4:16 pm - 12/13/2012

Elementary: 1.10 'The Leviathan' Sneak Peek (Spoilers)

Sneak Peek for tonight's all new Elementary!!

lucciolaa 13th-Dec-2012 04:53 pm (UTC)
Nice try, chemistry can't be one-sided.
skonka 13th-Dec-2012 05:01 pm (UTC)
Oh really? Why?
lucciolaa 13th-Dec-2012 05:08 pm (UTC)
Because chemistry is about how two actors respond to one another, how compatible they are, and the interpersonal attraction that exists between them that makes their relationship exciting on screen. You can't have one-sided chemistry because it makes no sense.

Edited at 2012-12-13 05:09 pm (UTC)
skonka 13th-Dec-2012 05:19 pm (UTC)
Well none of that exists in my mind.
My comment, "whatever chemistry there is..." was simply my unwillingness to totally discount the chemistry the original commenter claims to see.

Moving away from that, I think it's entirely possible to relate, as a viewer, to the one actor's contribution in that interpersonal relationship and yet believe that the other actor/actress is barely contributing to the brew.
lucciolaa 13th-Dec-2012 05:28 pm (UTC)
None of what you're saying makes any logical sense, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You're entitled to your opinion and you can argue that JLM gives a better performance that makes his side of their on-screen relationship more believable, but it's illogical to say that their chemistry comes entirely from his end.
skonka 13th-Dec-2012 05:29 pm (UTC)
Luv, I don't see any chemistry at all.
inboots 13th-Dec-2012 05:32 pm (UTC)
but "chemistry" is incredibly subjective. some actors are good at getting an audience invested in a character and consequently in all of their relationships, so he or she has chemistry with "everyone". a good example of that sort of actor is gary oldman.

going several steps down the talent ladder - joshua jackson is a good example of an actor who can manufacture sexual chemistry. he's very good at making people believe he's interested in his romantic leads (looking at their lips, cocking his head, lowering his voice in a flirtatious manner, blahblah). so he's always perceived as having "chemistry" with them, regardless of who they are.

Edited at 2012-12-13 05:35 pm (UTC)
lucciolaa 13th-Dec-2012 05:36 pm (UTC)
imo that's not chemistry, that's acting.
fabouluz 13th-Dec-2012 05:37 pm (UTC)
mfte lol
inboots 13th-Dec-2012 05:56 pm (UTC)
my point was that perceived on-screen chemistry is sometimes the product of acting.

which is why it's not uncommon to hear that actor X is so good he or she has "chemistry" with inanimate objects.
paarycia 13th-Dec-2012 05:30 pm (UTC)
lol this
This page was loaded Apr 17th 2014, 11:10 pm GMT.