#Hercule is a PERFECT example of That Acting being correct for a character and his acting is almost the same in the sub and the dub

[shannonsketches]

I was already not a fan of what funi/Chris did with Vegeta both script and voice acting wise, but after reading your posts I straight up really dislike it T_T. And I grow dejected thinking most people in western hemisphere have not grown up with Ryo's Z Vegeta, who's just something else entirely. Like his voice is smooooth, regal, his delivery calm, nuanced, theatrical. This man ACTS. I'd even say that Vegeta sounds subtly effeminate in his inner dialogue, none of this forced macho dying of lung cancer that Chris did. (But to be fair Chris' natural voice is nice! Just wish he used it instead of what was probably an attempt to emulate Brian Drummond after the dub switch).

Sabbat is the Vegeta I grew up with and he’ll always have a soft spot in my heart, but Horikawa was such an immediate improvement even though I met his Vegeta later. And there’s a lot I love about the choices that were made! But the difference in how the characters are handled is super hard to unsee (or unhear, rather).

As I’ve learned more about animation and production, it’s something that I do recognize as not a sub vs dub problem in terms of acting skill and ability, it’s an issue of American animation being dedicated to talking down to kids. I complain a lot about how corporate meddling is fucking the animation industry in the US, but fr the reason a lot of teens start to prefer subs is generally because English dubs are intentionally over the top and cartoony and playing to children, even if the original series is Not.

The trend for US voice acting is very Loud and Theatrical and based on old American cartoons (see: the original voice actor for James from Pokémon basing his voice on Snagglepuss) while other dubs tend to play animation with more nuance (even though they are still more exaggerated than live-action film speaking would be). A lot of our animation here is primarily geared toward selling toys to kids, which results in GI Joe-esque overacting. One of the reasons Optimus Prime’s voice actor famously cites for why he got the role and retains it to this day is because his military veteran brother advised him to play a hero as earnest and grounded, so he did that instead of talking like a vaudeville clown cueing up a pie to the face, which is how a lot of voice directing encourages VAs to dub American versions of cartoons.

So while there are also definitely the cultural differences in gag translation and things, it’s also very largely a matter of US companies wanting to make every piece of animation A Cartoon, a big loud bright thing for small kids to instantly recognize. The difference is even crazier if you have a jpn dub and an eng dub in the background and can just listen to it without the visuals. The American version of everything is so Loud, especially when it comes to anything with an emphasis on action.

I do think that Ryo’s more subtle characterization for Vegeta made the transition to acting for Toriyama’s Vegeta much smoother for the newer DB works. Chris has been playing him so boisterous for so long (to the point that he, as previously mentioned, started adding in his own contentious dialogue for his version) that I have a hard time reconciling his voice with Toriyama’s characterization. Part of why I say that Lanipator’s my actual favorite VA for the Eng dub was because his Vegeta did the big obnoxious thing but had the flexibility of working on a parody to do much more organic deliveries of much more naturalistic dialogue, even while using the cartoonier voice.

All this to say, American dubs are intentionally very Saturday Morning Toon Jam instead of like, stage acting that just happens to be for animation, which seems to be more true of international and independent US animation voice acting.

[rebeccalouisaferguson]

Rebecca Ferguson - interview for Grazia Russia (N5, March 5, 2019)

The Lesser Evil

Charming redhead Swedish actress Rebecca Ferguson has become famous thanks to “Mission Impossible” franchise. Other than this adventure superhit, in the last couple of years the actress has starred in the musical “The Greatest Showman”, new reboot of “Men in Black”, and now it has also been confirmed that she is the one who will play Lady Jessica in an adaptation of a cult novel “Dune” that is being developed by Denis Villenevue. But when you ask her what’s the most important thing that has happened in her life to date, she is seriously contemplating before answering. “I didn’t die during the latest childbirth. That’s good for starters. Second that comes to mind is our summer vacation in Greece, where we went with my whole family after I finished shooting “The Kid Who Would Be King”.

Last year Rebecca gave birth to a daughter with her husband Rory. She already has a son Isaac from a former boyfriend, art-director Ludwig Hallberg, but she tied the knot for the first time after moving to the outskirts of London. “I love the fact that we are living in an almost countryside. It looks a lot like my hometown Simrishamn, where we also spend a lot of time.” District, where the couple bought a true british house, is close to the Pinewood Studios and Warner Bros. Studios Leavesden, where Ferguson works most of the time. Rebecca is shooting non-stop in an Olympic athlete rhythm. For example, the latest “Mission Impossible” installment and “The Kid Who Would Be King” she filmed simultaneously. She had to work weekends for the later. “At some point you get used to it and see this rhythm as a norm. When I was on holidays in Greece my agents contacted me and said that there is a role in the latest “Men in Black” that will take a couple of weeks to shoot. I said: “Dear family! It’s time for mama to go back!” We wrapped the vacations 5 days earlier than planned.” British director Joe Cornish found another way to the actresses’ heart, thought their mutual friend, Simon Pegg. To the first meeting in a restaurant Joe brought his sketches, pictures and acted out best dialogues, and made it so good, that Ferguson said “yes” right on the spot.

|-My agent called me in the evening and in swearing terms said what can be summed up as “What the hell are you doing?”

This spontaneity is very characteristic of Rebecca. She taught argentine tango, for example. The future star was a very active child and tried all dancing styles – ballet, street-jazz, contemp, but the choice was made in favour of tango. “Thanks to my mother. She was always telling me to go for it. I told her: “Give me an example!” And she started taking classes near the fishing village where we lived, and I was hooked as well.” Rebecca has her mother to thank also for the flawless british accent, that only british aristocracy has nowadays. “I used to imitate her when I was little. She graduated from a very good school and her accent is very good. Later, when I was cast as queen Elizabeth in “The White Queen” I studied with an amazing coach, who perfected that “royal” accent. I had to speak like that for 6 months in a row and it got so deep into my head that it stayed with me forever.” The only time when Rebecca’s mom was not listened to is when they were choosing a name for the daughter. “She wanted something traditional and aristocratic. They were choosing between Tallulah, after the American actress Tallulah Bankhead, and Gaelic name Tobermory. My elder sister’s name is Islay, this is the name of one of the islands in Scotland. The island nearby is called Tobermory.” Luckily, her father suggested: “Maybe Rebecca?”. That’s what was decided in the end. “Can you imagine? I could have been Tallulah or Tobermory! What a horror!”. By the way, the third name that Rebecca’s mother favoured was Saga. That’s the name that was given to her now six months old granddaughter. “Sagas are the basis of everything in Swedish mythology. They are telling the legends that form the folklore. I always liked that word and that’s how I named my daughter.”

As a foreigner Ferguson has of course read the story of King Arthur and the knights of round table. Nevertheless, she liked immensely her first role as a villain in “The Kid Who Would Be King”. She swears that now she will only play villains. Morgana, the magic half-sister of king Arthur is living underground and waits for her time to come back to the world of the living. 12 year old Alex, played by Andy Serkis son, Louis, finds the magic sword at the building site, which opens the portal for Mogana and her demons to the modern day London.

|- What I liked about this role, that she is pure evil. Unlike Disney bad witch who is evil, but not that unsympathetic.

How do you feel going home to your husband and two kids after this kind of shoot? “I forget about my character as soon as I leave the set.” Taking a pause to think Rebecca corrects herself. “You know, that was not true. My characters from “The Snowman”, “The White Queen”, “Hercules” – they are all here, - she says pointing to her head. “They live in my memory, but I do not spread that energy on my family.”

“The Kid Who Would Be King” premiere was the first one that her son attended with her. He is the same age as the main hero. During the screening the boy was scared a couple of times and touched his mom’s hand, saying, that it’s only “a reflex reaction”. He has seen Ferguson’s 4-hour transformation with make-up department into enchantress Morgana before. “He used to sleep in the corner while me and my colleges chatted”. The actress admits that her son basically grew up on different sets and cannot imagine a life without constant traveling.

By the end of our interview we decided to look through the Code of Honour that the heroes of “The Kid Who Would Be King” follow:

GRAZIA: The first rule – “Don’t lie”.

R.F. Not sure about that. I admit that sometimes you can tell a “white lie” like the English say for a good cause.

GRAZIA: “Respect the others”.

R.F. Respect is good, but sometimes you so want to be a bit naughty.

GRAZIA: “Do what you do till the end”

R.F. I very much didn’t like a costar once. I did not feel satisfaction from the work and didn’t know how to stand up to myself. But this situation taught me another good lesson: “If something bothers you, say it from the start!”

(scans and translation from russian by @edwardslovelyelizabeth for Rebeccalouisaferguson.tumblr.com)

[creative-type]

So I saw Murder on the Orient express today and what struck me most was how the movie addressed the moral quandary presented at the end differently than the book. It’s always interesting to see how an adaptation plays out, and this was definitely a movie made with a 2017 audience in mind. 

Just in case there’s someone who hasn’t read the book and is unaware of the ending, be warned: There be spoilers below the cut

I want to focus specifically on the difference between the book and movie ending here. Other people can and will talk about how Murder on the Orient Express fares as an adaptation and a movie. My hot take: The cinematography is nice - for example, there’s a shot through the perspective of a mirror that they use when a suspect is lying that makes their face warp that made for some nice symbolism - but it felt like a cheap knock-off of the Robert Downy, Jr Sherlock movies rather than something starring Poirot. Too much effort in being politically correct and actiony, not enough use of the little grey cells.

Anyway, at the end of the novel after presenting his summation of events Poirot famously lets the murderers go free and presents an alternate solution to the police. Unlike the movie, none of the passengers had attempted to harm him, and some (Princess Dragomiroff in particular) seemed resigned to their fate once they realized Poirot had taken the case.

“If you will excuse me, Monsieur,” she said, “but may I ask your name? Your face is somehow familiar to me.”

“My name, Madame, is Hercule Poirot--at your service.”

She was silent a minute, then: “Hercule Poirot,” she said. “Yes, I remember now. This is Destiny.”

The vast majority of the novel is spent asking the question “Who done it?” but throughout the course of the investigation a second, more difficult question emerges: Was justice served? 

Christie paints an unambiguous picture with Ratchett. He’s as guilty as sin for the kidnapping and murder of little Daisy Armstrong, and the way the characters remember the Armstrong family would have been pure narm if it weren’t so damn sad. Daisy was a perfect child, Colonel Armstrong was a war hero, Susanne the French maid was driven to suicide for a crime she had no part of, etc., etc. 

The narrative gives Ratchett absolutely zero redeeming qualities, to the point where Poirot has nothing to do with him based on looks alone, while the Armstrong family is presented as lambs led to slaughter. The fact that the courts failed to find him guilty was a gross miscarriage of justice - something the twelve men and women complicit in his murder were seeking to correct.

Colonel Arbuthnot puts it best:

“You prefer law and order to private vengeance?”

“Well, you can’t go about having blood feuds and stabbing each other like Corsicans or the Mafia,” said the Colonel. “Say what you like, trail by jury is a sound system.”

A point Poirot brings up again in his summation:

“Ratchett had escaped justice in America. There was no question as to his guilt. I visualized a self-appointed jury of twelve people who condemned him to death and were forced by exigencies of the case to be their own executioners.”

A few pages later, Poirot lets the passengers go without so much as a fuss. There is no angst, there is no drama. Justice has been served.

The movie, on the other hand, takes a much different approach. Instead of acting as jury and executioner, the twelve men and women who murdered Ratchett were broken souls in need of closure. I don’t think it’s an accident that during the summation they collectively are framed the same way as the disciples in da Vinci’s The Last Supper.

Early on, movie!Poirot makes a comment that there is right and wrong and nothing in between, and during the last voice over is forced to amend that statement. Before making his decision whether or not to go to the police with the correct solution he presents Linda Arden, the mother of the dead Mrs. Armstrong and in this version the mastermind of events, with a test. He offers her a gun that she thinks is loaded and says that if she wants to get away with what she’s done, she’ll have to kill him first.

Instead Arden attempts to shoot herself. Obviously it wasn’t loaded and she breaks down with the knowledge that she will have to live with what she’s done for the rest of her life. Then, and only then, does Poirot come to the conclusion that there are no murderers aboard the train and let them go free.

That’s the difference between 1934 and 2017. In one the morality is presented as black and white, with none of the parties feeling the slightest bit of guilt for correcting a mistake made years ago. In the other a man is murdered and there is no justice, only twelve men and women left trying to pick up the shattered pieces of their broken lives. 

It’s that interpretation that makes adaptations so fascinating. Different creators will inevitably have different opinions on questions of morality, ethics, and justice (or what their audience will perceive as such. Don’t want to alienate the audience, eh?). I’m not going to say that Murder on the Orient Express (2017) is a great movie, because it’s not. The brilliance of the mystery itself is not conveyed well, but then again, I’m of the opinion that adapting Poirot’s specific brand of solving crime would be difficult no matter was at the helm. After all, it’s not that visually interesting to film someone sitting down and thinking.

But where the plot of Murder on the Orient Express is famous to the point of being trite and cliche, this question of morality still has room to grow and evolve and become more complex over time. Do I think the movie executed on this potential as well as it could have? No, not at all. But I do think that it’s at least worth talking about.