James Earl Jones Saves the Play(charlespetzold.com)
charlespetzold.com
James Earl Jones Saves the Play
http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2019/02/James-Earl-Jones-Saves-the-Play.html
2 comments
So he "saves the play" by threatening physical violence against girls in the audience who laughed at the wrong time. I'm having a hard time interpreting this as a fine moment for this fine actor.
He's an actor on stage, and saying a line in character. It may have shocked them for a moment, but nobody who's been in a theatre before should believe that he's actually threatening violence.
When a character holding a rifle prop points the barrel out into the house, do you think the audience believes their lives are actually being threatened?
When a character holding a rifle prop points the barrel out into the house, do you think the audience believes their lives are actually being threatened?
There’s a qualitative difference between a general threat that’s part of the play and singling someone out for a threat based on their behavior.
If he had, say, climbed off stage and walked towards them menacingly, that too would be acceptable as part of the scripted play yet more disturbing if done impromptu as a response to the audience members’ behavior.
I think what he did is fine, but I don’t think your analogy is a strong one.
Edit: minor wording
If he had, say, climbed off stage and walked towards them menacingly, that too would be acceptable as part of the scripted play yet more disturbing if done impromptu as a response to the audience members’ behavior.
I think what he did is fine, but I don’t think your analogy is a strong one.
Edit: minor wording
I think you're underestimating the amount of interpretation actors bring to their roles. It's not like every movement and intonation is choreographed, and live actors need to play to the moment, not just perform their roles like robots.
At least, that's my take.
At least, that's my take.
>There’s a qualitative difference between a general threat that’s part of the play and singling someone out for a threat based on their behavior.
And both are OK if that someone is behaving like a jerk.
Beyond some point even actual violence is OK.
And both are OK if that someone is behaving like a jerk.
Beyond some point even actual violence is OK.
> Beyond some point even actual violence is OK.
For behaving like a jerk? That's bonkers.
For behaving like a jerk? That's bonkers.
Really? I'm pretty sure most resort to actual violence after the jerkish behavior extends a threshold.
Where do you cut the "jerk behavior" threshold? Someone skipping a queue? Smoking in a closed office?
It could get way worse... How about someone hitting badly on your wife with you and your kids present and no taking no for an answer (and them knowing it you're married?)
Where do you cut the "jerk behavior" threshold? Someone skipping a queue? Smoking in a closed office?
It could get way worse... How about someone hitting badly on your wife with you and your kids present and no taking no for an answer (and them knowing it you're married?)
No you can only use physical violence in defence of yourself or others against imminent physical harm. I think in the US you can also use it against someone in your home (presumably because by the time in your home you are otherwise defenceless.) Anything else is you just assaulting someone and puts you in the wrong. The law doesn't allow for 'they were winding me up' as a reason to assault someone. I can't believe anyone would think violence was warranted for skipping a queue or speaking to someone in a way you didn't like.
>No you can only use physical violence in defence of yourself or others against imminent physical harm.
That's legally. I wasn't talking about legally -- but about what people will actually do beyond some point, legal implications or not.
That's legally. I wasn't talking about legally -- but about what people will actually do beyond some point, legal implications or not.
And “OK” is how you described violence in the absence of a genuine threat, which is not an objective statement of “what people will actually do” but a subjective endorsement.
It’s an interesting dilemma.
Yes, your description is accurate and sounds terrible, but at the same time the play embraced that audience interaction (witness the actress lunging at the front row, and the frequent lines addressed towards the audience).
That, and James Earl Jones presumably had brief moments to improvise a response (and may well have not known he was “threatening” teenagers) and was behaving in character.
I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it’s not an easy situation to classify one way or another.
Yes, your description is accurate and sounds terrible, but at the same time the play embraced that audience interaction (witness the actress lunging at the front row, and the frequent lines addressed towards the audience).
That, and James Earl Jones presumably had brief moments to improvise a response (and may well have not known he was “threatening” teenagers) and was behaving in character.
I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it’s not an easy situation to classify one way or another.
Next you'll tell me that people who sit in the front row of a Gallagher performance deserve to be splattered with watermelon.
If you buy the ticket to a Gallagher show, pay extra for front row seats, and are handed a cagoul... yes. That is literally the point, just like people in the front row of a comedy set with Frankie Boyle, or in the front row of a Sea World show.
Buy the ticket, take the ride.
Buy the ticket, take the ride.
It’s a play where they break the fourth wall many times, and address the audience directly. There’s even a scene where one of the characters starts blaming all their troubles on white people, then picks out a white member of the audience and lunges at them as if to try to kill them — but the other actors hold her back.
I don’t have a problem with the way James Earl Jones handled that situation. The description sounded totally in character.
I’m more curious about what they would have done if it was NAACP night at the theater, and there wasn’t a white person in the house.
And I’m reminded that I want to go see Spamalot again, and this time make sure that I get the seat D1.
I don’t have a problem with the way James Earl Jones handled that situation. The description sounded totally in character.
I’m more curious about what they would have done if it was NAACP night at the theater, and there wasn’t a white person in the house.
And I’m reminded that I want to go see Spamalot again, and this time make sure that I get the seat D1.
(Some HN readers may not recognize the name of the author, Charles Petzold. He wrote many crucial Windows programming books, most notably the first standard tome of Win32 development. Our instructor referred to Windows UI programming as "the Petzoldy stuff".