People of CCA; your attention, please.
As you very well know, the last two weekly meetings of CCA were cancelled due to heavy snow. Approximately four inches of snow fell on Tuesday the 6th, and that amount increased to ten inches on Tuesday the 13th. The rate of snowfall may herald an extremely dangerous trend hampering future CCA schedules. CCA member Sam Carr reports:
"If we look mathematically at the situation, snowfall has increased by 150% each Tuesday. From this, we infer that on this coming Tuesday, snowfall will increase to approximately twenty-five inches. And logically, on the 27th we can expect approximately sixty-two-and-a-half inches. Our official advice is to sacrifice a goat, or something along those lines."
Sam also advise that if such be the case, the weekly CCA meetings should be moved to Fridays, if it be deemed valuable enough to continue our proposed class schedule with as little changes as possible.
For CCA Blog, I'm Daniel Carr.
LOL
As you very well know, the last two weekly meetings of CCA were cancelled due to heavy snow. Approximately four inches of snow fell on Tuesday the 6th, and that amount increased to ten inches on Tuesday the 13th. The rate of snowfall may herald an extremely dangerous trend hampering future CCA schedules. CCA member Sam Carr reports:
"If we look mathematically at the situation, snowfall has increased by 150% each Tuesday. From this, we infer that on this coming Tuesday, snowfall will increase to approximately twenty-five inches. And logically, on the 27th we can expect approximately sixty-two-and-a-half inches. Our official advice is to sacrifice a goat, or something along those lines."
Sam also advise that if such be the case, the weekly CCA meetings should be moved to Fridays, if it be deemed valuable enough to continue our proposed class schedule with as little changes as possible.
For CCA Blog, I'm Daniel Carr.
LOL
posted by Lemony Snicket @ 2:21 PM
59 Comments:
At 2:36 PM,
Lemony Snicket said…
PS. "Sacrifice a goat" meaning something like, "We should try to cut out some not-very-important part for the good of continuing the better."
Dan
At 6:48 PM,
Gabriella Reed said…
lol
At 7:12 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
No, sacrifice a goat refers to taking a medium sized hairy animal with horns, and cutting it up and burning it.
Sam
At 8:16 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
Sam, this isn't 2500 BC in Israel. We need to make it sound plausible to our, shall we say, era.
Dan
At 10:25 AM,
Gabriella Reed said…
okay, tear apart your 2007 red farari and send it to the junk yard. thats about our era i believe.
At 12:30 PM,
Lemony Snicket said…
Well, yes, but why would you tear apart a Ferrari in response to a wave of snowstorms?
Dan
At 7:55 PM,
Gabriella Reed said…
hm. dunno. you tell me-lol-
At 7:31 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
Who, me? You thought it up in the first place...
Dan
At 7:40 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
Just kill the goat people.
Sam
Goat: Baaa*gack*
At 8:24 AM,
Gabriella Reed said…
i know, but you can think these things up much better than i can=)
that was nasty sam! its even worse than a baby deer!-lol-
HH
At 10:55 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
Goat: You can say that again
At 2:49 PM,
Gabriella Reed said…
are you sam or daniel?....i'm guessing sam.
At 6:20 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
That was a goat. I think I'm the one that fills that description.
Sam
At 5:01 AM,
Gabriella Reed said…
way...
At 5:51 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
Hey, how 'bout getting to some of the arguments raging about.
Sam
At 7:50 AM,
Gabriella Reed said…
i don't think thats possible. and i don't think its possible to argue about orlando bloom, italion food, or any other argument. i think we need to come up with a new argument. how about whether a tooth pick is better than a q tip.... thats what i call an argument!-lol-
HH
At 11:09 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
No, no. Orlando Bloom is a fine argument. (see other post)
Sam
At 7:09 PM,
HeatherKessler said…
Acting is an OPINION you cannot prove it. It's his job and apparently some people think he is good.
Heather Kessler
At 7:11 PM,
HeatherKessler said…
Also do you guys just argue on this blog or what?
Heather Kessler
At 7:13 AM,
Gabriella Reed said…
that is a wonderfully smart and intellectual answer margaret! i call for an oncore (seriously)
Heather G.
At 8:03 AM,
Oee said…
I seriously don't care about Orlando Bloom. I do a care about the movies he is in though.
So if you decide he is a bad actor I don't care. If you decide he is good i also don't care.
little "O"
At 10:21 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
-While we're at it, why don't we say that intelligence is an opinion and I am vastly smarter then the rest of you? Obviously, this is bunk. Acting is NOT an opinion any more then intelligence is one. There are definite standards for good acting and that's what se need to discuss first.
-A good actor has a wide range of emotions and is able to become his/her charater. If you dissagree, argue with this point first.
-Orlando Bloom's main talant is getting teenage girls to faint. Argue this point sepparately.
Sam
At 1:46 PM,
Gabriella Reed said…
intelligence is another thing, sam. intelligence is based on fact from how much you know. but then how much intelligence you obtain from what you know is oppinion.
i agree there is a difference between fact and oppinion, but this whole thing about orlando is an OPPINION. in fact, this entire argument is based on oppinion. its our own oppinion about wether or not this argument about orlando fact or oppinion..... confusing- yes. wrong- no.
Sincerely,
HH
PS. a good actor is based on what you want them to be.... if you think a good actor is someone who can be good at violence- according to that person whatever actor that fits that description is a good actor. etc etc etc...
PSS. he is also good at action scenes.
At 3:22 PM,
Gabriella Reed said…
my correction... on a post like this i should sign my name...
the Enigmatical Historionic Heather
At 7:30 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
Okay, bad example.
-Let's say that painting is oppinion and therefor, something by Jakson Pollik is just as much art as something by Leonardo Da Vinci. This is, naturally, bunk.
-Acting is an art and there are objective standards for good acting.
-Your post-script is completely wrong. A good actor transends different types of movies and is good in anything he/she does. Jonny Depp is a perfect example. He has been in about every type of movie there is and was good in every single one. Orlando, on the other hand, is always either in action movies, where all he has to do is look handsom and fight, and romantic movies, where all he has to do is exist.
Sam
At 9:05 AM,
Gabriella Reed said…
sam
- this is like picaso.... i think that his paintings are absolutely pathetic and rediculous- but that is my OPPINION. he is known for his odd paintings and many people like his work and bought it- this was their definition of a good painter along with some other major painters. i have no idea who the guy is that you stated first. But if orlando is a bad actor and should not be in the occupation of acting, should picaso have been a painter?
- i agree with this point.... somewhat. those standards are OPPINION. my standards differ from your standards so my earlier statement still stands: our oppinions on a good actor will not match because this whole argument is about fact and oppinion.... lets just say it is very enigmatical.
- this is obviously your oppinion and perhaps a few directors will agree with you.... now do you remember what i said at the end of this argument last time? i said he isn't good and he isn't bad. he's a middle man. i still think that and i do think that he has some major problems (what actor doesn't). Now, if you will excuse me i need to go do my homework.
Sincerely,
Historionic Heather
At 1:52 PM,
Lemony Snicket said…
Righty-ho
-1. Yes, Picasso should not have been a painter. His paintings are devoid of beauty and form and ferthermore, are downright ugly. God is a God of order and of beauty. He defines it, not us. Therefor...
2-There is an objective standard for art (acting being inluded in that catagory), not just opinion.
3-Here's where the rubber meets the road. What's your definition of a good actor? This is where we're going to disagree, aand this is were we'll have the most fun.
Sam
At 4:02 PM,
Lemony Snicket said…
I beg to differ slightly. Picasso's paintings have some measure of form to them, but that form is twisted to a degree. Jackson Pollock's works, on the other hand, cannot in any way be considered 'art', except that they have paint on a canvas. I do agree, however, that there is an objective standard of good acting.
Dan
PS. Jackson Pollock made 'art' by placing a canvas on the floor, hanging paint cans from the ceiling with strings, punching holes in the cans, and swinging the cans back and forth so that they dribble different colors of paint all over the canvas.
At 4:20 PM,
Gabriella Reed said…
i agree with your first statement. and there are some things that are objectively art. and by daniel's description of that dude's work, it would fill in as art in today's society. But how the actor fullfils that standard i still think is oppinion. just as intelligence is affirmed and then oppinionated.
esta bien, who thinks this whole thing is stupid? i believe that agruing about whether a fact or oppinion is fact or oppinion is completely and utterly redicuolous. we need to find a less complicated argument, OTHER than the previously argued subjects. those are really old now. how about we concoct in our minds some new invention not yet known to man? i think that'd be at least a little more productive and substantial.
well adios mi amigo/as!
Enigmatical Historionic Heather
At 7:29 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
No, no, this is interesting.
-Heather, could you clarify your point? I don't really understand what your saying.
-Also, what are your standards for a good actor?
Sam
At 4:32 PM,
Gabriella Reed said…
-nvm....
-my standards for a good actor/actress is that they play their parts well- whatever the part may be. If they can play more than one character- woopteedoodah. they may be more flexible in the parts they play- good for them. this may help the directors in being able to find a "talented" actor/actress, but how does it affect their acting? whats the point in being able to playing different types of characters?
HH
At 10:42 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
-Because any fool can be themselves! There's no skill involved in playing one role, you just do it. My little brother can play a hyperactive eight year old and play it well; but he couldn't play anything else to save his life. Orlando Bloom plays handsom "dreamy" young men because he IS a handsom "dreamy" young man. True talent involves being someone you are not. A good actor does not play a character, he becomes the character.
Sam
At 11:48 AM,
Gabriella Reed said…
- i don't agree with some of the things your saying, sam. becoming something your not is not talent. sure, they are more useful in movies if they can play more than one character, but what is the point in being something your not? i'd rather be good at being myself than be good at being someone else. and trust me, neither is easy.
At 10:42 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
-Then tell me, what is the point of acting? You are taking an art form and reducing it to a clever ploy to get money for being yourself. It's like saying politicians are people paid to lie just because a lot of them do. The reason we aren't agreeing is that I think there is such a thing as a talented actor, while it seems you could care less if they have talent or not.
-If you think I'm wrong answer me this. What makes Orlando Bloom a better actor then my little brother (or other kid you know)?
Sam
PS. You find it hard to be yourself?
At 2:44 PM,
Gabriella Reed said…
-that is exactly what i think!
HH
PS. sometimes, yes.
At 5:43 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
So you don't think acting is an art?
Sam
PS. Explain how it is hard to be yourself.
At 6:14 AM,
Gabriella Reed said…
actually, no.
HH.
PS. i have a few friends (none of which are in the classes we take together) who are very different from me. They try to influence me in a negative way and want me to think things i shouldn't. These things are hard to overcome when you are the only Christian in group of even three. metaphorically speaking, its like being on a ship in a storm, being battered to peices by the wind while trying to keep your ship afloat. wouldn't you think thats hard?
At 8:09 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
-Okay, You are WRONG, WRONG,WRONG. Acting IS an art whether you admitt it or not. If you don't think acting is art, what is?
Sam
PS. All right, I can buy that.
At 6:35 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
Also, what is acting if it's not an art?
Dan
At 9:37 AM,
Gabriella Reed said…
-art is art! thats a stupid question. and (if you are meaning it in this context) also is yoga and stuff like that. but i don't usually think of yoga as "art"
- acting, is acting. why can't you guys think simplistically?
At 7:25 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
Are you restricting art to painting and sculpturing?
Sam
At 7:43 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
Okeeday, let's pin the basics down first. Heather, what is your definition of art?
Dan
At 9:52 AM,
Gabriella Reed said…
yes, what sam said is my definition of art. period.
HH
At 7:09 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
Here is Noah Webster's definition of art.
ART.
1. the disposition or modification of things by human skill, to answer the purpose intended. In this sense "art" stands opposed to "nature."
2. a system of rules, werving to facilitatethe performance of certain actions; opposed to "science," or to speculative principles; as the "art" of building or engraving. Arts are divided into "useful" or "mechanic", and "liberal" or "polite." The mechanic arts are those in which the hands and body are more concerned than the mind; as in making clothes, and utensils. These arts are called "trades." The liberal or polite arts are those in which the mind or imagination is chiefly concerned; as POETRY, MUSIC (emphasis mine), and painting.
In short, art is not just painting or sculpting, but ANY refined skill. For instance, there is the "art" of building, the "art" of cutlery, and other such things known more commonly as "trades." These are called mechanic arts. Music, poetry, painting, and acting are more mind activities than body activities, and are called the liberal arts. So you see that acting IS an art.
Dan
PS. Noah Webster was the man who helped standardize English vocabulary, grammar, and spelling in this country. He's not just some dumb guy I pulled off the corner.
At 8:00 AM,
Gabriella Reed said…
all right then, i'll have to agree with you on this point. so i'll conclude with saying that orlando bloom is pretty good at art.
HH
At 8:43 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
NO HE IS NOT!!!
-Now that we have established that acting is indeed an art, we know that there are definite standards for the execution of that art. If an archatect makes a building that falls down, it's safe to say that he is not very good at his art. If a painter makes something that is ugly, he is not good at his art.
-What we need to establish is a list of what things a good actor will be able to do.
-A good actor can...
1. Portray differnet characters.
2. Show a wide range of emotion.
3. Become his character i.e. give a realistic performence.
-If you dissagree with me on any of these points and/or have any additions to the list, argue away.
Sam
At 11:35 AM,
Gabriella Reed said…
-this is all due to the fact that the building and painting was a failure. which is my point!
-my standard
>they must play their character well.
i agree with the emotion thing, and i couldn't care less if they can play a different character... i think we'ver covered this ground before.
HH
At 12:39 PM,
Lemony Snicket said…
You said that
"This is all due to the fact that the building and painting was a failure. which is my point!"
What point? And if those are your only standards, how do you judge whether people play their part well? The character of a movie may not be a very well-crafted character, so an actor who plays a weak character well is not as good as an actor who plays a strong, developed character well.
So my question to you is: regardless of whether Orlando plays his character well or not, is his character a good one? A well-crafted, deep, realistic character? And if not, is Orlando still good if that's all he can do?
Dan
At 12:41 PM,
Lemony Snicket said…
-Tell me this, Are there objectives standards for a good painting? How about a good actor?
Sam
At 2:21 PM,
Gabriella Reed said…
Dan:
-if the person plays the character well (aka: does not fail in getting across what is to get across to the audience or shows character of character being played well (understand this and i will never trust my expectations again)) then i believe that actor is good at acting.
- don't you think a knight in shining armor is a good character? don't you think that a self-sacrificing guy who's sweet and conscious of other people's feelings is a good character? i do. and i don't think there's anything wrong in being able to do JUST this.
Sam:
- i think we've been around this block about three times now, sam. i believe that there are obejective standards for good paintings and actors- but that is entirely oppinion.
HH
PS. who else thinks we need a knew post?
At 8:11 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
-If I throw pain on a canves and say it's a good painting is it a good painting? NO IT ISN'T!!! There are definite standards for beauty! If there aren't I can kill a deer, put it in a museaum and call it "Dead Deer 1" Is that art??
Sam
At 8:57 AM,
Gabriella Reed said…
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
HH
At 11:00 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
Not quite. Things can be beautiful even if nobody thinks they are. God's plan for His creation is a beautiful plan regardless of any person or group of persons who thinks otherwise. Art is supposed to reflect God's creation, which means that the better it does that, the better it is. Therefore, in its most basic form, beauty is objective.
But getting back to my point: there's no skill in playing an undeveloped character, except keeping a straight face to hide your true feelings of that role being DISGUSTING! In the case of complex characters like Marko Ramius, that's a different story altogether.
Dan
At 11:10 AM,
Gabriella Reed said…
i did not understand your second point at all.
At 7:01 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
-VALUE is in the eye of the beholder, beauty is objective. What someone is willing to buy is their decision, but beauty is a part of God's creation and therefor is objective.
-You've acted right? Did you just memorize your lines and get up on stage? No? Why did you practice since beauty is in the eye of the beholder? It's not really skill anyway is it? You don't really believe there's no skill in acting.
Sam
At 7:13 AM,
Lemony Snicket said…
My second point is that even if an actor can play a particular character well, that character may not be hard to play.
To explain a bit more:
There's not much skill in playing Twinkle Twinkle compared to the skill you need to play Alborada del Gracioso. Likewise, there's not much skill involved in playing Will Turner compared to the skill you would need to play Joshua Chamberlain. Therefore, actors cannot be judged solely by how well they play their character.
Dan
At 9:04 AM,
Gabriella Reed said…
sam- your just bunny-trailing now. you have to be able to play the character your supposed to be. you have to be dramatic in plays. you have to be realistic in movies.
Dan- your example is somewhat wrong. who is playing those songs? if its an eith-year-old playing a simple version of twinkle-twinkle-little-star, then i'd say that kid is pretty good. but then if we have a twenty-year-old person playing whatever song you said, then i would say that person also is talented. so i think thats a bad example.
HH
At 1:00 PM,
Lemony Snicket said…
-I don't understand your point of acting vs. film, could you explain?
-I can play the piano and I'm all right for my age. I am, however, NOT a great painist. That's not my opinion, that's fact. You can find any number of people who can play the piano a TON better then me. I can still play the piano, I'm just not all that good. Orlando Bloom is the same way. There were and are a TON of actors who and WAY better then Orlando. He can still act, he's just not very good.
Sam
PS. I have said that Orlando can't act. But if I were a concert pianist a critic would be perfectly justified in saying that I can't play the piano. Orlando just has no business being a profssional actor.
At 3:41 PM,
Lemony Snicket said…
In your last argument you basically killed the rest of your arguments. True, nobody would expect a kid to play Twinkle Twinkle, but a kid of that level is DEFINITELY not as talented as someone who can play Alborada del Gracioso. The kids are fine for their level, but their level is not very low; therefore, they are not very good pianists. Hence, Orlando Bloom is good for his level, but his level is terrible. Therefore, he is not a good actor.
Dan
PS. You still haven't answered Sam's argument. Does acting involve skill?
Post a Comment
<< Home