The show Entourage continues to suck, in my opinion. All I need to do is watch 5 minutes of it to feel the bad-ness seeping into my apartment. HBO is doing its damndest to promote it - moving it around in the lineup - pumping up interest - commercials galore about it ...
I'm telling you - if I even just HEAR it when it comes on in the other room, I can hear the phoniness in the actors voices.
You can see why HBO thought this show might be a good idea. Ooh, hot young movie star ... his entourage of funny cute guys ... an insider's look at Hollywood ...
Well, it turned out to be a big yawn. Half of the problem is the TERRIBLE cast they have gathered. Yes. That "actor" who wears the backwards baseball cap is abysmal. He needs to get his ass into an elementary stagecraft class. He sucks. He's an amateur and it shows. Kevin Dillon is awful, you can feel how uncomfortable his ... His character is not funny, not likable ... NONE of them are. The only guy who I think has even a SMIDGEON of acting talent on that show is Kevin Connolly. He manages to make the words coming out of his mouth sound like conversation - not just lines. I mean, that's the level of incompetence these young actors have. Blech.
So HBO mis-fired and (in my opinion) under-estimated their audience. It was a rare mis-step for them. They think we're interested in pretty young boys living the high life. Well ... maybe we would be ... if they were interesting characters AND you hired people who could ... you know ... ACT.
Okay, so that being said, here is what I think is wonderful about what has happened wtih Entourage. I was thinking about this this morning.
Jeremy Piven, who plays "the agent", who was a very small part in the first season, has pretty much taken over the show. He has turned that awful show into a MAJOR vehicle for himself - and HBO is now rushing to catch up. Jeremy Piven probably saw the writing on the wall pretty early on: "Okay. This sucks. I have to somehow save myself."
His performance is HIGHLY comedic ... he talks so fast, the jokes come one after the other ... He is a corrupted nasty prick, and you cannot get enough of him!! (There goes the idea from HBO that we would love the pretty young boys - and hate the evil nasty agent ... Nope. The pretty young boys are uninteresting, and we don't care about their lives. When Piven comes on - things start to HAPPEN).
I love it when an actor, or a performer, hijacks a vehicle meant for somebody else - somebody who is less talented. (And sorry - but nobody is less talented than that boy in the baseball cap. Also, the lead guy - the guy who is supposed to be the young Hollywood star - is atrocious. So Piven basically would not allow himself to stay in the background of a bomb ... and he has taken over the show. Completely. It is all about him now. The show should be called "Nasty Agent" as opposed to "Entourage".)
Acting is a collaborative art but in a way - it is NOT a team sport. If you find yourself in a bomb, there are ways to get yourself out of it, and you have to be ruthless. Nope - I am not going down with this ship. Sorry. Jeremy Piven transformed what could have been a terrible experience, something that marked his career forever, into something that is actually making him a star.
I noticed that HBO has re-cut all of their promotional commercials for the show - to now make it look like Jeremy Piven is the star. All the clips and excerpts are HIS. He started on the show as a glorified cameo ... we were supposed to just drool over the exploits of pretty boys cavorting in Hollywood ... and now ... suddenly ... the show is all about the shark-faced awful rude agent ... He is the only one on that show who actually knows how to act.
I love it when that happens. HBO did not engineer this. They mis-fired on this one, and Jeremy Piven surged forth out of the pack - all on his own. You cannot keep true talent down. In this case, the best man really is winning.
HBO is rushing to make it seem like they knew along the comedy gold they had in Piven.
Go, Jeremy!!!
Posted by sheilaIt's unrelated but did you see the American Film Institute's list of 100 Greatest Movies? As soon as I saw it, I thought of you.
I've never seen Entourage. After the whole Bobby Brown fiasco, I'm kind of off reality-esque tv for a while.
Posted by: RTG at July 18, 2005 1:38 PMI agree that the show totally sucks, but I have added "Let's hug it out, bitch" to my repetoire.
Gotta love the Piven.
Posted by: Lisa at July 18, 2005 3:27 PMExactly! "Hug it out". That is classic. I am sure he made that up himself - it's so much better than the rest of the script.
Posted by: red at July 18, 2005 3:28 PMAlso - I will always love him because he was in Say Anything - and he was in the awesome scene out in the parking lot when Dobler confronts them about "If you guys are so cool ... what are you doing out here?"
"By choice, man ..."
Piven rocks.
Posted by: red at July 18, 2005 3:29 PM"Man, all you gotta do is find a girl that looks just like her, nail her, and then dump her, man."
Posted by: Scott Janssens at July 18, 2005 4:19 PMPiven is a god! Did you ever see his old ABC show "Cupid?" It was great, and Piven was even better in it...
Posted by: Ron at July 18, 2005 4:46 PMI've got a few questions: what is the line between trying to salvage your role, and 'showboating'? What if you're in a small role in a good production - how do you give it everything without overshadowing the lead? Or is that even necessarily a bad thing? I can think of several cases where a supporting character completely took over; sometimes it was good, sometimes not. What's the difference between the two? How do the other actors play off of each other as a result? What does a good director do in those situations - and what about a bad one?
I'm genuinely curious about this - the acting world is strange and mysterious to me. As much as I love the final product, I have a very limited understanding of how it's actually made.
Also: "Bitches, man. Bitches."
Posted by: Independent George at July 18, 2005 4:56 PMGeorge - hmmmm. VERY interesting question. It has sent my brain spinning how to answer.
In the case of Entourage - I believe that Jeremy Piven - a very talented actor - saw the writing on the wall and decided to go for self-preservation as opposed to being a 'team-player'. I respect that. Especially in the case of a brand-new untried show - when all bets are off. He dug his heels in and took over ... his exuberance is obvious, he makes the show look FUN. It's funny, it's spontaneous ... and NONE of the cast members are able to compete. That Kevin Connolly guy is a nice actor, but his role doesn't lend itself to histrionics - it's not an attention-getter. Piven decided to salvage his career - and become the most memorable thing on what was, during its first season, a dying show. I think actors have a responsibility to themselves - in such a situation. And only the most talented one will survive. That's what I love about this little story. A nice little package deal, presented to us by HBO, would have died on the vine if Jeremy Piven hadn't surged forward. If you watch the first couple of episodes, he is barely in it. HBO didn't know what it had. But the PUBLIC decided that he was funny and awesome - articles started to be written about HIM ... That's the breaks.
What I love about this story is that acting is, after all the bullshit, and all the beautiful people are pampered ... a meritocracy. It just flat out is.
It's hard to see that at times when so many mediocre people make the cover of US Weekly just because they are beautiful.
But when all is said and done: the beautiful boy heading up Entourage is not up to the task. He flat out isn't. Jeremy Piven is a LEAD actor ... he saw his chance and he is taking it.
I have an "on the flipside" comment prepared as well ... it will come shortly.
Posted by: red at July 18, 2005 5:53 PMGeorge -
Okay, my next comment on this topic comes out of watching the commentary track on the Something's Got to Give DVD - which was AWESOME.
Jack Nicholson and the director. I ATE IT UP.
Now Jack Nicholson is known for his generosity not only to other actors (newer actors, and older actors) but to the crew, the staff, the gaffer, the caterer ... He is beloved by all. He sees himself as a team player, first and foremost. Most great actors do, actually. Because a good actor knows that he is only as good as everyone around him ... If you are nice to the lighting guy (as opposed to treating him like a piece of shit, who is lesser than you because you are a big honking movie star) ... then the set will be a much nicer more relaxed place ... Having done a couple movies myself, I cannot tell you what a difference it makes having the crew on your side. The crew are essential to creating the VIBE of the set. If you, the actor, create an impatient diva-esque atmosphere, the crew will hate you ... and you will be able to feel it.
I don't think Nicholson goes around befriending the gaffers because he thinks it will get him someething. I think he does so because he is a collaborator - and he truly appreciates their contribution - and knows that they are ALL THERE to do ONE THING. Nicholson is there to star ... but without a happy crew ... you've got nothin'.
Okay, so back to the commentary track.
Nicholson is marvelous. A moment will happen - a Diane Keaton moment, or an Amanda Peet moment - and he will suddenly stop his commentary and start laughing and say, "Isn't that great?"
He has such an appreciation for other people's work. And that is one of the many reasons why he is great.
He was talking about a big scene he had with Keanu - it was a big moment for him (it's when he starts to cry again - before being released from having his heart attack) and a big moment for Keanu's character - because it establishes that Keanu is attracted to Diane Keaton. The scene is NOT just about Jack Nicholson.
So the director said something like this:
"We did so many takes that day of you breaking down ... you did it differently every time ... with real tears ... it was amazing ... and Keanu came up to me afterwards and said, 'God. He is just so incredible. I hope I'm not messing up his moment.'"
(Which makes me love Keanu even more.)
And Jack Nicholson said at one point, "You know ... when you get to where I'm at in this career ... it's so easy to steal a scene. I can do it by just lifting my eyebrows. And I have to be very careful to not steal another actor's moment ... I was very conscious of that in my scenes with Keanu ... because important information was being revealed about him as well ... but it's so easy sometimes ..." (spoken like a true genius!!) "I had to just relax and let it be a two person scene ... and isn't he great? Isn't he just great in this movie?"
A beautiful and humble and self-aware statement.
If you're Jack Nicholson, all you have to do is walk into the fucking room and you steal the scene. To some actors, this kind of power and attention becomes addictive in and of itself. (These are not "the great actors" though, in my opinion. All of the great actors are team players.) Nicholson understood the traps - he knew that he could just take over the scene without even trying - but he held back. He modulated his responses - he let it be a two-person scene, because that was what was needed for the story he was telling.
Great great self-awareness he has.
If you're in an ensemble as good as the one as in Something's Gotta Give ... then you have to accept that you're in an ensemble. You're not gonna out-act Diane Keaton. You're not gonna out-act Frances MacDormand. You have to just play your role in the story being told. Many actors can't do that - especially when they've reached some success. They get used to it being ALL ABOUT THEM.
In my opinion: this is why Julia Roberts is absolutely terrific in movies that are more ensemble pieces (like Erin Brokovitch and Mystic Pizza) than when she is in something that ONLY is a Julia Roberts Vehicle.
Being in an ensemble makes her better.
Posted by: red at July 18, 2005 6:16 PMOkay - so these are just my theories, based on my own experiences.
What are your thoughts about it?
I'm sure you can think of examples where someone's performance took over a movie and it WASN'T appropriate ... There are countless examples.
But then sometimes: oh, I just thought of another good example -
Have you ever seen Carlito's Way?
If you watch that movie - you can see what happened during shooting: Sean Penn, who was supposed to be playing second banana to Al Pacino, took over the movie. It is a FAR better performance than Al's and I would say it is Penn's best work. It is one of those examples where the director (DePalma) just let the unexpected happen. He spoke about it later: "Nobody expected that that woudl happen - but we figured we should just get out of the way. Penn's work was too good to hold back."
So I suppose anything can happen - if the work is good enough.
Posted by: red at July 18, 2005 6:39 PMGreat answer, Red - thanks!
This actually brings to mind the demise of one of my favorite television shows: Homicide. The first few seasons were as good as anything ever put on televesion, but I think its decline came about because the cast was just a bit too good.
What made the show unique was the camraderie between the 9 (NINE!) main characters, but it became obvious by season 3 that we were watching the Andre Braugher show. His character was the most fascinating, and he had such charisma and presence that you just couldn't help but be drawn to him even when he was in the background. But the rest of the cast (which included Ned Beatty and Yaphet Kotto) was so good that you couldn't easily forget them, either. What followed was a tenous balancing act between making it into an Andre Braugher vehicle, and keeping the ensemble atmosphere of the entire cast.
In the end, it couldn't be done. Focusing on Braugher turned it into just another regular cop show; stepping back for the whole cast meant surrendering the best part of the show.
Posted by: Independent George at July 18, 2005 7:33 PMI loved Carlito's Way - it's interesting that you bring it up, because that was right around when I started to get irritated with Al Pacino. He was good, but it was basically Al Pacino playing Al Pacino.
I think it began with Scent of a Woman - all his roles these days consist of him running around and shouting a lot. Which is a shame, because he has always been able to do so much more. The Godfather, Part II remains in my all-time top 5 (which now has about 15 movies in it). I think he's a lot better when he isn't trying to be so dominant.
Posted by: Independent George at July 18, 2005 7:52 PMAn actor taking over a production?
Read the accounts of A Streetcar Named Desire. Blanche was THE show. Jessica Tandy was THE star.
Brando walked in, did his thing, and threw the whole production out of kilter. It went from a play about the downfall of Blanche to one about the triumph of Stanley. Tennessee and Kazan let it happen and Tandy felt screwed.
One thing the movie did accomplish was putting Vivien Leigh in there to balance things out.
Posted by: Scotter at July 19, 2005 3:25 AMScotter - are you talking to me? I might be mis-reading your tone - but it sounds extremely condescending to me. Maybe it's because you lead off with that question and then give a reading assignment. You can't actually think that I haven't read the accounts of the original Streetcar? Do you realize how condescending you sound?
Posted by: red at July 19, 2005 6:30 AMGeorge - yeah, totally - this weird thing happened during production of Carlito's Way - when the journey of Sean Penn's character became far more compelling than Carlito's story. Sean Penn probably didn't plan it that way either - he just knew that this guy had to fall off the rails - and because he's a great actor, it just took over the movie.
"You can't actually think that I haven't read the accounts of the original Streetcar? Do you realize how condescending you sound?"
Ohmygod, It was addressed to Independent George, him of the "the acting world is strange and mysterious to me" and "I have a very limited understanding of how it's actually made".
If someone makes a statement like that, what are the chances of him knowing the preproduction arcana of a 58 year old play? Something that you and I are steeped in (yeah, I think I might suspect that you've read up on it, I've read more then two days of your posts), but nobody else knows about.
So I brought up Streetcar. A famous example from theater, not movies. One of a few comments that addressed the questions he had about acting, but my response gets divorced from the conversation, and I get flamed.
So no, I wasn't talking to you. If George thought I was condescending, then my apologies.
Posted by: Scotter at July 19, 2005 6:20 PM