petershelleyau
Joined May 2001
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges7
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews268
petershelleyau's rating
I had a negative reaction to this film and submit an opinion that may be unpopular, but I think still valid based on the fact that I have auditioned a lot of actors in my time.
I think Mr Hershey errs in ways that for me make the film a painful experience. He misrepresents what it is to film an actors audition in any standard industry fashion, by using inappropriate and counter-productive camera-work.
Most film and TV is shot in long and medium shots. Close-ups are used, but extreme close-ups rarely. Why then does Mr Hershey shoot these actors in extreme close-up? By doing so it robs the actor the opportunity to present themselves in a practical way, and refocuses the attention to the camera and the director. This technique also obliterates any pretense of an objective documentary. One would think that the very nature of observing an audition would allow for an easy objectivity. If ever a film-maker needed to use simple photography, it is here. You just want to be able to see the actor act. One is reminded of what Fred Astaire demanded - that his movement only be filmed in long shot. But Mr Hershey fails us.
This technique is particularly shoddy when the actors are asked to move. I've seen certain actors perform with their backs to the camera, effectively, but you have to be darned good to do it. And have a darned good director. But to show someone acting in extreme close-up in an audition becomes a laughable device. One can imagine the footage being reviewed and the question raised - Who's ear was that, again?! I also reacted against a montage of hand gestures, robbed of their context, unnecessary shots of cleavage and teeth and hair, and footage of actors preparing to act. The latter is particularly disturbing because it is something that directors are not privy to and should not be privy to, because it is ultimately irrelevant to the result. Yet expressions of anxiety, bravado, examination of the text, and the natural dislike of the monologue form to audition with are presented as if to score points off individuals.
I would like to think that Mr Hershey's motives were noble, and that he did not intend to deliberately mistreat the actors that had agreed to show their work to him. He could have been accused of being naive, if not for the fact that this is not his first credited directing job. But intended or not, he does these women a disservice, in my opinion. To be fair, I point out that the person I saw this film with did not have the same reaction as me, though that person is someone who has never held auditions.
I think Mr Hershey errs in ways that for me make the film a painful experience. He misrepresents what it is to film an actors audition in any standard industry fashion, by using inappropriate and counter-productive camera-work.
Most film and TV is shot in long and medium shots. Close-ups are used, but extreme close-ups rarely. Why then does Mr Hershey shoot these actors in extreme close-up? By doing so it robs the actor the opportunity to present themselves in a practical way, and refocuses the attention to the camera and the director. This technique also obliterates any pretense of an objective documentary. One would think that the very nature of observing an audition would allow for an easy objectivity. If ever a film-maker needed to use simple photography, it is here. You just want to be able to see the actor act. One is reminded of what Fred Astaire demanded - that his movement only be filmed in long shot. But Mr Hershey fails us.
This technique is particularly shoddy when the actors are asked to move. I've seen certain actors perform with their backs to the camera, effectively, but you have to be darned good to do it. And have a darned good director. But to show someone acting in extreme close-up in an audition becomes a laughable device. One can imagine the footage being reviewed and the question raised - Who's ear was that, again?! I also reacted against a montage of hand gestures, robbed of their context, unnecessary shots of cleavage and teeth and hair, and footage of actors preparing to act. The latter is particularly disturbing because it is something that directors are not privy to and should not be privy to, because it is ultimately irrelevant to the result. Yet expressions of anxiety, bravado, examination of the text, and the natural dislike of the monologue form to audition with are presented as if to score points off individuals.
I would like to think that Mr Hershey's motives were noble, and that he did not intend to deliberately mistreat the actors that had agreed to show their work to him. He could have been accused of being naive, if not for the fact that this is not his first credited directing job. But intended or not, he does these women a disservice, in my opinion. To be fair, I point out that the person I saw this film with did not have the same reaction as me, though that person is someone who has never held auditions.
This 90 min BBC documentary on Frank Sinatra and his nearly life-long connection with the Mafia still manages to acknowledge Sinatra's genius as an entertainer. Those who watch expecting a biography of Sinatra will not be disappointed as it covers his entire life, and those curious about the Mafia accusations, can also listen to witness testimony that contradicts Sinatra's infamous 1981 filmed denial when he was applying for a new Nevada Gaming Licence. We get to hear a lot of Sinatra's vocals and see concert and news footage, as well as film trailers, and some of the celebrities interviewed are Paul Anka, Lois Nettleton, Shirley MacLaine, and Artie Shaw.
However the director also piles on the technique, which includes reconstruction, split screen, slow motion (a cooking pan of sausages seems obtuse but gets a late pay off), repeated imagery, super-impositions, and unforgivably, talking over Sinatra's first recording! The documentary and Sinatra's life are possibly the most interesting in his Ava period 1950-1952 when he feared his career was over, in 1960 when John Kennedy used him as a middleman to get to Sam Giancana and Chicago votes to win the Presidential election, and later in the 1960's when the Vietnam generation and the emergence of The Beatles made Frank's Las Vegas Rat Pack appear outdated.
Those who like gore will appreciate stills of the bloody body of Bugsy Siegel, and those that like irony will admire the footage of Lucky Luciano's funeral procession. 2 mysteries - why is Judy Garland heard singing "Who?" when Virginia Hill is spoken of, and a greater one - why is Sinatra's grave so underwhelming?!
However the director also piles on the technique, which includes reconstruction, split screen, slow motion (a cooking pan of sausages seems obtuse but gets a late pay off), repeated imagery, super-impositions, and unforgivably, talking over Sinatra's first recording! The documentary and Sinatra's life are possibly the most interesting in his Ava period 1950-1952 when he feared his career was over, in 1960 when John Kennedy used him as a middleman to get to Sam Giancana and Chicago votes to win the Presidential election, and later in the 1960's when the Vietnam generation and the emergence of The Beatles made Frank's Las Vegas Rat Pack appear outdated.
Those who like gore will appreciate stills of the bloody body of Bugsy Siegel, and those that like irony will admire the footage of Lucky Luciano's funeral procession. 2 mysteries - why is Judy Garland heard singing "Who?" when Virginia Hill is spoken of, and a greater one - why is Sinatra's grave so underwhelming?!