5 ms·

What was so special about Greta Garbo?

31 points by prismatic 5y ago

Animats 5y ago
Since her estate was worth US$50 million at death, she obviously didn't need to keep working. So she quit. "Famous" is a job. "The mass trials are going well. There will be fewer Russians, but better ones." -- Ninotchka
- roter 5y ago
  Tangential but an interesting linkage in the recent Economist [0] between the regions where political prisoners were relocated to Stalin's gulags and the relatively high "human capital" thereabouts. [0] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/12/04/how-regions-near-stalins-gulag-benefit-today-from-his-victims https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/12/04/how-regi...
neonate 5y ago
https://archive.md/e0Uqk https://archive.md/e0Uqk
dang 5y ago
The wonderful Impro by Keith Johnstone has a memorable passage about Garbo, saying critics should have raved about her spine, not her face—because her instrument was really the whole body. I was inspired to look up the quote: Critics raved about her face: 'Her face, early called the face of the century, had an extraordinary plasticity, a mirrorlike quality; people could see in it their own conflicts and desires.' People who worked with her noticed that her face didn't change. Robert Taylor said: 'The muscles in her face would not move, and yet her eyes would express exactly what she needed.' Clarence Brown said: 'I have seen her change from love to hate and never alter her facial expression. I would be somewhat unhappy and take the scene again. The expression still would not change. Still unhappy, I would go ahead and say "Print it." And when I looked at the print, there it was. The eyes told it all. Her face wouldn't change but on the screen would be that transition from love to hate.' Garbo had a stand-in who was identical to her, and who was said to have 'everything that Garbo has except whatever it is Garbo has'. What Garbo had was a body that transmitted and received. It was her spine that should have been raved about: every vertebra alive and separated so that feelings flowed in and out from the centre. She responded spontaneously with emotion and warmth, and what she felt, the audience felt, yet the information transmitted by the body was perceived as emanating from the face. You can watch a marvellous actor from the back of a big theatre, his face just a microdot on the retina, and have the illusion you've seen every tiny expression. Such an actor can make a wooden Mask smile, its carved lips tremble, its painted brows narrow.
- jfengel 5y ago
  As an actor and director myself, I'm constantly wondering what it is that makes some actors "it" and others not. It's often my job to figure out why a performance is uninteresting and make it more interesting -- mine, or somebody else's. I have a large toolbox of tricks to apply, with varying levels of success. Yet none of it can ever do what "Stars" do. Even when stars give performances that are mediocre by every measure I know how to apply, they'll be riveting to at least some audiences. You really can see it from the back of a theater, and I have very little idea of how it works. Not quite none. I do know that it's not at all about the external features, like the spine or the eyes. We don't have anywhere near enough control over that. (Though it is fascinating to work with animators, who do have that level of control over their performances.) We actors say it comes from being "truthful" in the untruthful circumstances of the theater or the studio, though in the end that doesn't really mean very much. It's just a way of trying to get people to stop doing whatever they're doing consciously and let it happen... whatever the hell it is.
  - rnd0 5y ago
    The power of suggestion, maybe? Honestly, I wonder how much of it isn't the effect of publicity affecting people's expectations? If you have two people giving the same performance who look similar but the audience for one goes in with the expectations of seeing a maestro perform and the other is just watching an unknown they would feel differently because they're carrying expectations with them that skew their view of the performance. I don't want to go too far out on a limb and say this is definitely the case; I'm not in the industry. But I was wondering about the same subject (what makes a star's performance "riveting" even in something mediocre?) and that was the best answer that I could come up with.
    - oh_sigh 5y ago
      I was wondering the same thing. Is it just the case that people for whatever reason see those more-familiar to them as better actors? Which also explains celebrity worship that certain people engage in, where they might go wild to see George Clooney, but would just walk right by a less-famous but equally or more skilled actor? If you took who was a hermit in Alaska with no media exposure for their entire life and showed them 3 performances from 3 different tier actors, would they actually say that the A-lister is better than the B-lister, who is better than the C-lister?
henrikschroder 5y ago
I stumbled on her grave by accident one day when I was walking through Skogskyrkogården in Stockholm where she's buried. It's well worth a visit for the architecture alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skogskyrkog%C3%A5rden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skogskyrkog%C3%A5rden

31 points by prismatic 5y ago

Since her estate was worth US$50 million at death, she obviously didn't need to keep working. So she quit. "Famous" is a job. "The mass trials are going well. There will be fewer Russians, but better ones." -- Ninotchka

roter 5y ago
Tangential but an interesting linkage in the recent Economist [0] between the regions where political prisoners were relocated to Stalin's gulags and the relatively high "human capital" thereabouts. [0] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/12/04/how-regions-near-stalins-gulag-benefit-today-from-his-victims https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/12/04/how-regi...

neonate 5y ago

https://archive.md/e0Uqk https://archive.md/e0Uqk

dang 5y ago

The wonderful Impro by Keith Johnstone has a memorable passage about Garbo, saying critics should have raved about her spine, not her face—because her instrument was really the whole body. I was inspired to look up the quote: Critics raved about her face: 'Her face, early called the face of the century, had an extraordinary plasticity, a mirrorlike quality; people could see in it their own conflicts and desires.' People who worked with her noticed that her face didn't change. Robert Taylor said: 'The muscles in her face would not move, and yet her eyes would express exactly what she needed.' Clarence Brown said: 'I have seen her change from love to hate and never alter her facial expression. I would be somewhat unhappy and take the scene again. The expression still would not change. Still unhappy, I would go ahead and say "Print it." And when I looked at the print, there it was. The eyes told it all. Her face wouldn't change but on the screen would be that transition from love to hate.' Garbo had a stand-in who was identical to her, and who was said to have 'everything that Garbo has except whatever it is Garbo has'. What Garbo had was a body that transmitted and received. It was her spine that should have been raved about: every vertebra alive and separated so that feelings flowed in and out from the centre. She responded spontaneously with emotion and warmth, and what she felt, the audience felt, yet the information transmitted by the body was perceived as emanating from the face. You can watch a marvellous actor from the back of a big theatre, his face just a microdot on the retina, and have the illusion you've seen every tiny expression. Such an actor can make a wooden Mask smile, its carved lips tremble, its painted brows narrow.

jfengel 5y ago
As an actor and director myself, I'm constantly wondering what it is that makes some actors "it" and others not. It's often my job to figure out why a performance is uninteresting and make it more interesting -- mine, or somebody else's. I have a large toolbox of tricks to apply, with varying levels of success. Yet none of it can ever do what "Stars" do. Even when stars give performances that are mediocre by every measure I know how to apply, they'll be riveting to at least some audiences. You really can see it from the back of a theater, and I have very little idea of how it works. Not quite none. I do know that it's not at all about the external features, like the spine or the eyes. We don't have anywhere near enough control over that. (Though it is fascinating to work with animators, who do have that level of control over their performances.) We actors say it comes from being "truthful" in the untruthful circumstances of the theater or the studio, though in the end that doesn't really mean very much. It's just a way of trying to get people to stop doing whatever they're doing consciously and let it happen... whatever the hell it is.
- rnd0 5y ago
  The power of suggestion, maybe? Honestly, I wonder how much of it isn't the effect of publicity affecting people's expectations? If you have two people giving the same performance who look similar but the audience for one goes in with the expectations of seeing a maestro perform and the other is just watching an unknown they would feel differently because they're carrying expectations with them that skew their view of the performance. I don't want to go too far out on a limb and say this is definitely the case; I'm not in the industry. But I was wondering about the same subject (what makes a star's performance "riveting" even in something mediocre?) and that was the best answer that I could come up with.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    I was wondering the same thing. Is it just the case that people for whatever reason see those more-familiar to them as better actors? Which also explains celebrity worship that certain people engage in, where they might go wild to see George Clooney, but would just walk right by a less-famous but equally or more skilled actor? If you took who was a hermit in Alaska with no media exposure for their entire life and showed them 3 performances from 3 different tier actors, would they actually say that the A-lister is better than the B-lister, who is better than the C-lister?

henrikschroder 5y ago

I stumbled on her grave by accident one day when I was walking through Skogskyrkogården in Stockholm where she's buried. It's well worth a visit for the architecture alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skogskyrkog%C3%A5rden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skogskyrkog%C3%A5rden