John Gielgud - An Actors Life : docu + interview (1988) 8/8

[rbbonotto]

I don't think talent has 'disappeared' or 'died.' I see it in theatre in the city I live in in the US -- one of the leading ones but not NYC -- by actors who chose to remain here instead of chasing after fame in NYC. And the best are not appreciated precisely because of these generalizations.

[grai]

lovely - thanks

[ciroalb3]

he never looks at the interviewer

[moshea145]

Great! what a fine voice!

[ipmoic]

Very insightful comments Saffron. But I disagree about vocal quality. It has been dumbed down so that the actor "sounds" like his audience member's neighbor. Beautiful, musical speech, with inflection, tone and unforced, perfect pronunciation is indeed--gone with the wind.

[al1936ful]

@ipmoic I think maybe there's a modern belief that that kind of vocal quality doesn't matter as much. I admire Kenneth Branagh's best Shakespeare films (especially his "Hamlet") as much as most critics, but in his movies it's very obvious (at least to me) that he is more interested in getting across the meaning of what Shakespeare is saying than in simply letting his actors speak verse with beautiful vocal inflections.

[ipmoic]

@al1936ful I wasn't trying to imply that Gielgud was "just another pretty voice" (!) Nor is his manner of speech necessary to be a consummate actor. But it's the glory of human speech, combined with intelligence, wit and insight, that makes me love him so. He was a true virtuoso of the human instrument.

[troyhistory]

@ipmoic I agree. Human creativity seems to have died. We, or others for whom money is king, accept mediocrity, yet blast it with the full light of the sun when a coin is to be made. I wish we could go back to a time when the word 'Genius' really meant something. John Guilgud was, so was Ralf Richardson and of course...Laurance Olivier.

Or were they just good at being watched? 10% talent? 90% Luck? Never quiet sure.

[Saffron1947]

I firmly believe that people like Sir John Gielgud no longer exist. That does provide a rather empty world void of something special in what I see as a drab point in time and history. And that is not in the least an old fashioned attitude although judged as such by our present society obssesed both with and by celebrity and false talent. Vocal quality is still important either in the theatre or films or television.Talent has never been sufficient - skill is much more important and will remain!

[Jitpring]

Google for my amazon list on this by using these words:

Resist the Brave New World

[Jitpring]

Regarding skill, it's a necessary but insufficient criterion of art. Many tattooists, for example, possess much skill, yet tattooistry is not art but an assault on art. On a related note, google for a devastating essay on today's absurd spread of tattoos by using these words:

Exposing Shallowness Dalrymple New Criterion

[Saffron1947]

The very word Art comes from a Greek origin meaning technique and technique is skill. Every good actor or artist in any form relies completely upon technique. Without technique Art is dead! Every good actor great or otherwise relies totally on a technique that is second nature! But now many actors have become "blockish" and that is sad. We live in a very banal age which I hope will soon come to an end. Technology has made people believe that everything is easy. A very grave error!

[Jitpring]

Again, skill/technique is a necessary, but insufficient, criterion of art. The tattooist is a perfect proof of this. Google:

beauty and desecration by roger scruton

&

beauty and its corruptions by roger scruton

[Jitpring]

By the way, as we agree that skill is a necessary criterion of art, surely you'll agree with me that the likes of Jackson Pollock are not artists, but con-artists, mere impostors?

[Saffron1947]

The world of art has always creaked like a rusty hinge with charlatans - imposters and pretentious people! That will never change. The middle classes are to be blamed for this. How to determine the true artists from the phonies that is what education should lead to. But then in his day Michel Angelo was considered too avant guarde. And few understood his image of God's finger expelling Adam from the Garden of Eden!

[joel1923]

@Saffron1947 I think your right. It's sad. Society has slumped to such an unimaginably low level today. I'm just grateful that I lived at the same time as some of these great actors and could appreciate their work while they were alive.

[Saffron1947]

@joel1923 We live sadly in a deeply banal and boring period in my opinion. Very little innovative work is seen in mainstream art. This is not surprising of course as the average person wants their daily soap opera intake rather than something that stimulates. I sincerely hope that the stagnant water that now surrounds us will change and that the lake will be revived by fresh water. With high definition image quality it is sad that the programme material is not of the of the same quality!

[Jitpring]

Throughout this whole interview, I don't recall hearing a single "uh..." or other type of verbal stumble from him. Amazing.

[Andy4202]

You could have made this comment on part ONE, I'm going to have to watch the whole thing again now! :)

[bristolstomp]

thanks so much for posting this interview. i think i could listen to him discussing the Internal Revenue service and be mesmerized. even beyond the acting, what class and humor.