over, with new things coming to the surface each time. It's also how the movies were scripted and planned, with layers and details that can't all be caught in one viewing (to put it mildly). And it's how Elijah acts, which fits with and deepens the movies' other layered aspects--and gives him the most layered and nuanced story and character ever written to work his magic on. No wonder this all comes together into geek nirvana. :z:

I've been thinking back on last week's discussion of how Elijah makes his acting look so natural that it's difficult for some viewers to realize how great his acting is unless they see him in more than one role. I would have accepted this "excuse" until RotK came out. But, IMHO, anyone who watched Elijah in that movie should have been able to see enough transformations of the character to realize that they couldn't have all been natural. And, IMVHO, anyone who saw FotR, TTT and RotK has absolutely no excuse at all. :mad:

My mom and I made it through the German version of Day-O once before the not-so-premium DVD player :rolleyes: we had at her house decided that was all it was going to do. So we got very little that could be added to what Skater girl already had in her synopsis. A few phrases translated, but nothing that contributed much to the story.

-------

Here's a little something from the Penguin Admiration Thread in the Asylum that looked like it might be a good treat for Happy Feet premiere parties :) :

http://www.imagemagician.com/images/tgshaw/off topic/cupcake.jpg

Thank you for the link C4!!! :k :k

Good to see you back TG!!! :k :k

LOVE/WOOD

Oops...I'm too late.

Nevertheless,

I hope you had a great birthday and will have a fantastic new year in your life, Maeglian.

http://www.youthinfilm.com/Astra/gallery/pix/elijah_wood.jpg

The Indiana State Museum is proud to announce it is the last international venue to host The Lord of the Rings Motion Picture Trilogy – The Exhibition Oct. 6, 2005 through Dec. 31, 2005.
OT but if you consider this "research" for Elijah's portrayal of Frodo then it's okay! :D I know tickets don't go on sale for an age or two but does anyone know how they are sold? Can you pick the day you want to go or do they pick it for you? Are there any weekends or weekdays that anyone thinks they may go? My sister needs to let her work know when she wants vacation time next year asap and since she is coming with me... For those traveling by road, for the sake of decent weather, sometime between Oct. 6th but before Thanksgiving should be okay. After this recent snowstorm, I would rather not drive in that unless I had to.

Just checking for ideas since I would like to meet you all in person. :)

P.S. I'm closing my eyes to all descriptions of the ROTK EE. I've always "spoiled" my viewings because I just couldn't restrain myself. This time though, I'm going spoiler-free. One last surprise from Frodo is in order.
And then I'm going to build my own ship!!! ;)

I know tickets don't go on sale for an age or two but does anyone know how they are sold? Can you pick the day you want to go or do they pick it for you? Are there any weekends or weekdays that anyone thinks they may go?

At least with Boston, the tickets were sold by phone and through the Science Museum's website. And yes, you chose the day you wanted to go. I'm assuming that they will do a timed ticket, just like in Boston, so you can choose that as well.

Shelbyshire, I hope you are able to attend the exhibit. I had wanted to see it up in Boston, but had no one to go with me. :( My son watched the EE trailer and he was excited about the Witch King and I was excited about everything else and my husband was shaking his head saying, "Gee, I wonder where he gets it from?" :D Tears spring from this mother's eyes---my son, the LOTR geek! C-squee-4

tgshaw wrote, regarding how we can watch LotR again and again:
This is how Tolkien wrote, which is why his writing, especially LotR, can be read over and over, with new things coming to the surface each time. It's also how the movies were scripted and planned, with layers and details that can't all be caught in one viewing (to put it mildly).
I can’t wait for January, when I’m going to start reading the book again. I first read it in January/February 2002, and read it again in January/February of last year, so it’s becoming a ritual for me. Part of me would like to start in September, since that’s when the story begins. But there’s just something comforting about curling up with that book on long, cold winter evenings.

Also from tg:
I've been thinking back on last week's discussion of how Elijah makes his acting look so natural that it's difficult for some viewers to realize how great his acting is unless they see him in more than one role. I would have accepted this "excuse" until RotK came out. But, IMHO, anyone who watched Elijah in that movie should have been able to see enough transformations of the character to realize that they couldn't have all been natural. And, IMVHO, anyone who saw FotR, TTT and RotK has absolutely no excuse at all.
Oh, definitely. I have a few friends who have not yet seen RotK, and who have been waiting for the EE. I keep telling them that they should at least watch FotR again, before watching RotK – not so much to remind them of the plot, but so that they can fully appreciate Elijah’s performance across the arc of the three films.

BTW, I took a quick look at the "fandom" link that Eandme posted. Didn't have time to read the essays, but I was intrigued by the comments of the people who responded to the survey, about photos of Elijah that they liked -- or did NOT like. The "dislike" comments tended to focus on the fact that he looked too "posed," "fake," "artificial," "unnatural," etc. For the pictures that they liked, respondents used words such as "a bit 'outside-of-this-world,'" "relaxed and sexy," "happy," "bright and innocent," "natural, simple," "kindness and tenderness," and "intelligence and warmth." (My favorite comment from the site, about a picture that the respondent didn't like: "He is portrayed as 'good looking,' which is less interesting than his own quirky, geeky, cool, beautiful self.")

I think one of the things that several people here (including myself) have said we like about him is his apparent unpretentiousness; and I know that I really hate the self-conscious would-be matinee-idol-type photos that we sometimes see of him. Obviously, we're not alone.

(((Maeglian, dear))), happy birthday! Sorry to be late with my greetings.

Yesterday I finally managed to order "Paradise" DVD at Amazon - one of the few EW movies I still didn't see. Hope to get it at the end of December. Does anybody know - has it English subtitles or not?

tg,
I can't say definetelly if the brothers in Radio Flyer understood or not that the young man at the filling station is that famous boy from the "legend", Fisher. IMHO, they did... But for spectators this is obvious - he has his name on his shirt, his colleague named him Fisher, he's lame in the right leg (we know that the Fisher boy broke his leg when he fall down), in the window of the filling station we can see some old city papers with articles and pics about his famous flight... Am I right?

My LOTR symphony in Kremlin was very good. I had a lot of pleasure. And I definetelly love Sissel's performance of "Into the West" - much more than the Lennox's one. Sissel has fantasticly beautiful, silver voice - simply the elvish nightingale!

Shelbyshire,
I also try to avoid ROTK SEE spoilers this time - me, the great spoiler lover! :D But this regards only video and pic spoilers. I don't want to see the last glipms of Middle Earth - and Frodo! - before time. I keep it for dessert! ;) But I intently read all I could find about the additional scenes. I want to know what I could expect to get, and for what there is no need to wait.



P.S. At the second part of December I probably will be in Denmark, in Copenhagen for 2 days... Do we have at Faculty someone from this city?

Rikka wrote:
My LOTR symphony in Kremlin was very good. I had a lot of pleasure. And I definetelly love Sissel's performance of "Into the West" - much more than the Lennox's one. Sissel has fantasticly beautiful, silver voice - simply the elvish nightingale!
Glad to hear that you enjoyed the symphony. Sissel sang "Into the West" here in Philadelphia, too; and like you, I preferred her performance over Annie Lennox's (although I've gotten more used to Annie after MANY ;) hearings on CD and DVD).

I also agree with Rikka that Mike and Bobby did realize who the gas station attendant was, in Radio Flyer. Didn't they show Bobby's reaction, in particular, when he saw the name label? I had forgotten about the newspapers in the window.

My sister-in-law finally saw Fellowship of the Ring.

She referred to it patronizingly as "fantasy". :rolleyes:

Harrrrumph.

~grumpy (her kids (grown, professionals) are all nuts about LotR)

She referred to it patronizingly as "fantasy".

Probably one of the reasons I never got around to reading the books until 2003. (Read 'em twice that year! :) ) I didn't want a lot of pink unicorns rampaging past my mind's eye, and that's what that awful label "fantasy" meant to me.

Little did I know that I'd find a "true" story there. Still won't read other works of "fantasy" though. Once you've read the best what's the point?

Rikka, glad you enjoyed your symphony. Sissel was wonderful, wasn't she?

honey!

Hi all!!!!

The fellowship whent on the tv in the weekend
and some of my co-workes sade they were going to watch
it,becuse i have been talking so much about them!! :rolleyes:

And guess what?? They sade they change the channel after 25 minutes!!! :confused: :confused:
How on earth can you tell a movie is good or bad after 15 minutes?? :eek:
It was so unreal they sade,come on.it is a a story ,in storys thwere is dwarfs.alfs and wizards and many strange figures like hobbits!!!

Well i give up it is no use to rty convinse people when they don`t give it a try!!!!! :( :(
I am so glade i have met all of you!!! You are the only people i can discuss
this with,with out beeing look at like a totaly idiot!!!!

Love/Wood

and like you, I preferred her performance over Annie Lennox's (although I've gotten more used to Annie after MANY ;) hearings on CD and DVD).

Pelagia,
I trained myself for a long time to like Annie's performance of "Into the West"... because at the first sight/listen I hated it! But I loved the song itself (music and words) so finally I got used to Annie, too! ;) But only because I had no other variants. But now I definetely want to have a record of Sissel's "Into the West"!

But at the same time I love greately Annie Lennox's performance of "Use Well the Days". This is obviously Frodo's farewell song - addressing to Sam , I suppose...
And when I listen this song, I have a very strange feeling... Annie (at least, as a singer) has a very low voice - for a woman. Sometime's it sounds almost as a voice of a young boy. But at the same time EW's voice has a high tone for a man, it's very boyish... And when Annie sings "Use Well the Days" so delicatly, so tenderly... ..well... it strongly remains me of EW's voice - how Frodo speaks in the movie to his dearest friends, Sam, for example... And this is very touching for me.

Rikka; Hallo!!! Good Too "see" You Again!!

What Is This Song You Are Talking About?
Use The Day Well.is This A New Song Becuse It Is Not
On The Cd Return Of The King!!
Or Have I Miss Something?

Love/wood

Rikka;
What Is This Song You Are Talking About?
Use The Day Well.is This A New Song Becuse It Is Not
On The Cd Return Of The King!!
Or Have I Miss Something?

wood,
as far as I know,"Use Well the Days" was written as a ROTK credit song. But than Shore decided it will be not good enough for this purpose and replaced it with "Into the West" in the soundtrack.
Well, may be he was right - it's too quiet, lyrical and "personal" song for the credits. But IMHO, it's very beautiful and sad. I love it.

You may download "Use Well the Days" here:
http://www.freewebs.com/ancalime/features.htm


And - wood - dear, cheer up! Don't pay attention to your colleagues remarks. I suppose they are just of those narrow-minded people who do not feel any poetry and don't have imagination. They simply couldn't see the story behing "all those elfs and dwarfs". ;) This is their problem, not the problem of Tolkien or PJ's movie.

[ (My favorite comment from the site, about a picture that the respondent didn't like: "He is portrayed as 'good looking,' which is less interesting than his own quirky, geeky, cool, beautiful self.")

I think one of the things that several people here (including myself) have said we like about him is his apparent unpretentiousness; and I know that I really hate the self-conscious would-be matinee-idol-type photos that we sometimes see of him. Obviously, we're not alone.

LOL I wrote that! ... Perhaps we are alone after all.... :rolleyes:

Thank you for the link RIKKA!! :k :k

I know i shouldent woorry to much about it!!! :rolleyes:

It is their worrys and their big big lost!!!!!!

love/wood

Thank you for the link RIKKA!! :k :k

So, download - and enjoy! :k The record is not of a best quality, but good enough to like it. When I listen to it, I always think about Frodo at Grey Havens in the movie - when he embraces Sam...


I know i shouldent woorry to much about it!!! :rolleyes: It is their worrys and their big big lost!!!!!!

Right you are, dear! If someone unable to understand something really beautiful and high, we must only sorry for him/her.

Sadly, no Hooligans. However, one of the films that will be shown is Thumbsucker :lol:

Also scheduled is "On A Clear Day," with Billy Boyd.

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought "Thumbsucker" was never filmed.

There's a free subscription service to watch short films and interviews. :z: Say no more!

Also scheduled is "On A Clear Day," with Billy Boyd.

Kewl!

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought "Thumbsucker" was never filmed.

At least from our point of view, you're right. It was filmed without Elijah. ;)


ETA: OK gang, here's a new description for Elijah's "one expression" -- it's from UGO.com:

OK, I'm sure there's an entire Elven language that Tolkien worked out. If not Tolkien, then some poor bastard has done it. Hell, the same's been done for Klingon and probably Wookie, too. But that whole moment - where they can only get the door to open by saying a magic word (hidden in a riddle), and Elijah Wood, looking nauseous and confused (like he does throughout the entire trilogy), asks in his oh-so-innocent hobbit voice, "What's Elven for friend?" and then Gandalf conveniently gives the answer, and the door magically opens...for some reason, that's a little too much for me.

Did you hear me screaming???

Achila, I wouldn't get all upset about that article. First, the author admits he is a "casual" LOTR fan and "maybe" started reading the books in high school. His complaints are about scenes that were taken (more or less) from the books. Just guessing, but from the tone of the article, he seems to be in his 20's? The marketing department's prime, target audience. :rolleyes: There will always be people who cannot see what we see. "We few, we happy few..."

Rikka, thank you for the link.

Pelagia and Eandme, I, too, prefer pictures in which EW is not trying to look all hot and bothered. C4

Hallo ladies!!!!

I to like more pictures when he looks mor naturel!!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v399/erendil/242504trl05.jpg

But sometimes,what is wrong with looking at him like this!!! :lol: :lol:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v399/erendil/3236orchidee_WP_040_1_cc-med.jpg

Love/wood

wood: I, too, know several people who started to watch FotR and gave up after 25 minutes or so, because they thought it was too slow-moving, or too fantasy-laden, or just too “silly.” So now, whenever I recommend the movie to people who haven’t seen it, I tell them, “Give it a chance. It takes a while to get started” (though personally, I found it gripping and completely involving from the start).

And I second wood’s declaration:
I am so glade i have met all of you!!! You are the only people i can discuss this with,with out beeing look at like a totaly idiot!!!!

Achila wrote (about ceefour’s comment that she thought Thumbsucker was never filmed):
At least from our point of view, you're right. It was filmed without Elijah.
:lol: Talk about viewing things through an Elijah filter!

Also from Achila, quoting some online philistine:
Elijah Wood, looking nauseous and confused (like he does throughout the entire trilogy),
"Nauseous"?? Well, I suppose at least it’s a change from descriptions like “bug-eyed and forlorn.” The writer is obviously another candidate for tgshaw’s “The One Expression” rehab and detox program!

"Nauseous"?? Well, I suppose at least it’s a change from descriptions like “bug-eyed and forlorn.” The writer is obviously another candidate for tgshaw’s “The One Expression” rehab and detox program!

Better than constipated, I suppose! And no, ceefour, I wasn't upset (you would know the difference -- believe me!). Perhaps the right word is bemused -- that after all this time, these jerks still read his performance that way.

When it comes to photos of Elijah, I have to say that I basically love them all. Posed, unposed, casual, candids, whatever. I am a completely unbiased consumer. But to me, there's something about some of those posed shots, something he projects into his eyes that's quite lovely. It hardly matters how they have him dressed or what he's doing, it's his expression that makes it that way, it's his "Elijah-ness" that shines out.

ETA: Like this (more at www.livejournal.com/users and then /patsie)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/aquila0212/11ab.jpg

I was wondering why in the world we had an ad about "Colitis and Crohn's Disease":
Better than constipated, I suppose!
:lol:
I just love these ads! :D

No time to say more now--hope to be back later.

Achila wrote:
But to me, there's something about some of those posed shots, something he projects into his eyes that's quite lovely.
IIRC, most of the pictures that were in the "fandom" gallery actually were posed rather than candids. I think the commentators (including me) were really differentiating between posed shots that seem to present Elijah as we think we know him (his "Elijah-ness," as you put it), and those that seem to show him trying to be somebody or something that we don't think he is (not counting his movie characters, obviously – we're always happy with pictures of the likes of Frolijah). The picture that you posted definitely falls into the first category, and so does wood's second photo from earlier today.

I was thinking again about the description of Elijah as looking "nauseous" throughout LotR, and I'll grant the writer that he (F) does look that way at the Council of Elrond, when Gimli whacks the Ring (and when nausea was an appropriate reaction). I'm going to have to start paying more attention to those ads, however!

help!!!
were did my pictures from this morning go!!!!!???

somebody stole them!! an crasy elijah fan must have taking them!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

love/wood

hey!! she came back with them!! :lol:

what gourges picture Achila!!!!!

Warning: LONG post. It is so long, I have to post it in three parts. Sorry! (all illustrations are linked to my photobucket, so don't delete them, please)

Part One

I want to say something about looking at pictures of Elijah and how I/we respond to their various sorts. This could apply to looking at pictures of any performer one finds attractive or desirable, but I am only thinking of EW’s portfolio as I write this.

Eandme linked a site a week ago with some musings on EW’s pictures and the response of his viewers to them, some of which I thought were hooey and some of which I thought was were provocative. She commented at length about a “favourite” photo of fans, which, on this thread (and on TORC's thread) has been a controversial favourite one. It shows EW lying back on a brocade couch which has been draped with a richly patterned cloth. He’s wearing faded jeans and a patterned rose-coloured shirt:

1. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/Elijahonmixedfabrics.jpg

The writer makes a number of points, but two things struck me. The first was something I would agree with: that in seeing this picture, the admiring viewer is asked to respond to it as the active party; to respond as the one who desires, rather than the one who is desired. EW, in this picture, is placed in the classical pin-up position, the “pin-up” pose itself coming from all those “Venus relaxing” paintings from art history. This author goes further, though, giving credit to the model in this picture (EW) for a choice I think he never made. She writes,

“Posing in pictures like that shows that there can be found courageous people, who are not afraid of showing their female or male side in public. Merging the male and female in this picture actually leaves us a choice, whether to look or not to look at it from an erotic point of view.”
Well, I don’t think EW thought anything of the kind. I think he was just following the photographer’s suggestions, as he has done for photos a gazillion times; but I do think he knew he was being photographed in a way that made would be perceived as erotic, and not ambiguously so. But, “courageous?” That goes too far.

I know that some of you have liked this picture, but more of you have said you disliked, even loathed it. I stopped saying I liked this picture, after that, feeling a bit seamy for my appreciation of it. I let it all slide. But now I would like to address this issue of what makes an actor’s photos acceptable to the fan viewer or not. I know this will get nailed as “swoony” but I don’t mean it to be. I think how the pictures are seen depends on whether the viewer thinks of them as “just pictures” of an actor posing for pictures, or as faithfully rendered portraits of the actor, personally. Also, I think how one responds to these controversial shots (--always controversial because of their erotic undercurrent, real or perceived) is very related to what sort of roles the viewer is comfortable seeing the actor play -- or be, as a person. This will be long and dull for many of you, so you might want to skip it and go to the next post.

* * *

This picture (of EW as desirable object) is one I responded to (favourably) at once when I first saw it a year ago. Although I did not swoon for EW (only for Frodo), I thought it a beautiful, classic picture, as if straight out of the tradition of Western painting. The pose, the look, and mostly the composition -- a beautiful person reclining on an array of fabrics which evoke richness and luxury -- reminded me of umpteen “Grand Odalisque” sorts of paintings, which I have always thought lovely and sumptuous. These paintings are always nudes, showing Venus (or a courtesan or odalisque) reclining luxuriously but elegantly, usually on a lot of beautiful fabrics to set her off better, while she engages the viewer with a cool but open look.

Although I did not swoon for Mr. Wood, I found this picture also erotic -- not just “lovely and sumptuous,” as was the case with all the paintings. Why was that? Well, for starters, it’s because the picture’s subject is a man, not a woman, and I’m a heterosexual woman who knows a beautiful male subject when she sees one. :cool: But, primarily, it’s the look on his face. The women of the classical “courtesan” paintings usually gaze at the viewer more dispassionately, as EW does in this equally controversial “courtesan” shot (my name tag), in which EW serves more as an artist’s model than as a subject for portraiture. It’s one from that series of open-shirt shots that many of you gag over, but which I think well done “art” photography:

2. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/Elijah-nip-color.jpg

I find this photo beautiful, but I do not find it erotic (believe it or not ;) ) because the gaze of the subject tells me, the viewer, little about himself. It is formal, reserved. I know many of you think his expression is sexual here, as if he is posturing [unconvincingly], but I just don’t see it. To me, his look is as reserved and formal as any Greek [nude] hero lining the halls of the British Museum.

But in the first picture (#1) EW’s expression, to me, is not cool or formal at all. It is open and vulnerable. It is not over-the-top “Come and get me,” though, which would put the picture into the category of the standard “pin-up.” EW has done that sort of picture. (You know, “Bad Boy ‘Lij”.)

You can see how different the facial expression is, compared to the expression in the “Odalisque” picture (#1), in the one linked below. I did, however, like this picture (#3), because it showed me another side of EW which I had not before imagined. I remember opening it up for the first time and saying, “Whoa –HO! So, EW! -- you do have it in you! You are a just normal guy after all.” What did I mean by that? Well, in this shot, he shows that like many males (and females), he, too, can have fun playing the role of “Boy, am I hot!” which many people like to do onstage (or in front of their bedroom mirrors), but which they feel out of character doing in their real lives where it would be too risky. I thought, looking at #3, “EW could do a darned good job playing a rent boy!” Immediately, I thought up a new episode of “Prime Suspect” in which he could star as the rent boy who helps break an extortion racket or something. :D Anyway, this shot displays the classic “bad boy/girl” look we see on MTV non-stop, and it is another shot which fans either like or loathe:

3. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/Elijahrentboy.jpg

But back to the “Odalisque” shot (#1), I actually find that picture both beautiful, as a picture, and erotic -- but not a "pin-up" like #3. The facial expression in that shot, as I said, is open and vulnerable. The genuine facial expression, combined with the classical “courtesan” pose and setting, is what makes it work, erotically. I am betting he was “acting”, though he may have actually dared to expose this part of himself to the camera – though I doubt it. But the look I see is one that is very intimate, as if the person with the camera is the one that he desires -- but isn’t sure desires him -- so he must wait upon her pleasure, one way or the other. It is not a, “Come here, babe! I know you want me!” look, but a “Won’t you come here? I want you; but do you want me too? I hope so,” look. As I said, I have no idea how he produced this look, or if he was thinking, “#%$&! When are you going to be #$&-ing finished, so I can light up a butt?” But the “acting” in the shot is good enough to convince. (It convinces me, anyway.)

(End of Pt. 1 of 3)

Part Two

Having said I found the look on his face convincing, it interests me to hear so many viewers of this picture say that the look on his face is “fake,” “contrived,” “forced,” and etc. Because it is acted? Or because it isn’t acted, which might be even harder to take, since it might make the viewer a party to a more intimate self-revelation than she is comfortable with?

When people post a favourite picture of him like the following one, in which he is looking starry-eyed or spiritual or idealistic (take your pick),

4. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/Elijah-adidas-stareyes.jpg

no one posts remarks about how unconvincing he looks; that he must be “posturing” as a spiritual person, or is “pretending” to be a dreamer or idealistic. Such a perception of Elijah seems to be highly plausible for fans. But pictures which show him projecting a sense of himself as a sexual person are less plausible, apparently. (I hope he does a better job being plausible to a girl friend!)

Almost everyone enjoys the shots of Elijah that seem to be real portraits of him as himself. These show his most publicly revealed self, which everyone likes so well -- an Elijah who is cheerful, likeable, witty, unassuming, but sometimes thoughtful or pensive. There are scads of these, posed or candid. Here’s a typical posed one of these (almost ALL of his kid shots fall into this category):

5. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/Elijah-adidas-grin.bmp

These shots are great! But as an actor and as a photographer’s model, EW really has a lot more range than this. My theory is, once the shots move out of this “real life portrait" comfort range, his pictures enter the realm of “acting,” even though they are not shots of him playing an actual role. Which “roles” fans are open to seeing him play is clear by which pictures, of which type, are chosen to share as favourites.

A common favourite from this group is the very serious, moody shot. I consider all of these to be “acted” shots. I assume he just “gets in the mood,” and we end up with a range of shots from angsty to suffering to thoughtful to soulful. But they are not the Elijah I have ever seen talking on TV or in the DVD’s. In that sense, they are produced by “acting.” That doesn’t mean he hasn’t got those emotions on tap, but they aren’t out on view, normally.

Here’s one Viggo took:

6. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/elijah-viggo-001.jpg

Here’s a very arty one:

7. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/Elijah-BWScarlet.jpg

Here’s one that almost goes into the next category, the “star shot”:

8. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/elijahcolourstar3.jpg

Another type of “acted” shot many people like, but which many don’t, are the ones that most resemble older glamour shots of Hollywood stars. The people who only like the ones that look like real life portraits of him tend to dislike these. But they are not supposed to look like real life. The actors in those old shots looked like gods, for heaven’s sake. EW fans complain that he doesn’t look like himself in these shots. Well, of course not! But that is not the point of them. One likes them or not, if one appreciates the genre of these pictures or not. Look at a “real” picture of Katharine Hepburn and then at a publicity still. There’s a huge difference, not only in tone, but in actual appearance. Is one more “her” than the other, or are they both facets of the “real” her? In these shots the use of make-up is very evident, as is the lighting, which is usually dramatic. Loads of matte finish on the face makes for that “statue-y” look that is typical of the Hollywood glamour shot.

Here’s one of Elijah in black and white:

9. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/EijahBWStar1.jpg

Here’s one in colour, again, with gobs of make-up, but very old Hollywood. I call it his “Young Paul Newman” shot:

10. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/ElijahNewman.jpg

Last of this group, here’s one, also exceedingly old-style glamorous, but which wanders into the erotic zone of the most controversial shots.

11. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/elijahstarcolour2.jpg

This shot is in the “star shot” genre since it is exceedingly glamorous, but it also reveals more; dares more in the eye contact with the viewer. So I almost want to put it into the “erotic” category.

Other than that “Odalisque” shot I posted first, the other shot I would put in the “erotic” shot catergory is another of my favourite shots of Elijah Wood, one of him sitting on the back of a couch. Again, in this picture a classically invitational pose (the opened legs, the hand draped in front of the erogenous zone, the leaning forward of the chest towards the viewer) is combined with a very open, almost wistfully engaging look, to produce a photo that invites the viewer to care for him, to desire him, as he desires and cares for the viewer (it’s acted, of course, but he must tap on something in himself, in order for the shot to work). The sensuous pose combined with the openly inviting expression produces a shot with an effective erotic current to it. But it is another shot that fans either respond to or dismiss as Elijah's being “put-on sexy” or, “out of character.”

12. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/ELIJAHoncouchBIG-reduced.jpg

(end of pt. 2 of 3)

Part Three

This interests me very much. No one has trouble liking the shots that most closely resemble the Elijah we see in interviews, whether being thoughtful or silly, on the DVD extras, etc. Everyone assumes that those are “real” because they assume the Elijah they see in these public venues is “real.” And so it probably is. But is that all there is to him? And, whatever else is in there, isn’t he able to tap it, as an actor, to produce and reveal emotions and moods that end up being revealed in a wide variety of pictures, which don’t resemble his public, comfortable-to-view self?

Because of his popular work as Frodo, I think the receptivity to his angst/soulful/moody shots is greatly increased. People tend not to see those shots as the product of “acting,” because fans so much have identified all that Frodo emotionalism with the actor himself. It is not a challenge to most to believe such shots show part of the “real” Elijah Wood. But I see no reason, looking only at his publically available real life persona, why those should show “the genuine Elijah” while the ones that show his sexual self show a false one.

The “star” shots present more of a challenge. Especially if the viewer has no appreciation of the “classic movie glamour” era as a genre, these shots are usually rejected as “stagey,” or “fakey,” or too posed. As I said above, of course they are! But, I still imagine that they reveal something about EW, within the rubrics of that style, nevertheless. They tend to stress the formal, the noble, the removed, the illusive part of people’s natures. So, while I don’t think of that as “the real Elijah,” I think it’s in there, as it is in all of us, and can be tapped and portrayed for an image.

Now, back to the most controversial shots, the “erotic” shots. As I said, I don’t count shots like the “nipple shots” (cf. # 2), in which I think EW functions as an artist’s model, not as an actor or person sitting for a portrait. I also don’t count blatant pin-up shots like #3. This is the “EW as the Bad Boy” shot. Still, I don’t dismiss it as having no part of him. I consider it an acting shot, but I also am old enough not to be surprised if there isn’t some pleasure to be had in posing for such in-your-face shots, the way a demure ballet-dancing friend of mine, long ago, had adored playing one of the hookers in Sweet Charity. She found it was a lot of fun to be “hot” -- in fantasy, anyway.

The shots I am talking about for this are #1 (“Odalisque”) and #12 (open-legged on the couch).

Now, people who still are reading this may want to smite me, but I would say from reading this thread since early summer, that there is a lot of maternal tenderness out there for Elijah Wood. Many swoon for him, but many more love him as their dearest boy, now grown up (barely). When erotic shots are displayed, do you know what the protests sound like to me? Like shocked parents. We see “Rent Boy” Elijah (#3) and I hear, “Judy! Wipe that stuff off your face! You look like a tramp!” “You change your clothes this instant or you’re not going out!” “No daughter of mine is going to seen in public like that!” It is just unacceptable, it seems, to see the pure lad behaving in an overtly sexual manner. Oh, he might be tolerated in his trips to the bathroom with his Seven Eleven reading matter. “Boys will be boys.” But that’s it. And if he finds a nice girl some day -- some day far away -- and doesn’t neck with her on the living room couch right in front of us -- that’s fine, too.

I, too, am old enough to be Elijah Wood’s mother, but I don’t see him as a boy. I might have, but not any more. When I see pictures #12 and especially #1, if I imagined myself feeling like his parent, I would feel more like the parent of “Judy” (above illustration) who, one day, sees Judy with a look on her face she's never seen before – a look certainly not meant for her – but which shows the parent, in a flash, how Judy’s lover must see her -- and how she wishes to be seen by her lover. Elijah Wood is not a child and he’s not my child, and although I can respond to him “maternally” (i.e. with primarily protective feelings that express themselves in affectionate, not erotic demonstrativeness), that is not my primary reaction to him anymore, not after seeing and responding to these pictures in which he is revealed as a desirous, sexual adult.

I am sure Elijah Wood is aware of the strong maternal instincts he arouses as his public self. He must be used to it, from early on. But I hope he can “get past” that, professionally and personally. I think of him talking about how difficult it was to do the pool scene in The Ice Storm, with his mother standing by. If that was the case, I wonder if he’ll ever being able to do a decent job in a love story, not because he can’t act, but because there are thousands and thousands of “mothers” out there watching him on the screen, and he knows it.

I know some of you liked All I Want, and liked or loved his work in it. I thought it was a drivelly film and that Elijah was mediocre in it. I was so amazed at his work, its poorness, I almost dropped off his fan threads, wondering if his good acting was something generated by the skill of directors only. I thought he played passion and desire -- and sheer emotional connection -- better with the Ring or even the Fell Beast than he did with any of the women with whom he co-starred. Especially in the love scenes! He seemed very uncomfortable in those scenes, and I don’t mean as part of his role as a romantic newbie, but truly uncomfortable. I didn’t believe him in those scenes a bit. I was embarrassed for him, professionally. When I read these threads, I wonder if his fans are part of the difficulty – perhaps he has a conscious or unconscious perception that very many of those who watch for him “out there,” are people who really are squicked by the spectacle of him being a sexual person, a person who experiences the desire for erotic love and wants it in return.

I can think of only one other reason why his photos which reveal or even hint that he might feel such things would be so widely or instantly dismissed as “fake” or “put on,” when other equally “acted” shots are not. (That is, ones which portray him as noble, deeply troubled or highly spiritual – things which he no doubt has in him, but no more than he would have sexual feelings, for heaven’s sake.) That is that fans might see them as exploiting Elijah, as an object of desire. (But no one cares if he's exploited for being an object of desire unless the desire is sexual.) Well, that's part of being a performer who is charismatic and desirable enough to attract a following, in my view. Fans who want "cute little boy "Lij" are treated to piles of photos and clips that satisfy that desire. Fans of "angsty suffering 'Lij" are treated to loads of shots to cater to that desire. Fan's of "introspective soulful 'Lij" get their share, too. As for "desirable, fully-functioning Elijah Wood, adult male person" -- it sometimes seems to me that it's almost not allowed, in his case.

Of course, not all of his fans feel this way. This can be seen by the popularity of fan fic Frodo (whether slash or het), who is almost universally depicted as Frodo as portrayed by Elijah Wood. This fandom shows there’s hope for Elijah Wood ever doing a decent romantic role some day. Fan fic Frodo is the hottest thing in Middle-earth. This bunch of fans doesn’t look at those EW pictures and say, “Elijah! Stop that posturing and pretending you are some heart throb! Act like yourself!” They say, “Hmmmm…. I mightn’t have thought of you that way before, but now I do, cutie-pie.”

I was watching the wretched new film Alexander last week, with my antiquities-loving daughter and we sighed with boredom as they brought on the seventy-fifth group of dancing slave girls. When they finally got around to bringing on the dancing slave boys, it was just as dull. I thought, “What this film needs is fan fiction Frodo as slave-boy!” (It is a pretty slashy film, so why not?) I would have loved to have seen slashy Frolijah forced to dance before the conquering Macedonians, in nothing but his Elven coming-home-to-the-Shire velvet harem pants. He could skip the kohl around his eyes. (All the catamites in this film wore kohl eyeliner; an elderly man said to his wife as we walked to the parking lot, "I didn't know they had eyeliner back then!").

Here’s the key scene:

Alexander: "Though I am your conqueror, I cannot command your love."

Frodo as Slave-Boy: "You say aright. You may conquer my body, Great King, but my heart remains free...." (Shire theme swells).

Alexander: "Very well. If I cannot conquer your heart, little beauty, your body must suffice." (Seduction of the Ring theme, segueing into Orthanc/Uruks).

Definitely, this would have made the film a lot more interesting for me.

OK, I’m done and will not hog the thread anymore.

Looking back, it may seem I am bad-mouthing people who simply don’t respond to the erotic aspect of Elijah. I think simply not wishing to see the erotic side of EW would be a fair and reasonable thing. But it often sounds as though, the fact that he has a legitimate, actual erotic aspect to him at all is being denied or actually rejected. If fans who dislike seeing it would merely allow that he has such an aspect to himself, or can, at least, portray such an aspect, distaste at seeing it called forth in roles or in photos becomes merely a matter of taste, as to how it was presented. But what I keep "feeling" is a rejecting of this in him, altogether, which seems very limiting to him – as an actor and as a person.

Thanks for indulging me (if you did indulge me :D ).

That's been on my mind a while. :k


~ Mechtild

Mech, whoa -- I'm speechless. And that's saying something! What a great treatise on Elijah as photographic subject -- good job! I would throw in one further little thesis, if I might (and those are great pictures, btw -- some of my favorites). I do believe that a person's reaction to a picture has as much to do with their own psyche and mindset as it does with the subject, the setting, etc. We know there are many women like us in Elijah's harem who are "of a certain age", and perhaps the acceptance of him as an object of desire is very difficult. It goes against us to have erotic feelings for a man old enough to be our...well...younger lover (you won't get me to say it), and we struggle against it. Remember -- denial isn't JUST a river in Egypt -- LOL. Plus, society tells us that there's something fundamentally wrong with an older woman wanting a younger man, despite the fact that May-December romances with men being the more senior partner are fairly acceptable.

We do a lot of things when we're in denial. In some cases, you have the Frolijah effect -- women who only swoon for Frodo, not Elijah (which is just plain silly if you ask me). I met such a person just the other day, in fact. And I have to say that at one point, I was walking down this road myself. I saved only pictures of Lij as Frodo -- any pics of him as him were not even considered. I quickly got over that :). Funny the things you do as coping mechanisms.

I personally am not a mother and never will be. I may have maternal feelings towards my pets but that's the limit of it. But I'm sure you're right -- there are women out there who do harbor maternal feelings for Elwood and find erotic photos of him revolting. For them, it would be like opening up a copy of Playboy and finding your 23 year old daughter in there (sorta). Additionally, many of us have watched him for years, growing up onscreen in front of our very eyes. The juxtaposition of cute little Elijah in Avalon with gorgeous grown-up Elijah spread out invitingly on a couch can make some people run screaming -- can you say "pedophile"? So pictures of him that are less overtly sexual (though no less exquisite) are easier to take.

Gee -- when all is said and done, I'm pretty easy to please. As I said before -- sexy, goofy, tormented, whatever -- I love them all.

Very intresting posts Mechtild!!!

I can agree with you in some points but not all.
I can only speak for my self here but i do know that
some people maybe agree with me on this.

I definetly can see an erotic side of Elijah!!
It is something in him that draws my attention to
him, his eyes and face and boddy.
But it is not ónly the erotic side of him
its also his personality.He is so vanarubel(wrong spelling.i hope you all
understand anyway),he is so cheerfull, i know that he can`t bee that all the time but that is the side we know of.It is something very specel with him
that i can`t put the finger on!
And for those who only swoon for Frodo: I think it is in away swooning for Elijah maybe i am terrible wrong here but that is what i think not know!

I don`t see my self as a mother or aunt here i only see my self as a
woman some years older then Elijah(15 years)who has deep feelings for him!!
Sexuly and erotic but also some other feelings that is hard for me to explain!

Well i babling so much so when i look at the post i don`t know if you will
see any sence in it if you don`t just scroll past it to next post!!!
If you do see the point in it thats good!!
I think i wrote it more for my self then for others:
It feels good to let go and admitt to you self that this actor can turn you on
either it is on screen or just a picture!!40-krises? so be it
This is how i feel!! And i see no wrong in it!!!Do you?

love you all very much/wood

Wow, Mechtild! That was fascinating!

I found alot of the LOL! observations on the pictures to be kind of out there too.

I love your photo #1, and have from the moment I first saw it. To me he looks very vulnerable there, just extremely open, and that's astonishingly sexy.

In fact there are a few such shots which you didn't include in your essay. Here's another:
Italian Vogue picture (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/honeyelf/rent.jpg)

It's plainly meant to be erotic as are all the Italian Vogue shots. And though it gives a peak at a nipple, this one has never disturbed me because it is so plainly posed, and he is so plainly "acting." I was thinking about that series of pictures this morning (hey! like you never ;) ) and it occured to me that part of why I like them is their very odd staticness. They are meant to be viewed as erotic art, and while - as a heterosexual female - I am not the target audience, I find them very much so, and like them.

I've said before that I loathe the other infamous "nipple shot," your #2, and I still loathe it. What seems artificial about it to me is the contrast of what looks to be a rather neutral expression, and the open jacket. It seems a bid to be sexy, but utterly fails. Maybe I'm just not picking up the mixed message here. It's kind of flirty isn't it? If there was no jacket it would almost be less sexy. But with the open jacket, completely revealing one nipple, it's over the top for me. (I wonder when that was taken?)

I have no problem with seeing Elijah as a sexual being. I'm one of those who liked AIW. I don't think his seeming discomfort would be wrong for the character of Jones, a 17 year old virgin. A bit of conflict and tension seems right to me in that circumstance. Jones might be worried about "doing it right," after all!

Here's a picture which I find really disturbing:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/honeyelf/elijaheyesclosed.jpg


He looks victimized there; there is a faint scratch along his cheek, hinting at violence. And yet the open mouth is very erotic. I have no idea what this picture is from, but he is very young in it, and seeing Elijah at approximatley age 14, in an erotic sense is very disturbing. By contrast, your "Odalesque" example is of an young adult male, and I have no problem enjoying it for that.

The only other posed pictures I really dislike are the ones where he is wearing bronzer, like your "young Paul Newman" shot. Not because they aim at being "sexy," but because someone made the decision that Elijah's naturally fair complexion was not sufficiently "sexy," that he was more marketable in a traditional "bronzed god" look. Elijah is sexy in a way that goes a little against the usual Hollywood grain. It's his very "other" quality that makes him so appealing, I think.

Here is another picture which I like alot, but which is very odd to me at the same time.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/honeyelf/sweetie.jpg

I like it because it seems to show Elijah being entirely himself (as we percieve him from interviews and such) But it also reminds me of the kind of poses you'd photograph a three-year-old in, complete with canvas sneakers. If he wants to be seen as an adult, this one seems to throw him back light years!

Here's one I really like though. It's very flirtatious, but in a slightly geeky, humorous way. He is very aware of the perception of him as being sexy, and he seems to be inviting us to find humor there.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/honeyelf/untitled.bmp

Just one more, for you Mech.

sexy Frodo (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/honeyelf/sexyfrodo.jpg) :lol:

honey!

Bravo Mechtild
Your very carefully researched and thoughtful post was most enjoyed and appreciated
I was going to wait until later when I had plenty of time to think about what I wanted to say, to post.. but I tend to over analyze as it is :o ...so here goes:
I think there is a reason why Hugs Haven is not a more active thread....and it's not because people don't swoon for Elijah...I think most of us over here are definitely not comfortable with making that the focus of our fandom with this particular actor. If he was say...even 10 years older.. it would perhaps be more acceptible in our female brains...much like what Achila said...men don't seem to have that stigma attached to romantic involvements with much younger women. For some reason, I seem to be missing that "shame chip" in my "older female" brain circuitry :eek: So I think we can safely and unashamedly share a more comfortable relationship with him and in turn each other by discussing his other attributes....Thank God he's a talented actor :D I'd hate to think I was embarrassing my daughters over "just a pretty face" :D

If I've offended anyone with my thoughts on this subject..I apologize.
I don't mind at all If you want to remain totally swoon free aunties or mothers...I respect your right to be that....but there are a few of us that frankly have other emotions and I don't consider it illegal or immoral :k

There was so much I was going to say this morning, but Mechtild's posts kind of drove everything out of my mind. Had to back up to remember what I wanted to comment on. I couldn't let this pass without a notice:
OK, I'm sure there's an entire Elven language that Tolkien worked out. If not Tolkien, then some poor bastard has done it. Hell, the same's been done for Klingon and probably Wookie, too.
:eek: :eek: ...Runs screaming from the room!

...and Elijah Wood, looking nauseous and confused (like he does throughout the entire trilogy)...
My dictionary let me down on what I was going to say here, which was that "nauseous" means "causing nausea"--Of course, this particular writer might even have meant it that way. But the office dictionary (from 1991) tells me that that limitation of the word is old-fashioned, and it can now be used correctly to mean "nauseated." Hmmph... What's the world coming to, I'd like to know. :mad:

...asks in his oh-so-innocent hobbit voice...
Like there's something wrong with an oh-so-innocent hobbit voice? :confused:

from Honey (on LotR being called fantasy):
Probably one of the reasons I never got around to reading the books until 2003. (Read 'em twice that year! ) I didn't want a lot of pink unicorns rampaging past my mind's eye, and that's what that awful label "fantasy" meant to me.
I'm sure I've said this before, but that's one reason I'm glad I stumbled across (literally) LotR back in the primeval period before there was such a thing as a fantasy genre. The book was simply classified as "fiction" (yeah, I could say something about that, too... ;) ). I do read a fair amount of fantasy, but if I'm reading it strictly for enjoyment, it's usually in a subgenre far removed from Middle-earth: urban (contemporary) fantasy, or fantasy where the world is built on something other than pre-technology Europe (read a great series based on feudal Japan, for example).

Calling The Lord of the Rings a fantasy story is a bit like calling Wuthering Heights a romance novel.

from Pelagia:
I, too, know several people who started to watch FotR and gave up after 25 minutes or so, because they thought it was too slow-moving, or too fantasy-laden, or just too “silly.” So now, whenever I recommend the movie to people who haven’t seen it, I tell them, “Give it a chance. It takes a while to get started”
The time-honored suggestion with the book is to tell people not to give up on it until they've gotten to Bree. Maybe we need a similar landmark for the movie--it would be earlier than in the book, methinks.

--------

On to Mechtild's posts---

Very interesting thoughts, partly because a lot of them are pretty far removed from me. I'm quite a slacker when it comes to "fandom." The only non-movie pictures I see of Elijah are those that are posted in this thread, or are shown in photo shoots I run across in magazines--this is mostly due to lack of time (I always figure if there's something important it will show up here ;) ). And I don't read fanfic at all--simply because I have the story holes and extensions worked out in my own imagination and it's too jarring to read someone else's version.

For myself, I see Elijah's photos divided into only two categories: candid and posed. I'd consider shots with friends, etc., to be candid ones; by "posed" I basically mean ones from photo shoots. I'm sure some of the posed pics from photo shoots are closer to his "real self" (whatever that is) than others are, but that's also true of his movie roles. At least, I'd like to think he's more like Jonathan than he is Kevin :haha: . And I see all of his posed pictures as acting, in one way or another. He becomes a character for the camera.

We've talked before about how Elijah can show different sides of himself in different situations, and still seem to be completely "himself," and I suppose some of the photos reflect that. But, since we're talking about Elijah Wood, we're talking about someone who patently doesn't need to find a quality or emotion within himself in order to act it. He needs to know the character well enough to show us how the character would look and act in the specific situation--in a lot of the photo shoots, he seems to also have decided what that specific situation is. His posed photos are intriguing to me not just because of all the different characters he plays, but because they make me wonder what's happening in the "story." He said at one time that he'd be interested in writing fiction, and IMHO that's exactly what he's doing in most of his photo shoots.

ETA (simulposted with Honey): That's why I'm not upset about some of the pictures you posted. If every single time he was photographed, it was thought necessary to turn Elijah into a "bronzed god," it would bother me, for the same reason it does you. But that's just who he's being photographed as today--tomorrow he'll be photographed by someone who appreciates luminescent skin...

--------

...women who only swoon for Frodo, not Elijah (which is just plain silly if you ask me).
My own swooning over Frodo has very little to do with Elijah, since I was doing it before he was born :p . I'm just glad he portrayed him so well. When Elijah is onscreen as Frodo, he is Frodo--but the same thing happens when he's onscreen as Mikey Carver, or Stu, or Huck. Between movie viewings, the Frodo in my imagination isn't Frolijah. They have an uncanny resemblance, but that's because Elijah looks like Frodo rather than the other way around, if you take my meaning... :confused:

Additionally, many of us have watched him for years, growing up onscreen in front of our very eyes.
I think that can have an effect--in somewhat the same way that my "little brother" is still my little brother, although he's no longer little. I can look at his face and still see what he looked like at three years old. IMHO, the same thing can happen with Elijah--as much as we could see the man in the boy, we can also see the boy in the man. A fear of pedophilia, which I think is there for some people, would come from the unnatural situation of having someone who's captured for posterity at every age. It can almost feel as if Elijah's 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, and 21 all at the same time. Being aroused by a picture of 23-year-old Elijah Wood isn't pedophilia, but if that happened this afternoon, and then I watched 9-year-old Elijah Wood in Radio Flyer this evening, it could take a bit of mental adjustment. (Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who still thinks of Ron Howard as Winthrop Paroo :rolleyes: .)

---ETA (simulposted with ylla): IMHO, that can also add to the older woman/younger man discomfort (for some people). If Shirley Temple had grown up to be a drop-dead gorgeous movie star, would older men who had the hots for her be uncomfortable watching some of her childhood movies?

Thank you, Mechtild, for your thoughtful essay, which has inspired so many other thoughtful comments (not to mention links to great pix!). My own dislike for shots that seem to be self-consciously “erotic” is not limited to photos of Elijah, and has nothing to do with his age. (I never saw any of his movies when he was a kid, never really paid much attention to him until this past spring, and certainly don’t feel maternal or "auntly" toward him.) It’s just that I can’t think of many actors of any age whom I find convincing when posing with sultry expressions or in odalisque (great word!) style. I'm afraid that my natural response to most of these things is laughter. (All I can think of is Victoria's Secret models.) (Jude Law – another beautiful man who is one of my passions – can get away with it, IMHO.) I find a glint of humor much sexier. But that's just me.

For some reason, I seem to be missing that "shame chip" in my "older female" brain circuitry
I’m with you, ylla!!

Going back to more (purely) intellectual matters, tgshaw wrote:
The time-honored suggestion with the book is to tell people not to give up on it until they've gotten to Bree. Maybe we need a similar landmark for the movie--it would be earlier than in the book, methinks.
How about the scene where Gandalf returns from Minas Tirith, and tells Frodo that Bilbo’s ring is THE Ring? That one establishes the central problem and completes most of the necessary exposition. And the pace of the film picks up from then on.

How about the scene where Gandalf returns from Minas Tirith, and tells Frodo that Bilbo’s ring is THE Ring? That one establishes the central problem and completes most of the necessary exposition. And the pace of the film picks up from then on.
That sounds good. The book has some of the same dramatic moments early-on, but I think the new reader needs a bit of a wake-up after Tom Bombadil ;) . The book has kind of an ebb and flow of peril/recovery--the movie, IMHO with good reason for a movie, cuts out most of the recovery time. :)


The following is a Historic Event!

Made possible only through the international research collaboration of the Faculty, we offer what is, to the best of our knowledge, the first frame-by-frame presentation of an actual cinematic instance of Elijah Wood's eyes (well, eye) being artificially enhanced. Remember, you saw it here first:

http://www.frodolivesin.us/Pics/099c2520.jpg

http://www.frodolivesin.us/Pics/09ac2520.jpg

http://www.frodolivesin.us/Pics/09cc2520.jpg

http://www.frodolivesin.us/Pics/09dc2520.jpg

http://www.frodolivesin.us/Pics/09ec2520.jpg

Allow yourself sufficient time to recover from the excitement before attempting to operate heavy machinery. :haha:

Thanks, Mechtild, for your postings. They are always interesting, here and over at TORC.

I suppose Pelagia comes closest to my thoughts on EW's sultry pictures, although I like the reclining on the couch picture because of the eyes. :rolleyes: The picture with the open shirt with one nipple showing I don't care for; nipples on men, really, what's the point? ;)

I am still trying to figure out what I am even doing here and what caused this interest in EW. Iwrote only one fan letter in my life and that was to the Monkees. I find myself drawn not only to his characters, but to his presence on the screen.

tgshaw wrote:
That sounds good. The book has some of the same dramatic moments early-on, but I think the new reader needs a bit of a wake-up after Tom Bombadil
Yes! I know that many devotees of the book were incensed that PJ left out Tom Bombadil, but it really would have been disastrous for pacing, IMHO.

As for your picture sequence: A historic event indeed! Where do those pix come from?

One last comment on "erotic" shots of EJW or whoever: I guess my main problem with such pictures is that there often doesn't seem to be a personality attached. The person really is objectified, and that (for me, at least) undermines any erotic impact.

Hallo dear friends,hope you all has a beautiful winterday!!!

I have one last comment on the Elijah picture!!

Maybe i am alone to think this, if so be it!
But sometimes a half naked men chest can be very
sexy!! :p :D

And i guess Elijah has diffrent impact on as all and i guess
that speaks for it self, dosen`t it!! We are a groupe of women
with diffrent opinions and i think that is great!!
We can discuss things with out hard words. We realy can respekt
echothers opinion!!
Enough of this from me!! ;) (i think :rolleyes: )

TG: GREAT PICTURES!! :k

LOVE YOU/WOOD

Mechtild,
thanks for yout EW pic posts! With some things I agree, with some I don't, but anyway - great research! Made me to think about the problem that I never thought about before.

As for me, I admit that I see EW as a very attractive young man. I don't feel any sexual attractiveness only in his Frodo - or feel strange mix both types (of mail and femail ones at the same time) - I mentioned this already before.

But in all other his adult movies he seems to me very sexy young fellow. BTW, I'm among those who like "Try 17"/"All I Want" movie an EW in it! IMHO, he has there an exellent chemistry with this German actress...sorry, forgot her name... And no maternal instincts and problems from my side, while I'm 17 years older! So EW "erotic" photos do not annoy me. In general I love them, because I appreciate the beauty of this young man... while he's not completely _my_ type man. I prefer men with dark eyes! :D

The only thing that could really disturb me a bit in his "odalisque" or Italian "Vogue" type of "erotic' pics - a probable target audience of them. When I look at them I feel as if a photographer directed them not for EW fans who are heterosexual females like me, but for homosexual men audience. Not like you, Americans or West Europeans, I'm from a very conservative society and have conservative views myself, so I feel discomforted and irritated about this matter. So I have to repeat myself: "be patient, this is an objective cultural differense between your world and the world EW lives and works in - for them this is normal"... But for me this creates some difficultes, I must admit.

Dad-gummit. So many good posts; so little time.

I have only one thing to say right now:

Of course, there's always the cupcake picture.

:::: running ::::

~grumpy

Mech:

I'm absolutely amazed and humbled by the amount of work you put into your post, and I think that your idea that our maternal instincts may be working against us (and Wood himself) in his more sexy poses and roles is interesting. I think there is merit in what you say, but I also agree with Pelagia that I think the basic idea of how sexuality is portrayed is the problem.

Quick--everyone, look sexy for a second (yep, right there in front of your computer). What was your look? Was it a pouty, come hither smirk, lips pursed? Was it predatory, like the big bad wolf? All kidding aside, what comes into your mind when you think of sexy?

What seems to come into most people's minds, and to the minds of some of the photographers shooting those many of the more erotic pics of Elijah, is a sort of pose sexuality that has never, ever held any allure for me, whether coming from a male or female. I don't understand why a half-lidded, nostril-flared pouty stare is sexy, no matter who does it. Real sexiness for me has come from a complete unaffected confidence and contentment. I think being sexy is like being cool: if you have to try to assume it, you'll never have it.

So, to me, the poses most likely to cause my heart to go pitter-pat are not these smoldering stares, but direct eye contact and a great smile. I like a torso shot, physically, but one that looks natural and not too much like a body builder or a training add. I must admit, Brad Pitt's full torso shot in Troy had me breathless, because he was strongly built without looking like an ad, and he wasn't trying to be sexy--he was actually a little annoyed with this woman in his tent.

With Wood, his sexiest shots are the ones where he is looking into the camera (looking at me!), but he is smiling, especially that open mouthed smile he does when he forgets to try to hide his teeth. I also must admit that I have a little lustful twinge at his torso in Cirith Ungol--I love his youthful frame and even the tiny little pot in his belly. And trust me, from The Ice Storm and after, I have no more maternal feelings for Wood. Or maybe, maternal like Jocasta (wasn't that Oedipus' mother's name?).

So, I don't tent to click and save the deliberately sexual poses as much as I do the ones that are frighteningly beautiful (my fav is the "Get off the Road" moment from FOTR) or when he is just happy. Happiness is a great aphrodisiac.

Mech~! Thought-provoking, as always. ;)

Perhaps Wood summed it up best, when she said we are all different and react to the same things in different ways. For some of us the main appeal of Elijah Wood is, simply, our beloved FRODO brought delightfully to life in surprisingly beautiful form. For others--but not all!--the attraction goes beyond the role to the actor himself, because something in his appearance and/or what we surmise about his character has a personal appeal--not an uncommon response to a movie actor or other public figure.

But I think the point you made, Mech, about some people being unwilling to see EW as a sexual being is a very valid one. Yet he does, after all, have to have a portfolio of pictures that show his range as an actor, in order to get the roles he's ready for. Even for us mortal types, it's standard advice for job interviews to dress as if you already had the job. Every actor (in this decadent age) must have those erotically-tinged shots--even gay actors must have them, I'm sure. They don't always play gay characters, after all (Ellen De Generes played a straight woman opposite Harrison Ford). If it weren't for the Internet, most fans would never see these pictures--we are likely not their primary audience and we probably shouldn't judge them as if we were.

I also think it's true that many of Elijah's fans are, for whatever reason, older and respond to him in a maternal way with just a tinge of Mrs. Robinson naughtiness (or wannabe-nautiness). But it's also true that if you fell for him as Frodo, you fell for him as an asexual character with a tortured inner life and with purity--his very salvation so we don't begrudge it--dripping from his pores. Despite the deplorable "All I Want," quite a few of his LOTR fans, as you point out, are not willing to accept him in an erotic role. Perhaps it seems to them like a betrayal of the innocence of either Frodo, or the boy actor he used to be.

Or perhaps he just isn't very believable in that role. Perhaps he is more Michael J. Fox than Robert Carlyle after all. I have no doubt that we shall see.


Edited to add: About the May-December thing--we do have a greater problem accepting the older woman with the younger man, I think because we are hard-wired for survival of the species, and it is only the older man-younger woman combination that can yield offspring. Even though the need is gone, the programming remains, which (imo) is one reason teenagers can be so difficult. They are supposed to be adults already because they can hunt and harvest and reproduce, and we keep postponing the end of their childhood, leaving them with all that potential productivity boxed into classrooms. Oops! O/T. Sorry! Well, even Elijah Wood was a teenager once. :p

i`m back!!! told you so can`t stay away from this!!! :lol:

Just wanted too say that i agree with you Eresh!!
When i look at a picture with Elijah and it looks like he
is looking right at you and smiles!!!!mmmm....... :p :D
I just love those pictures right too my heart!!

love/wood :k

from Pelagia:
As for your picture sequence: A historic event indeed! Where do those pix come from?
They're from Day-O, where little Lij is playing someone who's "imaginary," so can evidently twinkle his eyes at will. (I'm almost expecting to hear from someone who worked on that movie, saying that the twinkle is real :p .)

The movie traveled from Germany, with intermediate stops in Belgium and Britain, in order to get to my DVD drive in the middle of the U.S. to be made into screencaps. :) I've watched it (more or less) 4 times now, and find a little bit more of my spoken German coming back into my memory each time--just don't ask me to spell any of it :p .

from Rikka:
The only thing that could really disturb me a bit in his "odalisque" or Italian "Vogue" type of "erotic' pics - a probable target audience of them. When I look at them I feel as if a photographer directed them not for EW fans who are heterosexual females like me, but for homosexual men audience.
I know this is referring to the Italian "Vogue" pics as a "type," not literally, but it got me wondering... The American version of "Vogue" is aimed pretty exclusively at women (although I'm sure there are exceptions). It doesn't even have the suitable-for-oggling-in-the-checkout-line covers that "Cosmo" provides for the male audience. Is the Italian "Vogue" aimed at both sexes?

We can discuss things with out hard words. We realy can respekt
echothers opinion!!
I was reminded just this morning what a blessing this is--along with the fact that we respect each other enough to not jump to wrong conclusions, but to check out what someone means if we're not sure. Not to go into the whole story, but on another (completely unrelated) message board, I was stunned to get raked over the coals because of how someone interpreted my post. The person I'd supposedly slapped in the face responded and said he hadn't taken it negatively at all, so hopefully it's straightened out now, but it will make me much more cautious about what I say on that board. {{{Faculty}}}


-----(And I love the cupcake picture! :p )

Just wanted to post two pictures i just love!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v399/erendil/lesej07.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v399/erendil/71603.jpg

Hope you don`t feel you have to be too cautious in here TG!! :k

love/wood

I know this is referring to the Italian "Vogue" pics as a "type," not literally, but it got me wondering... The American version of "Vogue" is aimed pretty exclusively at women (although I'm sure there are exceptions). It doesn't even have the suitable-for-oggling-in-the-checkout-line covers that "Cosmo" provides for the male audience. Is the Italian "Vogue" aimed at both sexes?


That photo shoot was done for L'Umo Vogue, which is Italian Vogue for men. But I don't think the idea was for it to be specifically enticing to homosexuals. Europeans, and Italians in particular, have a very different sensuality than we do here in the US, for the most part. They tend not to be as hung up about these things as we are -- e.g., men kiss each other, platonically, all the time. So my thought was that the erotic nature of those pictures is sort of besides the point. They could probably pose a loaf of bread and a glass of milk and make that sexy!

That photo shoot was done for L'Umo Vogue, which is Italian Vogue for men. But I don't think the idea was for it to be specifically enticing to homosexuals.
I suppose it would be more like American women's fashion magazines, where the female models are usually shown in an erotic way, with the unspoken message of, "If you wear these clothes you can be as hot as me." Lesbians might enjoy the pics (and even buy their share of the clothes), but they're not the main target audience.

The closest thing we have here to a high-circulation men's fashion magazine is probably GQ. Do you think American men consider it un-cool to be interested in such things?


----wood :k , yes, that's one reason I like coming here. I don't feel like I have to walk on eggshells.

Happiness is a great aphrodisiac.

Oh, Er-Esh! :D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/honeyelf/reallyreallyadorable.bmp

Couple more reasons I like the IV pics; he looks petulant, sullen, disturbed and in the context of those pictures whatever character he is channeling there is just right. 'nother reason I like the Italian Vogue pics; they are in black and white, and for me you could definetly, (as Achila so eloquently puts it)

pose a loaf of bread and a glass of milk and make that sexy!

IF they do so in black and white!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Here's a lovely black and white one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/honeyelf/wowow.bmp

TG says:-----(And I love the cupcake picture! )
Oh, dang! So do I! Can't help myself

honey!(give me enough rope and I'll knit a sweater, and THEN hang myself)

Wood, did you have to make those pictures so big? Gack, those eyes...C4 gets up off the floor to continue typing.

Hurrah for the civility and good manners of The Faculty! (One reason I started posting here was other places scared me.)

'nother reason I like the Italian Vogue pics; they are in black and white...
One of the things I love about the beginning of the Mirror of Galadriel scene. Maybe not technically black and white, but they may as well be and, IMHO, the photography is handled as if they were.

http://www.frodolivesin.us/FotR/37520530.jpg

And these are some of the ones where I think Elijah is making use of his modeling ability:

Did someone say "sullen"?

http://www.frodolivesin.us/FotR/3a8204f0.jpg

And here's one lookin' right at you.

http://www.frodolivesin.us/FotR/3b420530.jpg

And then there's this, which is basically blue and white (and takes my breath every time):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/aquila0212/fotr_frodo_lorien_26.jpg

ETA: Here you go, ceefour:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/aquila0212/woodelves.jpg

Now if someone would post the picture of Frodo and Sam watching the elves leaving in FOTR EE (because I can't; am hopelessly inept), we could then accurately compare and contrast the use of shadow and light in these scenes and how it affects the mood of the scene, what were the director's intentions, etc. (and look at more pretty pictures)

On Achila's "blue and white picture" (that one of Frodo and Sam watching the Elves kinda snuck up on me :p ). --OME, yes! That entire scene is one magnificant picture after another, with each frame!

It's like a few other scenes--Weathertop comes to mind first--that aren't so much acted as danced (I was going to say "choreographed," but that would be going on behind the camera). It doesn't come across as unnatural, but, IMHO, as heightened reality. The movement and the sense of presence are so important, both of which I assume are helped by the time Elijah has spent and does spend modeling. (And having Cate as a partner certainly doesn't hurt.)

The directing and cinematography "took advantage" of Elijah's talents so well in LotR--I'll have to try to think of other movies that have scenes like that. (Well, I didn't have to think too hard for a couple, at least ;) : the tag football scene in Ice Storm and the climactic scene in Huck Finn. I'm sure there are many more.)

Tg, your comment about the actors "dancing" as opposed to acting made me think of Frodo and Boromir before he tries to take the Ring. I suppose it may have been blocked out that way to show the size differences, but it does have the same feeling of choreography to it that the Mirror scenes have.

Any thoughts on Frodo's paleness at the beginning of the Mirror scene?

Good evening (it's night here)!

I am sorry I couldn't get back here to reply while the conversational iron was hot, but work and duties came in to prevent me. I just wanted to say your comments were impressively varied and interesting. You have given me much food for thought.

Lookin through the last page and a half, I have been enjoying the Frodo-bathed-in-blue pictures verrrrrry much.

Back to the salt mines,

~ Mechtild

:)

Oh MY!!

I've missed some fun stuff!!!!! Go away for a few days and you are talking erotica and what else??? I have to go catch up tomorrow. I have no time now. Looks like some enjoyable scrutiny awaits me!!

:k
'night, all....

SORRY C4!!! :k

I REALY DIDEN`T MEAN YOU TO FALL OF THE CHAIR!!!

BUT THOSE EYES REALY GETS YOU,DON`T THEY!!!

COULDEN`T DO THE PICTURE SMALLER,SORRY! ;)

LOVE/WOOD

Ereshkigal wrote:
I don't understand why a half-lidded, nostril-flared pouty stare is sexy, no matter who does it. Real sexiness for me has come from a complete unaffected confidence and contentment. I think being sexy is like being cool: if you have to try to assume it, you'll never have it.
Thank you for saying this so much better than I could! That’s exactly the way I feel. That’s one reason why I think one of the sexiest Elijah pictures that anyone has posted here recently is the one from ylla, showing him with Liv Tyler. (ylla had to point out to me that it IS Liv, since I hadn’t even bothered to look at the woman!) He’s fully dressed; he’s not pouting or lounging. But his expression, I think, radiates exactly that “unaffected confidence and contentment” that you mention.

And I love your motto:
Happiness is a great aphrodisiac.
And yup – I like The Gap, too. And the cupcake picture! Ooooh, and tg – the “sullen” picture! (Although I’d just call it “grave,” I think.) And Achila (I’m bouncing back and forth between writing this and working my way through the most recent posts, with all those “blue and white” pictures) – oh, I give up.

That’s all I’m going to say on this subject (for the time being, anyway ;) ), because I already have too many fantasies about bright, attractive, charming 23-year-olds turning up on my doorstep and being dragged inside by me, with no May-December compunctions whatsoever on my part.

Off topic (except that someone DID mention the film Alexander a while ago) – Anyone who wants a good laugh, and who has access to the December 6 issue of The New Yorker, should look at their review of this movie. Hilarious.

LOL, Pelagia, to my disappointment I fell asleep over my copy of "The New Yorker" last night just as I got to the film review--but I have to admit I have high expections of being royally entertained by it (as usual). I think I'll drop everything and go read it now.

Wonderful pictures from everyone, by the way. Some favorite scenes there.

Ceefour, not sure what your question meant about Frodo's pallor--were you looking for guesses as to its physical source or the artistic value it gives to the scene? Artistically of course it's all of a piece with the blueness that so aptly suggested the middle of the night--if anyone showed up with pink cheeks they'd look like one of those old-fashioned tinted photographs everybody's grandparents used to have.

As for why Frodo might actually be pale, art aside, I'd say he's still in shock from the loss of Gandalf in the Mines, exhausted, and worried. Except for that he looks pretty darn good for someone roused from what must be the first real chance for sleep he's had in quite a while. :D

Well, I am going to be late for work, but I want to answer after all.

Ereshkigal, the “pouty lipped” line was great. But one rarely sees this look -- except in the most overt “rock star” men -- that is so universal to “hot” pics of women. What men’s “hot” pics (that are supposed to be hot) feature is the confident, cool, appraising – even challenging stare -- which says, “You want me, baby; and if you play your cards right, you can have me.” They seem demand admiration more than they convey or invite intimacy or connection (which is what usually works for women). That probably is what turned-off viewers (like you, Honey), see in EW’s face, in the “nipple shots” (example 2), where I see formality or aloofness. (Though I agree about the half-opened shirt. It’s not hot in that studio, that’s for sure, so why should it be open? It looks contrived. He would do better to skip the shirt. They probably thought he wasn’t herky enough to do that kind of shot. But on such close-up shots, his lack of herkiness wouldn’t matter, surely.) What I thought did “work” for me, for photos of EW, (examples 1 and 12) were ones in which his expression conveyed a sense of “connection” with the viewer; the tone is invitational, not commanding -- one which merely “expects” a positive response.

I wanted you all to know, that what I wrote I wrote based on a thesis about whether Elijah Wood was really "allowed" by some or many of his fans to project a sexual self, not so much about what sort of sexual self he projected best. Most people appreciate his warmth most, obviously, and prefer his shots that are warmly directed at the viewer, whether they hint anything amorous or sexy, or not.

If I were going to say more, (and obviously I am), I would want to distinguish between appreciating the shots of Elijah Wood as shots and shots of EW as EW. Personally, I only have responded (amorously) to his EW shots as shots. For, it is true for me, Achila, that I remain uninterested in EW, amorously, as himself. The EW I see talking in interviews or horsing around in the DVD's (or talking earnestly in the DVD's) is charming and extremely endearing -- I love him! -- but I don't "swoon" for him. Yet, when I am browsing his galleries of shots, I often stop and stare, open-mouthed, at the sheer beauty of his image in this or that shot. Sometimes, as in the shots I posted #'s 1 and 12, I actually respond to them in a swoony way -- and not as aesthetically beautiful shots, only. But these, to me, are "acted" shots. But I also think his very “cheerful, smiling, wholesome” shots are acted, too, in that they are posed and he and the photographer are going for a certain kind of “look” – I think I am agreeing with tg on this. I don't think of him as himself even in most of his shots, once I start going through them, but almost as an anonymous person, a model -- an ideal , perhaps -- who is the subject of these pictures.

I think that's why I can look even at his "Bad Boy" shot and go, "Hey -- he looks like he'd make a lot of money in Piccadilly Circus selling himself, looking like that." (But, I agree with Rikka, that such shots might "work," but they make him look convincing as a rent boy destined for quickies, not the object of serious romantic attention.) But when I see Wood in an interview (or in All I Want *grin*), I'd say, "Naaah, this guy would starve trying to make it as a toy boy." (And yes, I love his little Frodo tummy, too, Ereshkigal. I love his un-herkiness generally; it's a body made for enjoyment, not for showing itself off.)

No shots of Elijah, for me, can touch the power -- as beautiful and/or as amorously endearing -- of shots of him as Frodo. And those are ALL acted shots. But whatever it is he is able to project in that role, which I respond to so strongly, I simply don't see in his publicly available "real" self, most of the time, at least not very clearly. In my giant post above, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. I want to suppose that he might have a bit of all the moods and emotions he projects in his very varied photos, even if they are mostly kept private or live only below the skin. After all, however people might seem to me at their jobs, in the grocery store, at the health club -- or on a movie set -- they usually are something and someone else in the privacy of their intimate relationships. That was my point. People seemed to be able to "believe" EW as genuine in photos that were anything but "sexy," but when he let an intentionally sexy side of him "show," they tended to dismiss it as "put on" or simply "unconvincing." I see from your posts, though, that much of it has to do with "taste" only.

Flourish has suggested to me in emails and on this thread (correct me if I am wrong, Flourish) that EW's sexy shots are unconvincing simply because EW just can't project sexual interest or ardour well -- as an actor -- no matter what might pertain in his private relationships. He can play passion and desire and angst and delight, as anyone watching LotR and his previous films can see, but not if the object of all those emotions is a person -- in a romantic relationship. She may be right. (But I hope not.)

It may be that viewers "believe" his shots that portray all the other emotions and attitudes because he is convincing when projecting those, but is not convincing portraying sexually-specific emotions (whatever he may be able to do in private life). "Endearing, charming, soulful, lovely" – he can do that. But not the pant-pant-pant stuff so many of his [non-maternal] fans would like to see him do on screen. (wood, when I talked about maternal feelings, I didn’t mean to make them age-specific. You can be a little girl and have very developed protective, nurturing feelings – i.e. “maternal” or be a real mother with few.)

The following link is to a candid shot that is the only one I’ve ever seen of EW, as himself, that projects, to me, convincing amorous interest.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/FrodoFLIRTYsig.jpg

It may be he had no flirtatious thoughts in his head, talking here with their dialect coach, Roisin Carty, but it looks very like that to me. Looking at the animated sequence from whence this comes, I think, “Well, well, E.W. Those girls had better look out, after all.” He’s dressed up as Frodo, but he is clearly not being Frodo in these shots. He is being himself, whatever version of it this is ;) , when talking to this woman. And, I think, it is a self that might be just right for a film romantic role. (See? I haven’t totally despaired of him in such a role). However, it would be a role that would not be portraying Mr. Passionate and/or Vulnerable (passion and vulnerability were excellently portrayed by him as Frodo and in many other young roles; in All I Want – I think -- the attempt at playing vulnerability did not work, coming off just as discomfort and fear -- of passion, even of a blossoming desire, there was none). But, looking at this picture, I was thinking he might do very well as a smooth-talking, able, highly-successful flirt. He could even be a bit of a cad, like Alfie. But a totally likeable cad. He did well as the duplicitous preppie in that crime drama; I think he could do it. EW’s got the froth, the charm, the killer eye-contact and all the illusively invitational stuff; it could work.

Why am I going on about this? Sheer swoonhood? Not at all. The fact is, I’d LOVE to see EW do well in a romantic role, not primarily for my personal swoon thrills -- since I don’t feel that swoony towards him as himself -- but because the majority of meaty leading roles are ones that portray people in romantic or sexually charged relationships. I don’t mean explicitly erotic ones; that is not necessary at all. Mr. Darcy was at his best just burning holes through Eliza Bennett’s clothes with his eyes.

There’s (obviously) something amorously appealing in EW that I really would like to see successfully tapped, in a role. Soon. Before he gets lung cancer.

Well, off to work again! Bye for now,

~ Mechtild

Wood, if you must post the pictures that big, somehow I must endure it (and get a seatbelt for my desk chair).

Flourish, Frodo always looked very pale to me throughout the Mirror scene and only after Galadriel refuses the ring, does his color return--if I am remembering the scene correctly.

Mechtild, I would hope EW never gets trapped into a particular style of role by his fans, although this does not seem probable given his diverse choices so far. Your mention of Mr. Darcy made me think of my favorite passionate scene in a movie, IMVHO (see, I'm getting better at this Internet lingo). If any of you have seen "Persuasion," it is when Capt. Wentworth is writing his letter to Ann and then his voice is heard reading the letter and Ann's reaction. There is no bodice-ripping or the like, but the urgency and passion in his voice are arresting. C4

Mech, yes, I think you read me correctly there--although I agree that (obviously) taste very much enters into the question of how we react to certain kinds of photos, the fact still seems plain to me that even actors with very wide range have limits. There are a few actors I enjoy watching in many kinds of roles and most of them would have made a terrible Frodo (think Jack Lemmon, Cary Grant, Harrison Ford, just to name a few). Without exactly saying he is a particular "type," I'll say Elijah is probably not going to give Orlando Bloom or Johnny Depp much competition in their chosen spheres as matinee idols. He clearly doesn't want to, either, and that seems wise.

And I feel, as I think you do, that his Frodo is the main attraction, not himself.

He does look awfully charming in that clip with the dialect coach, though. I'm sure he's a lovely human being.

ceefour, I hadn't noticed that Frodo's color comes back at the end of the scene (shades of the Gray Havens!). I suppose *sigh* I'll have to watch it and get back to you. ;) Interesting observation, though!

And if I had to name the film I've seen probably as many times as FOTR, it would be "Persuasion." The scene you cite is indeed a highly charged one, and how effective is it, a few moments later, when Wentworth and Anne finally kiss? Of course, this being Jane Austen's world, he kisses merely her hand, but sometimes what's not shown is far more erotic than what is.

Is this a good opening to say I don't like those EW "nipple" shots at all?

OK, I'm going now.

CEEFORE,I CAN GI´VE IT TO YOU
IN CHRISTMAS PRESENT!!! :lol: :lol:

no,realy i will try to make to pictures smaller next time!! :k :k

Love/wood

Having dragged myself back from swoon territory, I've been thinking about tgshaw's comment, about the "Galadriel's Mirror" scene:
It's like a few other scenes--Weathertop comes to mind first--that aren't so much acted as danced (I was going to say "choreographed," but that would be going on behind the camera).
I'm trying to visualize these scenes, and I can see what you mean, especially (in the Mirror scene) the shot of Frodo walking (from the upper right of the screen) down the long, looping path that leads into the glade, as Galadriel reaches the bottom. That long shot almost looks like something from a ballet set. And IIRC (to carry this way beyond any point that tg probably intended) the closeup of Frodo's feet on the steps almost looks as if they are "turned out" as in ballet. (Again, I'm just going on memory here.) In this scene as well as in Weathertop, I think that the way the camera moves also contributes to the "dance-like" feel.

I think that another very "choreographed" scene (of course, there isn't really any acting in it, so in a sense it's ALL choreography) is the Nazgul's attack on the inn at Bree. Their movements are very stylized, almost ritualistic. (Just as an aside, I think the Black Riders are the scariest thing in the whole trilogy – though Shelob is a close second. It's the Riders' wailing screech that gives me the creeps.)

And if you want REAL "acting as dancing" -- or should it be "dancing as acting"? -- I have to go back (AGAIN!!) to the "circus parade" scene in Avalon. Sorry if I keep harping on it, but it really is one of my favorites.

Flourish wrote:
There are a few actors I enjoy watching in many kinds of roles and most of them would have made a terrible Frodo (think Jack Lemmon, Cary Grant, Harrison Ford, just to name a few).
LOL! Oh, I'm going to try always to retain the image of Harrison Ford as Frodo, with that sort of squinty, crooked smile.

It's like a few other scenes--Weathertop comes to mind first--that aren't so much acted as danced (I was going to say "choreographed," but that would be going on behind the camera).

Don't forget that one time he was billed as "Actor, Model, Dancer."
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/honeyelf/ElijahCompFront_lg.jpg

I love watching the mirror scene, as he's coming down the steps. He's just so graceful, even with those big hobbit feet.

honey! anotherwholoveshislittlesoftfrodotummy

I love watching the mirror scene, as he's coming down the steps. He's just so graceful, even with those big hobbit feet.

I think it's the way his ankle turns that gets me. He places his feet very delicately and precisely. If you listen to the commentary at that point, Orlando is talking about Cate, and how it took her no time at all to master the floating walk of the elves (which he had a very hard time with, apparently). First of all, she's a woman, and walking like that is not that difficult for us. But I bet Elijah could've done it as well. He would've made a very beautiful elf, I'm sure.

And to add to our continuing discussion about Elijah's photos, here's new fuel for the fire:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/aquila0212/angel1.jpg

I know many of you dislike the facial hair but I love the little bit of sadness in his eyes here.

I LOVE THAT PICTURE ACHILA!!!

IT WILL BE A NEW MEMBER OF MY ALBUM!!
with small pictures!!!! :lol: :lol:

love/wood

WOOOW, Achila, Thank you! what a great, fantastic pic!!! I love pics of EW in black and white colours. Here EW is unbeleavably beautiful...and absolutely grown up man! :)


On "choreographed" scenes of Frodo in LOTR

Almost all scenes in Osgiliath - between "They are here...They've come" (just before the Nasgul comes) and the confrontation with Fall Beast at the Wall - are of this kind, too. In all of them a movement is a kind of high art - I love them so much!

...But I bet Elijah could've done it as well. He would've made a very beautiful elf, I'm sure.
...or a hobbit with a bit of elvish blood ;) . He must have been channeling Frodo's fallohide streak. :) -- Just thinking about that now, I wonder if that was consciously or subconsciously involved in PJ's looking for someone with "magic" to play Frodo. He's mostly a down-to-earth hobbit, but has a bit of that elvish otherworldliness to him, even in the book, and Elijah is perfect for that. I'm so glad they let some of that aspect of Frodo shine through in the movies.

The comments on dancing have been interesting, and bring up aspects I hadn't considered--such as the set and specific dance stances (which I know very little about). What strikes me the most, I think, is the precise timing of everything. Even Galadriel's, "...some that were [splash], "some that are" [splash] and some [pause] that have not yet come to pass." And, of course, Frodo's movement down the stairs and to the mirror.

ceefour--Yes, I think Galadriel's refusal of the Ring is the point where the scene changes in many ways. I'm not going to make it quite that far on the website this month, but IMHO everything changes there--emotions, dialogue, lighting... I said on the site that the choreographed and "unrealistically" lit first part of the scene seems very Faërie-like to me. Along the same lines, the later part of the scene returns us to the mundane world. Interesting that PJ (or Mr. Lesnie?) said the blue lighting (he called it lavender) was used to give a feeling of vulnerability to Lothlorien, since it will soon fade. I'm not sure if it adds to Frodo's appearance of vulnerability or not--that seems to have more to do with the camera angle, IMHO.

I agree that "ritualistic" is another good word for this scene and for Weathertop... especially the approach of the Nazgul. I've read (probably here ;) ) that Frodo seems to be almost a ritual sacrifice in that scene.

Honey--That childhood "billing" reminds me of the legendary note some casting director wrote about Fred Astaire: "Can't act. Can't sing. Can dance a little." :haha: (Not that any of that applies to Elijah, of course :) .)

ETA: Rikka, the Osgiliath scenes are a wonderful example!

---------

OT: I don't know if there are any Tolkien geeks making Keebler crackers ;) -- y'know, "Made by little elves in a hollow tree" :p -- but I noticed on a package a couple of days ago that they used the adjective "elfen." It's kind of an odd little word and made me wonder if someone was deliberately separating their elves from Tolkien's (who said adamantly that elfen or elfin couldn't be used in connection with his elves--it had to be elven or elvish). The Keebler elves (for anyone who might not be familiar with them) resemble Santa's elves, and back when the Keebler company "invented" them, Santa's elves were the only ones most people in the U.S. would have thought of when the word was used. But that has changed a bit in the last few years ;) , and maybe the company is recognizing that.

Achila wrote (about Frodo in the Galadriel's Mirror scene):
I think it's the way his ankle turns that gets me. He places his feet very delicately and precisely.
I guess that's what made me think of ballet positions.

tgshaw wrote:
Interesting that PJ (or Mr. Lesnie?) said the blue lighting (he called it lavender) was used to give a feeling of vulnerability to Lothlorien, since it will soon fade. I'm not sure if it adds to Frodo's appearance of vulnerability or not--that seems to have more to do with the camera angle, IMHO.
I agree with you that the camera angle plays more of a role here. And is it just my imagination, or does the angle get even higher during her "You would have a queen!" episode?

Hi all

I know I shouldn't post a reply without carefully going over the last few pages, but I just don't have time--even for this post as I have an appnt in about 20 minutes. But I want to comment before the topic is cold.

Mechtild--I always love your posts. Thank you for taking so much time. :k

Swooning for Frodo and swooning for Elijah---and who is sexy?

I swooned first for Frodo as played by Elijah, though I've always loved book Frodo. I love the magic. I know, Mechtild you have described it all in great detail, especially in the Harem--the nobility of spirit wrapped up in the beautiful man-child package. Having limited time I'll sum it up for myself as --the magic. The idea, the beauty, the spirit --the whole package transports my imagination my heart my soul, and yes...put that all together and that is sexy to me. I don't know. Beauty is sexy to me. The love in his eyes, is sexy to me.

In real life I take a long time to "fall in love"--because something overtly sexy to most people just doesn't catch my eye unless it is combined with something that capitvates my spirit. Of course being so captivated by Frodo, I wanted to know more about Elijah. He didn't overtly capture me as did Frodo (who I also knew had the spirit, besides the beauty) in the beginning-though as a person everything I read about him made me grow to love him. And especially because he says, and it is echoed by PJ and others, he finds himself so much like Frodo. There was an interview in which he talked of Frodo's emotionality and love, and he says that they are so alike. So I could start to love Elijah. And I'm not trying to be all teenage about it--but I think it's a good thing to be able to love people. (and I'm not just talking about compartmentalized romantic love). So that's okay. :D He acted Frodo, but it came from something inside of him that he really could relate to. PJ says Elijah is Frodo. So if you swoon for Frodo--I'll bet Elijah could be quite real as Frodo and it wouldn't just be acting :D I do imagine that!

okay--I didn't say that well. But I've grown to adore his geekiness and I pretty much inside he has these other sides to him.

Sexy? I also did not like All I Want. But when he was lying on the roof with (which one of the women?) I literally flushed with the suddenly onslaught of that..openness? --hey mechtild, you talked about the older woman as Ravisher. Well there was this exposed neck....there was this total openess that seemed so real...He was edible (so sorry, Faculty! I will quit!). Ummm, I was reacting to him as an actor who...did project something rather well. Acting. Good job. ;)

Okay--also, someone not too long ago linked us to some pics of him and Franka kissing . And that boy looked confident and in control and sensual...and that with an older woman!

okay. That was not acting!

So yeah. We aren't supposed to swoon in here because swooning often displaces a intelligent conversation. We lose variety in our topics. But truth be told IMHO a little injection of the occassional blushing post adds a little interest. We've all shown our affection for the lad. I find it hard to know really where in my own definition I draw the line to determine "how" I really like someone. I'm not sure it's that important to me. I mean, I can't define something as the aunty, mother, swoony, sisterly, friendly, type of feelings for each person I know. Seems to be a mix unique to each relationship I have, or, as with Elijah, person I have interest in. It's all a big mix with proportions doled out unique to that person.

Can Elijah act sexy? I am very curious to see how his new roles play out. He's been filming inthe last year plus and all we have seen are the pictures--not the film. He looks more mature and self contained in many of the shots. We have known Elijah as a kid. Oh yeah, and as a hobbit. My guess is that he has grown a bit--and that he is more capable of playing sexy now than he was before. I'm curious to see how more grown he might seem in his next roles. And after that, what he will do with romance in coming roles.

On the other hand--roles that are sexy to be sexy is probably not the point with Elijah. They probably aren't the most interesting roles. Complex and interesting roles played by capable actors, do end up coming off sexy for most women--as the quality of being an interesting person can make someone sexy in the eyes of many women. That's the better choice, I would think, for Elijah.

I have an appointment to get to. I apologize if I have said what has already been said.
I also know there are many other topics and posts I would like to read better and comment on. Thank you all (((Faculty)))

As for Andrew Lesnie's lighting of the scene, perhaps his "lavendar" lighting was made blue, later, with the digital grading process. The shots below, I was sure were from the Galadriel's glade scene. I had been thinking these shots revealed the "real" lighting that was used for the scene (which Lesnie would have designed), which then was graded, afterwards, into unmistakable blueness. Neither look "lavendar" to me, but he may have used lavendar gels to get a subtle effect (too subtle for PJ, obviously).

Here's a close up:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/Frodo-GORGEOUS-Maewyns.jpg

And there's this one:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/frodoextendstheringintheglade.jpg

OT, ceefour and Flourish, Persuasion is one of my all-time favourite films! I must restrain myself from re-watching it too often. I tend to slip into a trance as soon as the Chopin starts playing in the opening credits. It is one of the most beautifully made films I've ever seen (my husband HATES it -- "What's going on? I can't tell what's going on!" -- having read the book (multiple times) really is a distinct advantage. ;) ) I know the scene you mean; I suppose I have it memorized. :rolleyes: It's those more formal contacts through which far more is conveyed, like handing her up into the Admiral's carraige, that I love. The same is true for Pride and Prejudice. It's the hands that meet in the dance that get me all thrilled, not the kiss at the end. And more even than the hands, it's the looks exchanged. (And not the drippy wet shirt one, which I find merely humorous.)



Alyon, I simul-posted with you. Can't agree with you on All I Want, alas. I thought Franka Potente was the best thing in it and I watched their scenes thinking, "Shees! Not even with her!" Yech. Personally, I blamed the director, most of all. How could so many performers come off looking so under-rehearsed?

Oh, you wrote,

On the other hand--roles that are sexy to be sexy is probably not the point with Elijah. They probably aren't the most interesting roles. Complex and interesting roles played by capable actors, do end up coming off sexy for most women--as the quality of being an interesting person can make someone sexy in the eyes of many women. That's the better choice, I would think, for Elijah.

Very true. And, if I had been more careful, I might have phrased things more that way. :D As you can tell from my remarks about the Jane Austen films, what makes an actor fire the affective/erotic imagination of women is their character and its interactions with the other characters. Why else would I be so gung-ho for Frodo? He was fantastic playing utterly convincing profoundly emotional scenes with his co-stars. If not for that, all the personal beauty in the world would not have sufficed. Is Ciaran Hinds beautiful? (Captain Wentworth) But he was very compelling, playing that role. As for EW, I STILL would like to see him do some "utterly convincing profoundly emotional scenes" with a woman to whom his character is attracted.

~ Mechtild

I agree with Alyon that Wood has grown a lot over the LOTR years, and that maturity may start translating into a more believable on-screen sexuality (although I, too, thought the scene between him and Franka was pretty convincing). I'm totally guessing, but since LOTR was the first time he had spent a great deal of time away from his mom, I wouldn't be surprised if he also had some growth (ahem) in his personal sexual experience, which would give him a greater wealth of source material.

Off-screen, however, I'll bet he is charming as all get out, just from the deft way he handles himself in public (think of the "gift" picture incident at the film festival). But sometimes that is hard to translate on-screen.

And sometimes the ones who project a great on-screen sexuality are not necessarily the actors I find particularly gifted. IMO, Costner was terribly sexy in Bull Durham and Matthew McConnahey (sp?) has a sexy smile, but neither of them wow me as actors.

On the other hand, Jimmy Stewart was always wonderful and could be quite charming, but his sexy moments don't jump to mind.

On the other hand, Jimmy Stewart was always wonderful and could be quite charming, but his sexy moments don't jump to mind.
:lol:

Oh, I ADORE Jimmy Stewart, in much the same way I love Elijah. They both just have this earnestness (didn't Sean A use that word to describe Elijah?) as well as a quality of openess, and honesty that is very appealing. And IMVHO, Elijah would do well to take JS as a roll model for his career (along with Johnny Depp, of course! :D )

But you're right; "sexy" is just not a quality I think of when I think of Jimmy Stewart. But like Alyon says, it's the combination of qualities that makes someone sexy. So, yes, given Jimmy Stewart's qualities of intelligence, earnestness, etc. he was sexy. But the idea of Jimmy Stewart trying to deliver a smouldering look is just :lol: :lol: :lol:

And while I can see Elijah as a sexual creature, and enjoy it, it is that sweet, geekiness that melts me in my shoes! :o ooops...swooning :o

by way of illustration only :p

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/honeyelf/adorable.bmp

honey!

Ereshkigal, another simul-post!

Jimmy Stewart. I loved Jimmy Stewart in Philadephia Story, I'll have you know. I swooned for his Mike and his dreamy scenes with Katharine Hepburn by the pool. And what about as George Bailey in It's a Wonderful Life? Although he wasn't "sexy," I still "swooned" for him, watching it every year on reruns at Christmas. I think I was enamoured of him as much as his wife Mary. The scene where Mary has George listen in on the phone while Sam Wainwright is telling about his factory plans.... Oh, it's SO terrifically played, and so real! All that trembling, palpable emotion, just barely contained -- oh, you know how I love THAT! (As for sexy, how do you think George and Mary Bailey had all those kids? ;) )

Actually, it is not surprising that I would love film Frodo, once he was put fully to the test in RotK. I had already been warming up for decades since girlhood, on Jimmy Stewart's George Bailey. George Bailey was another "average" man, but funny, warm and fine-minded, with a thirst for adventure, who had to endure an unwanted burden of responsiblity and then was driven nearly mad when a terrible series of events befell him, as if by "fate." However, George Bailey's story was in a comedy, so his ending was a happy one. Poor Mr. Baggins! He, alas, did not get to appear in a comedy.

Edited to add: ANOTHER simul-post!

Hi, Honey. See above my thoughts on Jimmy Stewart. Yes, "open" and "honest" are two characteristics that are extremely attractive ones. That young Jimmy -- just a bucket of barely restrained emoting. I am such a sucker for that. Much more so than for Mr. "Sweet and Geeky." It's "Mr. Fraught and Gibbering" that gets me, it seems. :cool:

"Fraught and gibbering"--!! :lol:

OK, me too.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh.... :eek:
héééééééééééééééélp :eek:

So many great posts, so little time to read them.
I hope I'll be able to catch up some time soon.

Just a quick post, though.

Talking about Jimmy Stewart, I lend my Harvey DVD to my sister and her husband and....she hated it. :eek:
*sigh*
You can't believe how much time it took me to get her to see the light as far as Russell Crowe is concerned. She's finally a big fan of that great actor and now she drops this bomb on me. How can you not like Jimmy in Harvey? I mean, it doesn't have to be your favourite movie (it ain't mine either) but *hate it and stopped it after ten minutes*?
:(


:) OK...carry on
(I seem to have missed a fantastic post by Mechtild and so many great reactions..so, that's one to remember once I start catching up)

*hate it and stopped it after ten minutes*?
Some people...!

One of my friends walked out of the theater after twenty minutes 20 minutes of FoTR. I kept asking her why. Finally, after pressing her repeatedly on the point, she admitted that it was because all the good guys were good looking, and all the bad guys were ugly! (Totally OT: Funnily enough her father, who was very intelligent [and consequently - to me - utterly fascinating] looked alot like Christopher Lee. And in his younger days, like Groucho Marx! :D )

ahem...

Oh, yeah! People who give up on something only 10 minutes in.... :confused:

'Nother personal note: I was remembering the other day the first time I saw "Avalon." This was way back when it was just out on video. (Remember when you had to wait a long time for something to come to video? And the tapes cost in the $40 range?) My mother-in-law and I watched it together. At some point late in the movie she said "That little boy will be a heart-breaker when he grows up. He'll have a long career; we should keep track of him." I have one of those expressive faces, and I must have looked pretty skeptical, because she became rather emphatic. Dang! Hate when my m-i-l isright! Little did I know I'd be one of the bazillion women who's heart he'd be breakin'...

I don't know if she's followed his career or not.

Years later, and I wind up here. Who knew?

honey!

canyoutellihaveajobtodoforwhichiamfeelingnoenthusiasm?

Hmmm.... A sexy Jimmy Stewart?

With Grace Kelly in Rear Window? Well, kind of.

With Kim Novak in Vertigo? Obsession! Mystery! Whoa!!

...and, yes, that scene listening in on the telephone in It's a Wonderful Life ...and, a bit earlier, the one that ends with, "Why don't you just kiss her, 'steada talkin' her to death?" :D (Hey, I knew Mr. Proudfoot reminded me of someone! :p )

But the telephone call has so much going on emotionally (besides the obvious physical attraction). We know Mary's mother would prefer she end up with Wainwright. We know that since childhood Mary has wanted to marry George, and George has wanted to travel (no coincidence that both topics come up in the soda fountain scene). What makes the telephone scene almost overwhelming for me, emotionally, is that I feel I'm watching George's heart get torn in two--that can go only so far before he's going to have to let go of one of his desires in order to hang onto the other one. We know what he's wanted with all his heart, and watched while fate kept snatching it away from him. Then--just from that one scene--we know that this time it won't be fate, but his own decision, that will take it away from him. His angry rejection of "getting tied down" just makes it all the more obvious that that's exactly what he's going to choose. Whether he ended up making the right decision or not, it's painful to watch.

----Well, I didn't mean that to go on so long... :rolleyes: I stopped watching It's a Wonderful Life some years ago--it's just too depressing as a reminder that nothing would be any different if I hadn't been born.

-----------------------

Back to Elijah, and Frodo, and lighting: It's very possible that the lavender coloring was from grading afterward. I read about it so long ago, and can't even remember who said it (my original thought was that it was PJ, but I'm not sure). I just remember the part about it being chosen to give a feeling of vulnerability. It's from the days when I didn't know 'nuthin 'bout movie makin' (since I've learned the little I know from following these movies :p ).

The close-up Mechtild posted was released quite early on, long before FotR came out. (It was my very first webpage background--although that effort never made it online.*) It's not in the glade, but on the flet--while Frodo's watching Galadriel and Celeborn descend the stairs, or whatever it is they're descending :confused: . I'm at work, and would have a closer match of the final product at home, but this pic is from just before it:

http://www.frodolivesin.us/FotR/199bbbb0.jpg

There were also some early releases of a few other pics with the same background as shown in the one where Frodo's holding out the Ring; in fact, I think there's one in the FotR Frodo screensaver. So that was another one that was seen long before the movie came out (although not showing him holding the Ring out, IIRC--that would have been quite a spoiler!)

So, yes, I'm pretty sure the alteration came sometime between the shooting and the final film.

-----
*The first webpage title, which never got used, was "Baby Boomers for Elijah Wood" -- Who knew? :p

Another board I frequent had a link to some pictures from a Romeo and Juliet stage production from around 1970, starring Christopher Walken (yes, THAT Christopher Walken!) as Romeo, when he must have been about the age EW is now. Other than the size of his eyes, he looked remarkably like EW back then, and made me wonder if EW will retain his looks into older age as well as Walken has (yes, I think that the man is very goodlooking, even though he's been typecast as a villain).

Sidenote--if you want to see a young Walken as hero role on video, find "Who Am I This Time?", costarring Susan Sarandon, directed by Jonathan Demme and based on a short story by Kurt Vonnegut. It's an hour-long film done for the old PBS series "American Playhouse" back in the early 1980s, and it's brilliant, a wonderful example of a quirky romanctic comedy. Actually, I think that, in about five years or so, EW would be brilliant in the Walken role of the pathologically shy hardware store worker who blossoms onstage as the leading man of the local amateur dramatic group.

Sharpe's Girl--Yes, I think Christopher Walken is very underrated as an actor (and I think he's pretty good-looking, too :) ). I wonder sometimes if he tends to get typecast as rather weird villains for the same reason (IMHO) Elijah plays a lot of interiorly-directed characters: Simply because he can play those roles so well, when most actors can't.

I haven't seen the American Playhouse production you mentioned, but the part sounds perfect for him (and, probably, for Elijah, as you said). I thought he (Walken) did a good job in the Sarah, Plain and Tall movies, although I found the whole package kind of syrupy. But my heart belongs to the Continental--the Pepe le Phew of Saturday Night Live ;) :D .

....I don't intend to be so off-topic tonight. The brain's shut down and I think I'm just kind of running off at the mouth. :rolleyes:

I think Christopher Walken is very underrated as an actor (and I think he's pretty good-looking, too ). I wonder sometimes if he tends to get typecast as rather weird villains for the same reason (IMHO) Elijah plays a lot of interiorly-directed characters: Simply because he can play those roles so well, when most actors can't.

I hope Elijah doesn't allow himself to get stuck playing the same types of roles over and over again.

Ever since the trailers came out for "National Treasure" I've been wondering how Nick Cage got himself stuck in that role. The movie looked pretty cheesey from the trailer and, if the reviews are any indicator, it is. And there's Mr. Cage, a rather fine actor himself, and somewhat "Stewartesque." Last week I read an interview with Mr. Cage in which he says he chooses roles if they make him "uncomfortable;" if he has played an opposite type of role before, for example. He talked about specific roles that met his criterion of "uncomfortable," but I can't remember them just now. I'd guess using "uncomfortableness" as a criterion would be sort of hit or miss.

Someone mentioned Robin Williams recently. He's another good actor; I really enjoyed him in "One Hour Photo." But for a while there I wouldn't go to a Robin Williams movie because he could be counted on to play very sentimental roles that made one feel they were in danger of insulin shock, they were so sticky sweet.

So, while Nick Cage's "uncomfortable" choices might make for huge "misses," rather than "hits" from time to time, I'd risk a Nick Cage movie over one that stars some actor who plays the same type every time.

OTOH, even if Elijah continues to be cast in movies where he plays internal characters, there is a wide range of roles within that space, isn't there? Mikey Carver is very different than Frodo Baggins. Mikey seems detached from the world around him, maybe because it's too painful to be to aware of the stesses in it. But Frodo seems to be struggling hard to stay aware of things around him, even as he is attacked by a will he can never overcome. They are almost opposites, aren't they? One having given in, and the other fighting hard not to.

Was it you, TG, who was trying to think of an EJW movie where the character didn't have angst? He's really good at doing the angst thing too. But Mikey II(?), the hit man is very different than any other role he's ever done, and he's got his own load of angst. In fact Elijah is so good at playing the comedic straight man, with that expressive face of his, that I hope he gets more of those sorts of roles in the future. I'm anticipating that Jonathan Safran Foer will be that sort of role.

hone! tryingtomakesenseagain

OTOH, even if Elijah continues to be cast in movies where he plays internal characters, there is a wide range of roles within that space, isn't there?
I'd certainly agree with that. And there's the added "problem" ;) that I tend to prefer internal characters. IMVHO, they're usually more interesting.

Was it you, TG, who was trying to think of an EJW movie where the character didn't have angst? He's really good at doing the angst thing too. But Mikey II(?), the hit man is very different than any other role he's ever done, and he's got his own load of angst. In fact Elijah is so good at playing the comedic straight man, with that expressive face of his, that I hope he gets more of those sorts of roles in the future.
I might be wrong, but I believe it was Mariole, who's responsible for a number of entries in the Elwood glossary :p , who came up with "Nat angst"--with those hysterical captions she put on various pics from Forever Young to show that poor Nat was misunderstood as a character and really suffered from all kinds of harrowing angsty problems. "Nat angst" is now in the glossary, and it might be that definition you're connecting me with?
Nat angst: 1. angst (q.v.) suffered by Nat in Forever Young, unrecognized until identified recently by a prominent Faculty researcher. 2. by extension, angst suffered by any other EJW character who seems, on the surface, to be angst-free, such as... uh... hmmm...
I think, too, that Elijah has a great gift for "deadpan" humor--and being able to trip over your own feet on cue doesn't hurt :p . Some of it showed up in The Faculty. And Mikey II had both angst and deadpan humor. One of the reviews I read of Chain of Fools mentioned that in that type of absurdist comedy, it's essential that none of the characters act as if anything they're doing is funny or strange. It has to be played completely straight. The reviewer said the cast in CoF did a very good job of that, and I'd definitely agree.

One of the statements that made me think Elijah had finally gotten around to reading LotR was one in which he said that one of the similarities between him and Frodo--and one of the things he liked about Frodo--was his sense of humor. He had to have at least met book-Frodo in order to say that. If someone suddenly had about twenty million dollars and wanted to make an unabridged, totally purist film version of LotR, Elijah would be fantastic with Frodo's cynical, sarcastic, dark sense of humor (as well as with facing the Nazgul at the ford :rolleyes: ). I know it would have been difficult to work it into the current movies, because you'd have to have enough time to show the humor, yet make sure that it didn't become too large a part of the character; a 50-year-old (internally) Frodo would help make it more believable, too.

Jimmy Stewart!!

Yes, I was totally thinking Jimmy Stewart, as well, when I made the above post in which I said interesting men become sexy because they are interesting.

And..Gregory Peck as Atticas Finch in to Kill A Mockingbird. His character was not about "sexy"--but he was interesting and idealistic and compelling, and therefore attractive and sexy.

In pictures from Everything Is Illuminated, I think Elijah looks a lot like a Cary Grant, Gregory Peck combo. I've said that before, but oh well...

Elijah is growing and learning all the time. He'll get you yet, Mechtild!! :D :D
He did it with Frodo. He may yet do it again. You have proved you are not immune!!! :haha:

Honey!! Wonderful pic!!!! ;)

Mechtild:
Alyon, I simul-posted with you. Can't agree with you on All I Want, alas. I thought Franka Potente was the best thing in it and I watched their scenes thinking, "Shees! Not even with her!" Yech. Personally, I blamed the director, most of all. How could so many performers come off looking so under-rehearsed?

Well, I didn't even like Franka in the movie. And I didn't think Elijah was good either. I did think his neck was good, however. ;)

Yes, in our house, we always blame the director. My kid did not like AIW either, but as an actor, she totally forgave the performers and blamed it on direction!! Yeah, that's professional bias, I suppose. But she had also loved Franka in Run Lola Run, and Elijah has pulled off some good performances before...

But the truth is, actors aren't always going to get it right. But I think in this case the whole movie (sorry :z: for those who loved it) indicated to me a director with a poor vision.

You know, I find it very interesting that no one would have this conversation about whether Tom Cruise could be a sexy leading man. And at one time, like in his "Risky Business" days, Tom couldn't get that type of role (and wouldn't have been believable in it) if his life depended on it. Tom is not tall either -- he's the same height as Elijah, in fact. But he grew into those roles and being seen that way. And Elijah is already at least ten times the actor Tom Cruise is (or will ever be), not to mention (IMVHO) far better looking -- OK, I'm prejudiced.

Ereshkigal said: I agree with Alyon that Wood has grown a lot over the LOTR years, and that maturity may start translating into a more believable on-screen sexuality (although I, too, thought the scene between him and Franka was pretty convincing). I'm totally guessing, but since LOTR was the first time he had spent a great deal of time away from his mom, I wouldn't be surprised if he also had some growth (ahem) in his personal sexual experience, which would give him a greater wealth of source material.

I was just going to write something similar -- I do believe that as Elijah's personal store of experiences increases, so will his capacity to do this type of role well.

tg, one more response, and I'm done; honest injun.

But the telephone call has so much going on emotionally (besides the obvious physical attraction). We know Mary's mother would prefer she end up with Wainwright. We know that since childhood Mary has wanted to marry George, and George has wanted to travel (no coincidence that both topics come up in the soda fountain scene). What makes the telephone scene almost overwhelming for me, emotionally, is that I feel I'm watching George's heart get torn in two--that can go only so far before he's going to have to let go of one of his desires in order to hang onto the other one. We know what he's wanted with all his heart, and watched while fate kept snatching it away from him. Then--just from that one scene--we know that this time it won't be fate, but his own decision, that will take it away from him. His angry rejection of "getting tied down" just makes it all the more obvious that that's exactly what he's going to choose. Whether he ended up making the right decision or not, it's painful to watch.
I love the way you recapped the dynamics of that scene. Truly, I think the work of the two of them -- but his especially -- is perhaps the best high-octane acting moment in film. I almost can't watch it (ha!) it's so intense and fraught. But every time I see it, I feel like letting out a huge "WHOOP!" and running around the living room in celebration. It's just so darned good as a piece of acting and theatre. Seeing something so well done is like drinking straight excellence. Or, it's like a big bolt of 24 carat gold that shoots right through me.

But I do also love George as a character in it, (I wouldn't say he's "sexy," but definitely "Swoon-worthy" :D ) for facing and going through such an ordeal to make this decision. I think he made the right one, but that's me (--although one which involved making terrible personal sacrifices). But that's part of the reality of it. Actually, I think every character, every single tiny part, is beautifully played. I didn't watch it for years because it was "a Christmas movie," so I figured it must be "warm and fuzzy," and over-hyped. But that is a great film for any time of the year.


Alyon, I want you to know I am keen, yes keen to be convinced of EW's charms. Really. And he does have a very fine neck.

You know, I find it very interesting that no one would have this conversation about whether Tom Cruise could be a sexy leading man.

I'm still wiating for someone to explain the whole Tom Cruise thing to me. :rolleyes: ::waiting:: 'Cause I just don't get it.

I think it MIGHT be that he projects confidence. But IMVHO he's taking "confidence" to such an extreme that he's in danger of tripping over into "cocky," which just ain't appealing at all. Not to me anyway.

While EW does project a healthy amount of confidence, it's nicely tempered with modesty. JMVHO.

honey! again

tired of me yet? ;) I really really really need to get to work

Jimmy Stewart!!


And..Gregory Peck as Atticas Finch in to Kill A Mockingbird. His character was not about "sexy"--but he was interesting and idealistic and compelling, and therefore attractive and sexy.

OOOOOOOhhhhhhh, Gregory Peck, especially as Atticas Finch.

SWOOOOON.

Oh, excuse me, just fell out my chair there. Anyhoo, we're not supposed to swoon here, are we? Sorry.

I do think the major problem with All I Want was the very, very poor script. The whole revenge fantasy thing was pathetic.

But I do think in that movie Wood was lacking sexual spark, or at least the kind of sexual spark we're accustomed to seeing.

But if he had a scene as richly written as the telephone scene in It's a Wonderful Life , I wonder how he would do. I think pretty well, myself.

But, you know, he still wouldn't be seen as traditionally sexy. We all agree that scene has a certain appeal, and may even be swoonworthy, but if AFI or some other idiotic listing group decided to make a list of 100 sexiest moments, I doubt the telephone scene would be in it (or course they probably already have, and already picked that scene, so I'll look like a fool. Won't be the first time).

Speaking of Wood's sexuality, I got a weird vibe from one of the writer's comments about Leo's character in Deep Impact . It's on the Collector's Edition, and the guy basically implies that Leo and his girlfriend were supposed to have this very sexual, very steamy relationship, and that would have made more sense as to why Leo risks everything to find her. And then the documentary just ends. And I wondered what the implication was? There isn't a lot of sparks flying between the two characters in the film, but there is a certain tenderness. Were they saying it couldn't happen with Elijah and Cloe? Age problem, or what?

And I sort of resent the implication that you would only risk your life for someone you were having sex with, anyway.

Anybody else see it?

Jimmy Stewart and Fred Astaire! Yes! Yes! Yes! (no, I am not imitating Meg Ryan). Who's next? Spencer Tracy?

Fred Astaire is a great comparison with EW. They both acted since childhood; slender frame, not tall (Fred Astaire was 5'9"), completely professional at work, generous with co-stars, and all-around nice guys. Now, I am not suggesting that Fred was as photogenic as EW, but somehow he managed to become a film star. He wasn't overtly "sexy" and couldn't be with the restrictions placed on film makers. Plus, he didn't like romantic scenes. Yet, when he offers Ginger Rogers a cigarette after their "dance" to "Night and Day" in "The Gay Divorcee," the audience knows that seduction and lovemaking has just taken place. EW just needs time to find his way.

OT=Regarding Fred Astaire's screen test, according to "Astaire Dancing," by John Mueller, "There is a legend that an Astaire screen test inspired the evaluation 'Can't act. Can't sing. Balding. Can dance a little.' This seems to be just one of those Hollywood 'stories.' RKO producer Pandro Berman says he never heard it in the early 1930's and that it emerged only years later."

C4

I've heard that story too, about Fred Astaire's screen test--I think he used to tell it himself--? He's one of my idols and I own the book you mentioned, Ceefour. We must be on the same wavelength today--Austen, Astaire.....

One of Astaire's films with Ginger Rogers was "The Story of Vernon and Irene Castle," based on the lives of two great ballroom dancers of the years before WWI. They created and popularized a dance called the Castle Walk. Vernon Castle became a pilot during the war and was killed in an accident, I think. I wonder whether a film about Fred Astaire would make an interesting role for Elijah Wood. Can he dance, does anyone know? I mean, really, really well? Astaire was a complete perfectionist--the stills of him in action are flawless.

(Of course if you want to play Astaire you don't have to sing that well, really.)

Eresh, I don't have an answer about "Deep Impact" but I agree about "All I Want."

Flourish, my copy sits on my desk (along with "The Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers Book" by Arlene Croce and "Starring Fred Astaire" by Stanley Green and Burt Goldblatt) and when my computer needs rebooting, I will sit and read a few pages.

I have always loved his hands, especially in "Change Partners," and find myself watching EW's. As tg has pointed out, EW uses his hands most effectively-e.g. protecting Bilbo from the fireworks dragon.

C4

While we're on old movies, I want to mention, the other day during a boring moment at work (all the moments are boring, which is why I have such a refined mental life), for fun I was imagining EW in various James Cagney roles (I really am DESPERATE to get him a job, it seems). Now that you are talking musicals, I was thinking of "Footlight Parade," in which he and Ruby Keeler dance on a bar in "Shanghai Lil". (Yes, I am a fan of antique films; it comes of watching old black and white re-runs with my mother in the afternoons.) EW would look smashing in a sailor suit. Such skinny hips and all. This sort of costume put Gene Kelly on the map. Gene Kelly didn't have much of a voice, like Fred, though Gene's was so weak he made Fred sound like a lusty tenor. But Gene still could sell a song. Cagney talked all his songs (but he talked them well), so he must not have had much of a voice, either. Here's a shot from Footlight Parade, with Joan Blondell.

Cagney: short, feisty, wired and charismatic. And great big eyes. Hmmm....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/mechtild/footlightparade.jpg

~ Mechtild

Goodmorning to you all,or shoulde i say goodnight!!??

So many posts you girls have realy been busy
while i was sleeping!!!! ;)
It took me about a half hour to read them all!! :)

I have nothing too add exept this!
I think Elijah is incredible sexy!!

His eyes,is the one that realy hit me of the chair(like you c4
but for another reson :lol: )
I think it is mostly the eyes and mouth yaph his hole beeing!!!
Swooning in the Faculty,haevens forbidd sorry :z:

Well i think in the fortune Elijah will be playing great sexy
rolls and many romantic rolls!!

Great posts every one as alwayes!!! :k

Love/wood

Do you know what George Bailey, Atticus Finch, and Frodo Baggins all have in common? They are capable of compassion and tenderness toward their fellow beings. And maybe those qualities are more appealing to women than any amount of blatant come-hithering-withering steamy looks!

Well, I wasn't gonna get into this, but somehow it all fits here:

Ereshkigal said:
...and the guy basically implies that Leo and his girlfriend were supposed to have this very sexual, very steamy relationship, and that would have made more sense as to why Leo risks everything to find her. ... And I wondered what the implication was? There isn't a lot of sparks flying between the two characters in the film, but there is a certain tenderness. ,,,And I sort of resent the implication that you would only risk your life for someone you were having sex with, anyway.


And some people can't see why Sam would have followed Frodo to Mordor unless they were a "couple." Yeah, I resent that implication, too.

Weird, isn't it, that our society has come to such a place that loving devoted compassion for another is misunderstood/assumed by many to imply a sexual relationship?

A few months ago I read "Tolkien and the Great War," by John Garth. One thing that left a strong impression on me was the affection in the letters to and from his friends in the TCBS. (This included letters before the war, but to an even greater degree during and after it.) It was purely sweet and endearing. But men in my generation (maybe I should say 'my acquaintance') wouldn't feel comfortable expressing that sort of feeling for their friends. People don't seem to comprehend that there are types of intimacy beyond the sexual. I think people who can only see sex where two characters care for each other deeply are missing a whole realm of possibility within friendship.

honey! (brieflyborrowingthesoapboxandnowkickingitbackunderthetable)

Hi all!!

I don`t know why men has so hard to show there feelings
to there closest friends,when we women has so easy for it!

I mean it has alwayes been this way, i think.
Men almost never show if they realy care for a friend of the same sex,
Women an the other hand does! And if the men do it most people think they are gay,why? Have no idear but maybe thats why they are so "scaerd)
doing it!!
When i talk with my friends on the net i never hasitayt to "I love you very much" in the end of every convesation becuse that is the truth i realy do love
my new friends in here thou i never met them!!
But i don`t think men does that,or am i wrong here?

Does this makes any sence to you or do i rumbel again?
I hope there is someone who understands what i am trying to say here!!!! :z: :z:

LOVE YOU ALLL VERY MUCH/WOOD

It's hard for me to take part in the last discussion, because I don't really know all those american actors you mentioned - Jimmy Stewart, Fred Astaire, James Cagney, Christopher Walken - to compare them to EW. (hehe...when I've found in the Net the pics of Walken, he didn't seem to me good looking at all, but, I'm sorry, a bit agly, to tell the truth! ;) )

But, speaking about all Cruises... I will not speak about Tom Cruise, but last week I watched on our TV one of the Spanish movies with Penelope Cruz...And now, lookind at that Frodo close-up from Lorien (in Mechtild's post) I suddenly realised, that in some angles EW (as Frodo) and Penelope in some roles have obvious facial resemplanse - almost like brother and sister!

...not the best example, but the best I was able to find after a quick search in the Net... Look, almost like Frodo in the 'End of all things'! ;)

http://us.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0348836/Ss/0348836/GOC-344.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Cruz,%20Pen%E9lope

http://us.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0348836/Ss/0348836/GOC-212.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Cruz,%20Pen%E9lope

In defense of the motel scene in All I Want, in which several people here have said that they don’t find Elijah convincing: I wonder how much of that is because he’s basically taking what would ordinarily be the “girl’s” role in that scene. For one thing, Jane initiates the sexual encounter. And even the way the kissing scene is set up inverts the usual Hollywood iconography of woman with head thrown back and face upturned to be kissed. Here, it’s Jones who is in that position. (Of course, there’s also the hard fact that Franka is several inches taller than Elijah. But the director could have eliminated the height difference if he had wanted to; so I think the actors’ relative positions are deliberate.) He’s clearly the “ravishee” here.

But remember: Jones is 17. He’s a virgin. He’s been in boarding schools (maybe all-boys boarding schools) all his life. He’s clueless! He’s also been presented as a sensitive kid, and a bit of a romantic. All this combined makes him rather sexually passive throughout the movie. He’d like some “action,” but isn’t sure how to go about getting it. Lisa goes after him, not vice versa (and he misses cues that she gives him). Even in his dream, Ma Mabley is the sexual aggressor. On the one occasion when he DOES take the initiative – by impulsively kissing Jane at the racetrack – he gets slapped for his efforts.

Given all that context, I find both Elijah and Franka very convincing in the motel scene (and I’m not taking into account whatever might or might not have gone on between them off the set). The way it's done, it's more romantic than sexy, and I think that was intentional. I think it was ideal for EJW's first real love scene -- it capitalized on his youthful looks, and that innocent face, instead of trying to overcome them.

honeyelf, I agree with you!
I'm still waiting for someone to explain the whole Tom Cruise thing to me. ::waiting:: 'Cause I just don't get it.

I agree with you on that one Pelagia!!!!!
I think the scen betwen Elijah and Franka are very
convincing!!!!
And after seeing him in private with her!! I don`t think he is
holding back any sexuality!!!

I have to say i realy like cruise but just as on actor
two of my favorites with him is one old and one new!!!

TOP GUN and LAST SAMURAJ!!!!!!!

Love/wood

Not much else to add but, totally, Pelagia. Those would have been my exact words on All I Want, and the dynamics between Jones and the female characters. It isn't until the end, where he takes Jane to wherever (do they say? can't remember), to be with her boyfriend (whose name escapes me -- sorry), that it starts to shift. Your last view of Jones is as a confident young man hopping off his motorcycle and running to the car, and it's finally Jones that kisses Jane, not the other way around. To me, this' the moment that Jones becomes Elijah. The posture as he runs, his smile when he gets to the car and sees that it's Jane, even the kiss -- that's Our Lad.

I find it funny that even we Elijah scholars think that his performance in this film is poor because Elijah himself is not overly confident with women. To me, this' Elijah at his finest -- making you believe so deeply that you swear you're watching a poor actor being geeky and uncomfortable, rather than an actor totally and completely inhabiting a character who is geeky and uncomfortable!

Re: the script. I believe Lij said that the original script was what sold him to this project (and possibly the prospect of working with Franka, whose work he already knew). He even said that the final outcome of it wasn't as he had hoped.

As for Tom Cruise, that's why I mentioned it -- I don't get it either. In terms of physical attributes, he's not taller than Lij, not nearly as handsome (his features are really on the ordinary side, and he has a big nose) and he's surely not as good an actor. But for whatever reason, he projects something that people consider classically masculine/macho/male -- whatever word you choose to use, and he's more acceptible as a leading man because of it. Elijah is closer to the word that's going around -- metrosexual. He's sensitive. He's not afraid of his feminine side. He's delicate-looking (to some), etc etc. So it's these attributes of his that take him out of the "leading man" circle. And which says to me that our society is still very wrapped up in traditional male/female dogma.

Now -- Tom was, at one time, also not considered a "leading man". He looked too young until he was nearly forty. Johnny Depp too. But now these guys *are* leading men -- they've grown into it, and Elijah may too. Time will tell.

Bed your pardon, Achila, what is 'metrosexual'??? :confused:

Hi Rikka,

It's a new term that people are using for straight men who are sensitive, like to shop, like clothes, restaurants, etc., and who are in touch with their feminine sides. Don't know if you get their show there, but it's basically "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", only "not Queer".

It's a new term that people are using for straight men who are sensitive,like to shop, like clothes, restaurants, etc who are in touch with their feminine sides. Don't know if you get their show there, but it's basically "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", only "not Queer".

((( Achila))), thanks for explanation.
Sensitive straight men who are not afarid of their "feminine" side? Woow! :z: Great, this part of idea I definetelly like! I always loved this type of men and chosed them for my boy-friends...(never liked macho type!)
But the love for shopping and clothes? Hmmm... not a great idea for me! :D May be because I hate shopping myself and don't care very much about clothes.

No, I have no idea what this "Queer Eye for..." show is.

"Metrosexual;" that's very good, Achila!

wood, I think you are very observant about men and their apprehension about expressing affection for other men. Yes, you make sense and are not rambling.

Courtesy Warning: rant against All I Want to follow...(forgive me; I can't help it, after reading all your stirring defenses. :rolleyes: :z: )

Pelagia, I know the whole premise for the Jane/Jones scenes, as well as for the scenes with the other two women. He's supposed to be awkward, young, unsure, in experienced, etc. etc. But, still, if he wants these women at all, even out of sexsual curiosity, I didn't see it. I only saw Jones being afraid and disassociated in his interactions, mixed with some very mild curiosity over the fact that these women were "doing something" to him. But only literally "doing something" to him, since what they are doing was not turning him on. Merely overwhelming him. When Jones responded to the Mandy Moore character, I thought his interest in her seemed minimal in every way. He was mildly flattered and somewhat curious. When she finds out he's a virgin and "terminates the interview," the reaction of Jones seems to have been, "Oh, well. I can go watch TV, then." His kisses were the kisses of someone racking his brain for images of what people are supposed to do in such situations. "She'll expect me to act passionate, I guess. I know -- I should do the tongue thing." So he jabs his tongue around for a bit. *Poke poke slobber.* But it was merely the mechanics. No wonder she walked out! -- forget about him being a virgin. He could at least act like he was interested in her a tiny bit, even if just for the sexual frisson. Well, as far as I could tell, there was no frisson on his part. Just clinical interest. "Hmmm. Tongue: wet, a bit warm. I'll have to put that in my next chapter." I thought it a depressingly dismal scene, but, hope springs eternal.

When the film got to Jane, I had my fingers crossed. "He's suppposed to care about this one. And she's experienced; she'll be warm and reassuring and bring him out." And she was warm and reassuring. But other than looking wowed in the sense of, "I can't believe I'm in bed with a woman I can't believe a woman is going to do me Wow I'm scared but kind of excited too OMG I hope it doesn't hurt," I got zip from him in terms of feeling any tender, desirous or plain old sexual connection with her. I got no sense that he even enjoyed trying to kiss a female, period, certainly not a sense that he was enjoying trying to kiss or be kissed by Jane, in particular. It was back to the old, "Well, this is where I do the tongue part. They always do it in the movies."

Now, that could be what the director and the actors had in mind, and hoped to project, but I would have hoped for better. Call me a romantic, but in the final romantic scene of a movie that is supposed to be the coming of age for a "introspective, sensitive, quirky doesn't-wanna-be a virgin" guy, supposedly entering the realm of his first love, I thought their scene was unbelievably lame. Not to drag in your, "can't people have tenderness and devotion without dragging in sex," Honey, but I was thinking while watching this scenes, "Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Even this [mediocre] film gave Jones a fine opportunity to express some tenderness; at least to convey some sense of wonder for the actuality of finally getting to touch and be intimate with this woman he supposedly has been wanting and whom he cares for. And what do I the viewer get? "Going through the motions." It's not what they were doing or weren't doing; it was the spirit of it -- or lack of it. I could have forgiven him for "going through the motions" with the other two women, since he's not supposed to care about them -- but not with the one he was supposed to care about, especially when she set things up so nicely for him, emotionally, in the scene.

You may think I was inclined not to like this film. Not at all. I did not read the reviews, first, though I knew it went straight to video, so it probably did not get raves. But I have liked many films that reviewers didn't, so I thought, so what? And I liked Elijah Wood -- well, loved him as an actor and liked him as a person. So, I was ready to see him do well; I was not setting myself up to make him prove to me he could act, for heaven's sake. After I saw it (with my daughter, also a Frodo/Elijah fan, who also was amazed at this film's badness)--we stared at each other dumbstruck, stunned disbelief written on both our faces. THAT was the guy who played Frodo? And Mikey and Stu and Nat???? Reading the reviews, afterwards, I saw I was not alone in my reactions.

~ Mechtild

Pelagia, I know the whole premise for the Jane/Jones scenes, as well as for the scenes with the other two women. He's supposed to be awkward, young, unsure, in experienced, etc. etc. But, still, if he wants these women at all, even out of sexsual curiosity, I didn't see it. I only saw Jones being afraid and disassociated in his interactions, mixed with some very mild curiosity over the fact that these women were "doing something" to him. But only literally "doing something" to him, since what they are doing was not turning him on. Merely overwhelming him. When Jones responded to the Mandy Moore character, I thought his interest in her seemed minimal in every way. He was mildly flattered and somewhat curious. When she finds out he's a virgin and "terminates the interview," the reaction of Jones seems to have been, "Oh, well. I can go watch TV, then." His kisses were the kisses of someone racking his brain for images of what people are supposed to do in such situations.


Mech, I would never try to twist your arm. And to tell the truth, I'm not a lover of this movie either -- I would hardly call this Elijah's best. But this is the exact point of this scene. He has no chemistry with Lisa. Zip. He's trying his best because he thinks he's supposed to be turned on by her, but nothing much is happening. And we, as the viewer, are left thinking -- Hey -- here's a young guy with hormones a'plenty, who has all these fantasies about women, and he's not excited by this lovely, sexy young girl. What's up with this? I find it kind of funny that not only does the movie show us an awkward young man, but he's also a young man with somewhat less than conventional tastes in women. Lisa is the traditional nymphette -- blonde, vivacious, throwing it in your face good looks. Jane, on the other hand, is quirky and not necessarily someone you'd look twice at. And this is the object of Jones' obsession, although at this point with Lisa, he hasn't quite figured it out yet.


When the film got to Jane, I had my fingers crossed. "He's suppposed to care about this one. And she's experienced; she'll be warm and reassuring and bring him out." And she was warm and reassuring. But other than looking wowed in the sense of, "I can't believe I'm in bed with a woman I can't believe Jane is going to do me Wow I'm scared but kind of excited too OMG I hope it doesn't hurt," I got zip from him in terms of feeling any tender, desirous or plain old sexual connection with her.

This too, may have been exactly the point. You would surely not expect a 17 year old man to go from 0 to 60 on the first try, even with someone he desires. My guess is that he'd still be somewhat awkward and doesn't know what to expect and all the things you've said.


ETA: Something I should add here. I totally hated this movie the first time I saw it. I watched it with a friend of mine -- another Elijah fan -- and felt embarassed and so on for Elijah, that he was in something so bad. But I did go back and see it again, and it grew on me (it's still far from my favorite though, I have to reiterate). I think the subtlety is lost the first time around, because I had the reaction that some of you are describing, and I wanted to bleach my brain to remove the memories of it. Here again, though, I think that oftentimes with Elijah's acting, he is SO subtle that the point is missed. And yes, I agree that the script is cr*p, and I hate Franka in it, truth be told. I think Lij did as well as he could with what he had to work with.

Achila, you wrote,

This too, may have been exactly the point. You would surely not expect a 17 year old man to go from 0 to 60 on the first try, even with someone he desires. My guess is that he'd still be somewhat awkward and doesn't know what to expect and all the things you've said.

Ah, but then we're back to script problems. What a way to leave a such a film's relationship! Maybe I have known and been a different 17 year old, and I was as inexperienced and geeky as they come, but by golly, if I had even a little bit of a crush on someone, someone who drew me out as tenderly as Jane did (and I didn't -- Jones was one tremendously lucky 17 year old and there he was WASTING it! :D ), I think I would have at least been able to respond to the person I cared for, especially to such a supportive, encouraging person, with some real warmth, in spite of my awkwardness and apprehensions. (Especially if I were being portrayed in a film! ;) )

Well, sigh; now I must go to work. Thanks for replying,

~ Mechtild :k

Well said, Mech. The lack of desire and sexual tension was painfully and inexplicably obvious. I saw only the last hour or so of the film, having caught it by accident on tv, and I too watched it with my daughter, who at 16 is in the prime audience for--and an avid consumer of--romantic comedies. I knew it hadn't been a successful release, but I was not prepared for the cringing embarrassment the two of us shared as we forced ourselves to stay with it until the end--out of loyalty (mine to the actor, my daughter's to me) more than even the hope that it would improve, which unlike Mech we never had.

My daughter said the film had "scarred her for life." I couldn't wait to start forgetting all about it. We've actually never spoken of it again, and we talk about movies all the time in our house.

I think there's a palpable difference between acting like you're uncomfortable and actually being uncomfortable and letting it show. Whether that resulted from the script or the direction or just a lapse in dramatic inspiration I couldn't pretend to say. But there's a difference, and you can see it. This is a terribly acted film.

Of course I do still wish Elijah a long and successful career on his own terms. I don't think a post-LOTR failure, especially one that bombed quietly (not like "Alexander the Great," for instance), is going to hurt him at all if he makes better choices in the future. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that "Eternal Sunshine" has more than made up for "All I Want."

Note: More about All I Want. If this is not your favourite topic, please skip further down. Thank you for bearing with me. :k

Thanks for the backup, Flourish. We have outed ourselves thoroughly as non-appreciators of All I Want. But my quibble is only with All I Want, honest, folks, of all EW's films. I appreciate everything else he's ever done at least in part (that I've seen, that is--there are 3 or 4 I can't get hold of around here to rent or borrow). I even can see a lot of merit in his Artful Dodger, who sounds like Tony Curtis doing Cary Grant impressions in Some Like it Hot. (Now THAT'S a great film!) I forgive him for his terrible accent because Disney didn't hire Roisin Carty to help him out.

Achila, I was thinking about the film and your comments, however, all during my work day. You are an intelligent, articulate woman, as are all of you who have expressed taking pleasure in this film. Am I tone deaf to it? I mean, even its fans have to agree the film is not very good. But when it comes to the Lad's performance, do I just not "get it?" I considered your comments about the first two amorous scenes, and your remarks about how Jones didn't really care for either of those two women, but did care for Jane. That helped me accept better his lack of any connection with the first two. (Still, whatever did they see in him? One reviewer noted the implausibility of three women being strongly attracted to such a person.)

But what about Jane? Why the lack of real connection and even shrinking back from her in the end? Then I thought of your remark that Jane (moody and ill-tempered throughout much of the film--she must remind him of his mother :p ) slapped him when he tried kissing her earlier. Good point. Maybe Jones, in bed with her at last in the motel is thinking, "OMG I'm in bed with Jane I am filled with desire and she sure is being nice to me but for how long maybe she is going to slap me silly any moment so I'd better just play it cool and see what she wants to do first in case she has another tizzy and lams into me right where it hurts and jeez would I hate that would I ever recover?" But, surely, the filmmakers couldn't have intended such a subtext. But who knows. They really did not seem to have made up their minds what they were trying to do with this film. It seems as though it was meant to be light comedy with a dose of the absurd, but then, there's the strident phone scenes with his mother and Jane's odd surliness, which doesn't quite fit that genre, either.

I also mulled over this possibility: perhaps, originally, the script was about Jones as a young writer, not merely as a young man. And like some other fictional writers (the dysfunctional father in Through a Glass Darkly or Chekov's self-absorbed writer), his character was written to show that although writers have a highly developed and even bold life of the imagination, they can be distant, even evasive or fearful, when it comes to real life relationships. They imagine all kinds of great stuff, but when faced with a real person in real life, they shrink from it finding it disappointing or threatening or both. I think this could have played really well in this story. Jones has all these hot fantasies, starring himself (I am re-writing the script, of course, but it could use it), but when he is with a real woman, he finds himself disconnected from them -- he's interested but only in a cerebral way -- as an observer rather than as a participant. He's not really "in the scene" with them; he's watching himself in it; perhaps trying to "save it for later," as fodder for his next bout with the typewriter. If Elijah had played this sort of character, it would have been fascinating. Maybe that's what it looked like, originally.

But, then, we'd still be stuck with the Jane scenes. If they were stressing him as a young writer -- who so much lives in his imagination he has difficulty engaging people in real life encounters -- surely the point of the relationship with Jane was to show that this time, he could enter into what he had been only imagining before, with a real not imagined person. But then, that scene would have had to have been better played to show that transition. He would have to be shown responding to her in a markedly different way, to show that "this time," he really was daring to step into the breech and let himself actually interact with her directly, and not holding back from her. But I only saw the holding back, the stiffness, the "going through the motions," on his side. Why can't I see what you see? I wish I could; I want to like him in it. I'm a fan, after all.

~ Mechtild

That helped me accept better his lack of any connection with the first two.

I'm assuming you mean the Mandy Moore character, and the Debbie Harry one.

(Still, whatever did they see in him? One reviewer noted the implausibility of three women being strongly attracted to such a person.)

I think that Lisa was a very narcissistic little girl. I say 'little girl' because she didn't have the compassion to behave like a woman. She wants to be seen as an object of desire, and so she throws herself at men to excercise that power. Remember that she trashed Jane's relationship with Steve. I don't think she did that out of any true affection for Steve, but acted rather like the mountian climber to the mountain; "because it's there." In the incompleted seduction scene with Jones I don't think she was horrified that he was a virgin, and she was about to "deflower" him. I think his virginity made him un-equipped to play out her little game. I think she was waiting for him to beg her, and then she'd be right back in there. But none of it out of real attraction for Jones.

And I liked that he was willing to back off it because, it seemed to me, he realized that there was no emotional connection there.

As for Debby Harry, she struck me as that older type of woman who is trying to cling to youth by accreting layer upon layer of artifice. What is more artificial than lavendar finger nails? And that hair? She was attracted to Jones because here comes the next pretty tender thing she can prove herself on. Nor do I think she had any real designs on him, but was coming on to him almost as a form of intimadation tactic. "See, I've still got it. I can still make you squirm."

But in neither of those two cases was the attraction genuine at all.

Then there is Jane with whom he had a real friendship. She'd at least confided in him like a friend. The real difference between Jane and the other two was that she wasn't agressing on him, not imposing herself on him.

Her cranky personality had that unsettling element of "come here, go away," which can be appealing to some people, but she wasn't employing it as a tactic. In that way it did sort of mirror Jones relationship with his mother.

And about Jones. He was a very passive boy when we first meet him. Things were always being done TO him, and he was always only responding to them. The would-be-roomie who verbally attacks him, the driver who flicks his cigarette in Jones face.

By the end of the movie he's more confident. Jane has helped him become this more confident person. He's been taking care of her, and gained confidence through that. It's not just the sexual encounter that has made him grow. It's in getting out of his own head, and taking charge of things. (Not that Jane is in any way 'needy,' or dependant.

He's also learned to have some compassion for his mother's position, through her finally telling him his real history, and through taking care of Jane.

Rushing now, because I'm out of time. But I hope I made a bit of sense.

Besides, he looks adorable in motorcycle grease! :o

honey!

Honeyelf, bravo! A very good post.

Honey, thanks for some clarifyers. I thought Debbie Harry's role was supposed to be farcical, not serious. Although, I was taken aback, above, when Pelagia said,

Even in his dream, Ma Mabley is the sexual aggressor.
I thought, "That was supposed to be one of his dream sequences? Oh, I didn't get that. Hmmph. I sure did miss that cue."

But it sounds like from your explanation of Debbie Harry's character's motivations, she was supposed to be real after all, and not imagined. Whatever she was, I thought she was from a different movie.

Well, I guess we'll never agree on this film. I really shouldn't even discuss it. I only saw it once, which is not very many times for people on this thread who tend to keep their thoughts to themselves until they've seen one of his films many times. I am only judging his film the way I judge the films of actors whose work I don't have a vested interest in. That is, on one viewing only. When you mentioned Steve, Honey, I was saying to myself, "Who's Steve?" I can't even get the character's names straight! I say, "the Mandy Moore character," instead of "Lisa." I couldn't remember her name.

I looked up the reviews on IMDB and the messageboard section is full of the posts of disgruntled fans explaining why it really was good film and why EW was good in it. I suppose I am never going to be persuaded into that camp.

I apologize, too, if I have seriously miffed anybody -- like you Achila and Rikka, by saying detracting things about EW's acting work in this movie. I suppose it is rude, even, to do so in a fan site that is specifically dedicated to him. I just wanted him to be good and I thought he wasn't. And it shocked me, frankly. Actors have had worse bombs, but I care because it's his bomb. Lucky for him (from my point of view), All I Want went straight to video -- and under another name -- just to make sure the minimum number of people see it. My reaction is strong, and I wonder why, other than, as I said, I have a vested personal interest in seeing him do well. When I was a teenager, I snuck and pulled pictures of me out of the family album, because I hated the way I looked in them. My mother and aunties would say, "Awwww...you look so cute in these!" not because I actually looked cute in them but because they loved me and loved pictures of me no matter what I looked like in them. I guess I just don't love his "picture" in this film. I would like to see it tucked under the sofa for all time.

* slink slink slink*

First, I very much agree that one important focus of the story is on Jones as a young writer, especially as that's linked to his fantasies about his father.

I go along with what Honey said about both Lisa and Ma, and their reasons for acting the ways they do with Jones. To get one little hormonal detail out of the way, Jones, of course, does have a physical reaction to his dream about Ma--just not one he wanted. Enough said? :rolleyes:

ETA: Mechtild, Ma is real in the used furniture store. The episode of her coming over to Jones's apartment and all that follows is a dream. Jones wakes up from it with his above alluded to... uh, need for toilet paper. :o

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet about the motel scene is that the very reason Jones is with Jane is because he's taking her to be with Steve. Jones is already plenty angry with Steve for what he did to Jane in the past, and the "I don't mean just leaving the hospital," "I know," exchange in Jane's hospital room acknowledges everything that's going on emotionally within that triangle--as I don't think Steve has much going on emotionally at all, :rolleyes: nor is he supposed to. He just affects other people's emotions, which makes him and Lisa a perfect match. Lisa not only sabotaged Jane's relationship with Steve, but has been making efforts to do the same thing with Jones--telling him Jane is insane, and, blatantly, stealing the photograph. But I don't think she has anything invested emotionally in either Steve or Jones.

So, anyway, Jones is getting some pretty mixed messages in the motel room. He knows that Jane knows he's attracted to her, and that she knew it before she decided to go back to Steve but went ahead and made that decision in spite of it--so what's this about? And Jane's "This isn't happening" (and, even more, her insistance that Jones say it) seems to me an attempt to convince both Jones and herself that this is a one-time event. Jones does not come across to me as someone who would be happy with a one-time event (and, yes, I've known many 17-year-old men who would feel the same way). The sex in the motel room has very little in common with the happy ending of a romantic movie. Jones isn't "getting the girl"--he's getting a one-night stand with her and then will have to let her go to someone else. It's not a happy occasion for him.

At the very bottom line (which I'd call "love"), what Jones most wants isn't to have sex with Jane; it's to see Jane having a happy and fulfilled life. Jones has been brutal on himself where Jane is concerned, because he does care for her in both a sexual way and in more than a sexual way; driving her back to Steve seems almost masochistic. On the surface (and, IMHO, in his own conscious thoughts), he's doing it as a friend, because it's something she needs someone to do for her. Beneath the surface, who knows? Possibly he's hoping for another chance with her, but his whole demeanor says that he's assuming that won't happen, probably as self-defense against being hurt. In order to accept Jane's advances in the motel room, he has to dismantle those defenses... all for the sake of a one-time event. The fact that he decides to do so, IMHO, shows how vulnerable he's willing to make himself out of his love for Jane, but IMVVHO it would be out-of-place, and completely out of character, for him to jump into it with excitement. It's going to be incredibly harder to let go of her the next day after having this intimate experience with her, and there's no way he doesn't know that going into it.

I think the scene is done perfectly, for those particular characters. This isn't a romantic comedy, a romantic tragedy, or a musical. It's life, with real people and real emotions. I guess I wouldn't see the point of an actor (especially Elijah) making things any different than they really would be for his character simply because it's going to be seen in a movie; that would seem counter to what he tries to do in his acting.

(I also have good things to say about how Franka portrays Jane, but this post is already long enough ;) . One thing I will agree with is that both she and Elijah--and some of the other actors--could have used a better script.)


Again ETA: Mechtild, we've had discussions like this before about AIW, and I don't think anyone counts on converting anyone else. It's just interesting to see how other people look at it. And most of us don't shy away from calling 'em as we see 'em, even where Elijah's concerned--cases in point including AW and TAMTSNBN; IMHO, Elijah has one great scene in the former, and the rest of the movie, even his scenes, is... not great. :rolleyes: The only bright spot in the latter is a few brief moments with Robert Guillame; Elijah phoned in his part--it's the only thing he's done where I didn't feel he was even trying.

But, while AIW isn't at the top of my hit parade, I genuinely like it, and genuinely love the two main characters (even though, or maybe because, they also genuinely aggravate me at times--but that's part of who they are). As others have said, that grew with more viewings, as we do have some pretty interiorly-directed characters, so some of it is subtle. Jones has the most wonderful--and unique for Elijah--smoldering anger! I love it!--but didn't really pick up on it until the second or third viewing.

tg, a great explanation of the film, which I obviously would have to see many more times to pick up the nuances the way you have.

This isn't a romantic comedy, a romantic tragedy, or a musical. It's life, with real people and real emotions.

I didn't see this film. Though, I wish I had. But not enough to watch the one I did see again to find out.

:rolleyes: ;)

tg, a great explanation of the film, which I obviously would have to see many more times to pick up the nuances the way you have.
I've seen it only four times, and haven't watched it at all since shortly after the DVD was out and I wanted to see it in that format (I first saw it on VCD). Some of the emotions are admittedly subtle; the two main characters are both quite interiorly-directed. But I think the plot points I mentioned are pretty well spelled out--I think :confused: . As I reflect on it now, there were some connections between different aspects of the plot that I didn't notice right away. From this distance, it's kind of hard to remember what I picked up when.

What a way to leave a such a film's relationship! Maybe I have known and been a different 17 year old, and I was as inexperienced and geeky as they come, but by golly, if I had even a little bit of a crush on someone, someone who drew me out as tenderly as Jane did (and I didn't -- Jones was one tremendously lucky 17 year old and there he was WASTING it! ), I think I would have at least been able to respond to the person I cared for, especially to such a supportive, encouraging person, with some real warmth, in spite of my awkwardness and apprehensions. (Especially if I were being portrayed in a film! )
I guess it was that final sentence I was mostly thinking of when I said I couldn't see Elijah portraying a character in a certain way simply because it would be seen in a movie.

And, of course, it's not how the movie leaves the relationship. Although it would have seemed perfectly realistic to me if it had.

At that moment, Jane wasn't being supportive or encouraging--she was in the midst of completely leaving his life for someone else (and had asked him to help her do it!). She reminded him of that as she came to his bed. Physically tender, maybe, but I'd have a hard time calling her emotionally tender.

Jones wasn't one tremendously lucky 17-year-old who was wasting anything--She was going back to Steve! I believe that fact was much, much more important in his reluctance than that slap at the racetrack. I was a geeky teenager, too, but if someone I'd had a crush on had wanted a one-night-stand with me before he went back to someone else (knowing I had a crush on him), I really think I would have just felt used.

When you said you didn't remember who Steve is, I'm assuming you meant you didn't remember his name, but did remember the part he played in the story. If you take the "Steve element" out of the movie then, no, that scene in the motel room--along with a number of other things--wouldn't make any sense at all. As I said above, even though Steve doesn't seem to be emotionally affected by anyone else, he affects other people in important ways.

Guess who Achila's talking about re: watching AIW with a fellow EW fan? :rolleyes:
Guess who has a positive review online at IMDB?
Guess who really didn't like or understand this movie first time She saw it?
Guess who now lists this movie as her favorite EW non Frodo movies?
;) ;) ;)

I like this movie more and more everytime I see it....very quirky but a very interesting character portrayal
Jones...who is emotionally detached from reality...most likely due to a lack of parenting
Jane who seems to cling to men who hurt and abandon her(I'd love to know what scarred her and left her wanting to be emotionally abused by men)
Lisa...who is a true bubbleheaded plastic young woman,,,whose claim to fame is playing games with men
and all the other ancillary characters who flow through this movie
not to mention I loved the music in this film....I don't want to try and persuade people that this is an award winning movie by any means...but I think maybe a second look would be something you might consider
Honey....I really liked your observations and I think you really have tapped into some things that ARE over looked when you only see this movie once...also Pelagia I never realized how right you are....Jones Is in the female role here...a real role reversal...and that is perhaps why he appears awkward..I never looked at it as more than a virginal naive young man...but he isn't really naive...just stunted from neglect...a Mom who's damaged(and he is really pretty angry at her) and a Father who's absent...and he doesn't even know why....Can you really expect this guy to be savvy with women? Or anybody for that matter?Does he even have friends?
I know your gonna laugh...but I don't like this movie...I LOVE this movie...and I plan on watching it again....to see what else I can pick out of it!! :eek:
If I had more talent...I'd write a damn sequel....and I wouldn't even care if it ever was shown in a cinema...straight to DVD is fine with me...as long as Elijah is back...I thought he was perfect in this role

And he was pretty fine looking too :D

ETA....OKay I wasn't the first to watch AIW with Achila....but she did re-visit this film while I was with her...and it did have an interesting effect on us :o
Embellishing is among my ahemmm finer qualities :haha:

honeyelf, I was all set to write something about the Jones/Lisa interaction, but you said it all. And their bedroom scene is also another reversal of gender stereotypes: here, it’s the girl who is just out for a fling and a conquest, and the boy who realizes that he wants something more.

tgshaw wrote, about the motel scene:
I think the scene is done perfectly, for those particular characters. This isn't a romantic comedy, a romantic tragedy, or a musical. It's life, with real people and real emotions. I guess I wouldn't see the point of an actor (especially Elijah) making things any different than they really would be for his character simply because it's going to be seen in a movie; that would seem counter to what he tries to do in his acting.
Yes! I can understand if some people don't find the characters or the Jones/Jane relationship believable (although I obviously DO – even more so after reading tg’s post, which as usual :) brought out nuances that I hadn’t thought about). But I think that Elijah beautifully plays what he has been given to work with.

Of all Elijah’s films, this one seems to be the most polarizing, as far as the group here is concerned. Or is that my imagination? Not sure what to make of that, in any case: maybe just that it’s more difficult to judge his performance in a less well-written film because we have difficulty separating the quality of that performance from the quality of film as a whole??

The one little thing that bothers me about AIW: Has anyone else noticed how much these people DRINK? They’re right up there with Nick and Nora Charles! And nobody ever EATS anything!

ylla, I love the music, too. I’ve tried looking online for a soundtrack, but couldn’t find one.

Achila wrote:
Elijah is closer to the word that's going around -- metrosexual. He's sensitive. He's not afraid of his feminine side. He's delicate-looking (to some), etc etc. So it's these attributes of his that take him out of the "leading man" circle. And which says to me that our society is still very wrapped up in traditional male/female dogma.
Very good points. And I also agree that as he gets older, he may “grow into” more leading man roles. I still think that, because Elijah has already had such a long career, and has so many movies to his credit (or not ;) ), we sometimes forget how young he is. I have no idea how he’s going to “turn out” in the long run, and I just hope that I live long enough to see!

Off topic: I watched Donnie Darko yesterday. If anyone here has seen this, and understands it, could you please PM me? I just have one question. Thanks. (I’ll be away for a few days.)

Of all Elijah’s films, this one seems to be the most polarizing, as far as the group here is concerned. Or is that my imagination?
I'd agree with that, Pelagia. Possibly depending on whether someone finds the characters believable or not?

The one little thing that bothers me about AIW: Has anyone else noticed how much these people DRINK? They’re right up there with Nick and Nora Charles! And nobody ever EATS anything!
And it's not even Ash Wednesday! ;) I'd agree there's too much emphasis on drinking alcohol as a "coming of age" event: Jones lying about his age (twice) in part to impress Jane; buying glasses and learning how to operate a corkscrew in order to seem "adult" to Lisa; his mother calling him "sophisticated" for knowing how to mix a cocktail.

And I also agree that as he gets older, he may “grow into” more leading man roles. I still think that, because Elijah has already had such a long career, and has so many movies to his credit (or not ;) ), we sometimes forget how young he is.
Yes, I think the fact that people are already asking "why not?" at age 23 (and have been asking it at least since he was 21), says a lot. He may not gravitate toward totally conventional leading man roles, but IMVHO that's not a negative. When possible role-types were being talked about here a couple of days ago, I was going to mention (and forgot :rolleyes: ) that I could see Elijah in many of Hugh Grant's roles--not quite "conventional leading man" but certainly successful, and certainly considered sexy.

Dear ladies,
thanks for a lot of interesting comments on Try 17/AIW. I like this movie and EW's work in it. I watched it 5 or 6 times and will watch again in future, for sure...also because I can understand Jones so well, he seems so believable for me, - I was in many ways like him in my 17! I also lived in dream world and was afraid of the real one..


Mechtild
don't worry, you you didn't miff me with your AIW comments, at least, seriously! ;) I just don't agree with you on AIW subject and that's all - I have a different opinion, but my English isn't good enough to express my point of view eloquently. Anyway, the other ladies already did it for me - brilliantly!
But you are absolutely free to like or not to like any movie and any EW's work and to tell it, not a problem! We are all very different here, and all have different tastes. For example, I hate A Chain of Fools and expressed my feelings on it before, while I know that the majority of Faculty ladies like this movie...

I think it's interesting, the continuum we run here, from Ylla who really, really liked AIW, to Mechtild who really really hates it. And all the rest of us scattered between the two poles.

But one of the reasons I liked it, in a meta-sense, was that I realized watching it, how good a "silent" actor Elijah can be. Yes, I'd already seen that in FoTR, but sometimes your not sure if what you saw was real, or maybe it was just you, or the director,or the cinematography. AIW was one of my first post-Rings-effect Elijah films. And it had me hooked in those first 10 minutes or so, simply becuase of how much he can communicate wordlessly. So now I can go back and watch his better movies and look for those moments of brilliant non-verbal communication. As well as see those moments the first time around in new movies.

AIW is really an acquired taste, and not one I'd recommend to a non-fan, probably even one I'd hesitate to recommend to a fan! :rolleyes: But I love it for what it is! It improves with repeat viewings. At least that's my experience in the 4 times I've watched it.


honey!

ETA whoa! post #500 in our "new" thread!