Dreadful accents. they actually made mr scott from star trek sound authentic.
I watched this for the first time today and wondered how good or bad the accents were. I couldn't tell they were bad, just hard to understand sometimes. I didn't discover until later that both actors are American, as I am. I was going to post a request for a Scot's opinion when I saw this thread already here. I assume you're Scottish since you posted this comment, right?
shareYou know, I thought the accents were a bit thick at first, and I sort of bought them.
But then, to see that this was filmed in Orlando and that these actors are apparently not Scottish, I thought...what was the point?
Why not just give this an American setting? One could transpose the legends and accents without losing anything. If anything it would be a little easier to understand.
I am all for foreign flicks that are actually shot on location, with actors who speak in their native tongue. There should be a reason to make a change and I am not sure what that would be in this case.
I still give it a 6, because I thought the actors were pretty good and I did like the developing tenderness. But, seriously, the foreign element was sort of unnecessary, given the circumstances.
Its called acting. Not every story has to be told in the American perspective. Its like saying a writer can't possibly write a story based in a country other than their own, which is totally ridiculous. Plenty of actors play characters which are other nationalities than their own. It is part of acting.
I could not disagree more with your opinion that "One could transpose the legends and accents without losing anything." The story was set in the bogs of Scotland. It contained a legend which is unique to that part of the world. The setting was part of the story, and to alter that would ruin the author's vision.
I fail to see why the setting or the story should be changed based on the nationality of the actors, or the audience. Quite frankly I find it insulting to assume that the audience needs a 'Americanized' version of the story, in order to understand it. I give the audience a little more credit.
"I am all for foreign flicks that are actually shot on location, with actors who speak in their native tongue. There should be a reason to make a change and I am not sure what that would be in this case." This whole statement is a total affront to the concept of acting. To even attempt to argue that actors must speak in their "native tongue and actually shot on location shows a complete misunderstand of what the actual concept of acting. They only way this argument has any substance or basis is if we are talking about a documentry about a certian nationality or group. Otherwise, it is completely misinformed.
I would also recommend Americanizing the story, or finding actors who could minimally carry off a Scottish accent. The sorry attempts at dialect were so distracting, I was constantly pulled out of the story. The critique has nothing to do with being America-centric. It has to do with believability and cohesiveness.
shareWe clearly disagree about the art of storytelling and the concept of acting.
While I personally found no problem with the actor's ability to pull off the accents, it is fair critique.
Actors (and their abilities aside), I still cannot see why the location of the story or character's nationality should be changed. Almost all modern movies don't actually film in the country, city or place the story is supposed to take place. This is largely due to cost.
I would still challenge your agrument that "the critique has nothing to do with being America-centric." I fail to see how "Americanizing the story would add to the story's "believability and cohesiveness." Why? Because you don't get the accents? Such a view lends one to believe that you are arguing that for a story to have meaning or be believable it has to be from the American perspective. Surely this is not what you mean?
The only other reason I can think of for this arguement is because it was filmed in America, and stars Americans and therefor should be Americanized. My question for this is why? Are American actors not to pretend (act) like they are other nationalities. If that is the case, so much for acting and fiction.
Personally I am glad there are those who don't need to have everything Americanized in order to understand the story. I guess some people just can't get outside their own cultural lens and relate to anything other than their own cultural view.
I agree.
As an American I have no need to see everything onscreen portrayed from an American perspective. How would I ever gain any understanding for other cultures, sentiments or frame of reference if everything took place in my own backyard involving only people from my own neighborhood?
As for the accents, I never had any problem understanding what they were saying and I didn't even consider while watching it that they might be adopting foreign accents instead of using their own, so they were obviously convincing enough for me.
I found myself completely drawn in by both actors and the subtext in their story. Especially their expressions, most specifically the eye contact and those times when their glances darted away. I thought it was touching that Stu had taken the time to clean up before coming out to meet Davy and I liked the way the balance of power between them shifted throughout their time together. Their tentativeness and tenderness were sweet and I couldn't wait to see them embrace. That it happened offscreen was only mildly disappointing because I felt they'd conveyed all they needed to in order to share their story with us and after all, a private moment is a private moment.
I would absolutely watch anything involving these actors or filmmakers again just to see what else they have to offer.
Edit to note that I just found out that Travis Walters died this spring at the age of 21. I'm very sad to learn that news.