#*dead eyes

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

Have you seen Emilia's portrayal of the scene where Jorah admits he was spying on her? I just... can't... anymore. It wasn't such an complex scene to play. She just blank-looked straight to the ceiling the WHOLE time....

Hi!

Well I actually think she stepped up big time with her line delivering, but for the rest yes, I agree with you, staring at nothing, dead eyed… same old same old.

Thanks!

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

Quick question...you say that the "dead eyes" are a really bad thing about Clarke's acting. Now, how does one avoid the "dead eyes"? Sometimes a scene might require it, yeah. But, how do one knows when the scene requires it and when it doesnt? *sorry for my terrible english*

Hi anon.

Let me get something clear: the “dead eyes” I comment about her acting is her lack of connection/lack of emotion/lack of expression she has in her eyes when she does a scene in which she wants to look fearless or relentless (however she uses it for everything. To “show” fear, strength, sadness or everything really). The dead eyes are a thing she has. She expresses nothing with her eyes, she doesn’t translate the character’s emotions through them. So, when is having a lack of connection/expression/emotion is considered a requirement for the scene? N E V E R. An actor should always express emotion, especially with their eyes. The eyes are the number one aid they have imo. Now, let’s differentiate that with moments in which they have to look undaunted, or untouched by the circumstances, sort of dead and detached from everything, in which those expressionless moments are “needed” (and I say “needed” because you’ll see that in the 4th and 5th points many actors don’t use dead eyes to convey those moments). So a scene requires “dead eyes” for:

when the character is dead

when the character is catatonic or comatose (see Drogo after he gets the boo boo in his chest)

when the character is shocked by something and loses him/herself

sometimes when a character is crippled by fear too (which pretty much fits in the previous category, since the character is shocked by fear)

when the character is a white walker or a wight

For the rest is just a lazy approach of a cliched idea of how a woman in power or a ruler should be. Being undaunted doesn’t show badassey, doesn’t show power, or a fearless and decisive person. It just doesn’t. It shows nothing basically. Many would say “but I think Daenery’s ‘he was no dragon’ moment can be included in the third one”. Hmm it’s close, but the fact is that her choice in that scene is ridiculous. She seems lost but in sort of way that makes you think like she didn’t know what to do with the script’s pages, makes you think “what’s she looking at, what’s she thinking, what’s she doing, hmm umm”. She could have approached the scene a lot better making you see she was shocked by the moment and lost in that moment. Instead she took the performance and moment in a very literal way, making no subtleties where there should have been some, and where she should have toned down the undaunted a little bit, and be more convincing. Now, let’s say she gets a pass in that scene, but what about the rest of the dead eyes? She’s been using the same lazy trick since season 1, and for everything!

I think the “dead eyes” were explained once before in full detail. It’s about the actress not having a connection or strength with her eyes. She transmits nothing with them. There’s this expression that goes ‘she’s dead behind the eyes’, meaning exactly that: that there’s no emotion, no expression, nothing behind a simple look, when there should be. And for an actor that’s major. Sometimes with just a stare they can make a performance, or actually break it.

As an example of how a moment could have easily gone into dead eyes (not expressing emotion) but it didn’t, because the actor shows emotion. And this scene can clearly be compared -in acting terms- to the ‘he was no dragon moment’ one. Same focus of the camera, the moment relies on the expertise of the actor to convince the audience about the impact of the moment for the characters involved. Both scenes relied on each actor to show that: in one case Viserys is getting killed and Dany is supposed to react to it, in the other one Daenerys is raising and Viserys is supposed to react to it. While in one the actress fails to connect and transmit to the audience what her character is supposed to be feeling and what the death of her brother means for her and her journey; the actor in his scene convinces the audience about the love and respect he is seeing his sister is getting, he convinces you what that moment means for him, that he has lost hope, that what he wanted -love, fear and respect- is not something he has or he’ll ever get, and that he envies her for having those things. How he convinces the audience? By showing fear, disbelief, envy and hopelessness with just his eyes. In both cases the camera is on their faces, the moment relies on their faces, face expressions and eyes. But while one was not able to show anything with those, the other one did and was convincing.

I know this is a lot, and it’s explained in a bit of a messy way, so if you have another question or want me to clarify anything don’t hesitate to ask. Thanks!

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

Expressionless acting

Hi anon.

Many have brought up the contrast between her acting, and her demeanour and poise in interviews. I can only say that I haven't watched many of her interviews, and whatever she's like in real life, pretty much has nothing to do with how her acting is in the show. One can have an outgoing personality, but then be completely frozen and scared in front of the camera. I understand why does it bring bewilderment though. 

I agree about the regal/queen side of her character, being her weakest point. I've said it before. She can manage to be the victim, soft, young and naive girl, but she doesn't have enough strength in her performance to play the queen side of Dany. It's a choice the writers have made in the character, but she enhances that idea by not moving her face AT ALL. I think the problem with her expressionless and stiff performance has gotten worse in general this season. It's a combination between the choices made by the writers/producers with her flat performance. I think she could still show power, determination, sass, badassery, and leadership, and move her face. The script might demand for her to be all of those things, but her approach is circumscribed to aiding herself with what surrounds her: dragons, armed men, a throne with a beautiful background, and a pretty gown. So, she just stands there, or sits there, tries to look intense, raises her head and looks at her adversaries from above, as a sign of superiority, occasionally throws an attempt to make a sassy side eye, and that's all there is. The more badass and powerful she tries to act, the more she raises her eyebrows and leaves them in an non-stretchable arch, with her eyes as wide open as possible, and goes to the dead eyes gimmick, completely subtracted from what's happening in the scene. She almost looks like she's spaced out, thinking about everything else but the conversation, completely removed even from the scene, and sometimes she even looks bored or sleepy. (You can see this in the scene with the wise-master before Yunkai's invasion)

What's the overall idea the producers and directors have in mind? No idea. I think they noticed the overacting complaints, and they went in the opposite direction, asking her to be more calm, and having her do as little as possible. "Stand there and look pretty" basically. That bothers me a lot. But she should be able after 3 seasons, and other projects, to find a middle ground between the dead eyes and the overacting. The dead eyes, the expressionless and stiff performance are her choices, not the requirements of the role, just like Harington's choices are to look like a sad puppy for any scene, or to show the grimace he sports in almost every scene.

The directing is another issue in this topic. I think sometimes it's really bad, and just one time one director, Alex Graves, was able to take the "best" out of the actress, and use her mostly as a filling in her own scene. The "a dragon is no slave" scene is the one time someone achieved something good with her while being queen!Dany. If you can rewatch the scene you can notice that most of the time as she delivers her lines, the camera is pretty much focused on the Unsullied, the dragons, and the large scale production, and it's only for a few moments in which it goes back to her face (and when it did I could see the gates of qarth problems beginning to repeat itself). Even as she's riding the horse, they go on a long shot, or wide angle, not even focusing on her face. And it's when she stops talking and sees the response of the Unsullied when they go back to her(so it's like show her more when she's doing nothing). That's a job well done imo. The director worked with what the actress can offer, and she understood and offered exactly that and not more. Perhaps a tighter and more controlled directing can make these actors react better and hide what they can not accomplish. I wonder why they haven't done the same so many times before and after. Is it only worth the time when they have one big scene, so the rest doesn't matter, and who cares if she overacts or has dead eyes? Idk, but if that's their approach it certainly works. People have been raving about how good she was, when there was barely anything new, or a major improvement in her work (except for the line delivering in valyrian as I've said many times). Anyways, I think I have big issues with the lack of direction some actors get in this show.

By now show!Daenerys is portrayed as a look, an image. The image of a beautiful woman with dragons on her shoulders. And this is the choice of the writers/directors/producers. But Clarke's lack of skills certainly don't aid Daenerys' cause. If she were a better actress, she would have used little moments here and there to show it, whether the writing was good or bad. If she had been better, she would have let her skills talk, and not so much her image. If she had been better, her line delivering would sell Daenerys most dramatic moments, if she were better she would at least show a credible feared leader face. Surely there are a lot of writing issues in this show, and those take a big toll. But better actors have been able to work around those issues, and at least imprinted something in their performances and characters. Clarke is a weak actress. From overacting to dead eyes, and expressionless performances, she can't carry the weight of her character, little less the centrality of her role in the show.

Thanks, and your kind words are much appreciated! :)

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

Why do you think clarke is a bad actress?

Because of her:

overacting

dead eyes

robotic presence in camera

lack of expressions

cringe-worthy line delivering

scared and awkward body language

lack of presence to play the character

lack of range

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

Anon asking about dead eyes.

I don't mind talking about the issue, when the ask adds something to the conversation. But I can't post an ask, that has the same argument that many others did before, and that were explained, treated and discussed before.

I found your ask to be a lazy approach, if you are actually seeking for a reply. If you had really wanted to establish a good discussion about it, you could have easily gone through the tag "dead eyes", and see the examples you want, and my comments on that particular scene, and in many more.

The dead eyes is not reduced to just one scene, and if only choose to see them once, then that's your call. But if you want to have a discussion, I'm willing have it as well, as long as you check the tag, and we can establish the conversation from that point on. I don't want to post an ask that has the same comment probably other 20 asks answered have. Fight me all you want about the dead eyes, but please respect me enough to read what I wrote, before you send the ask. Not only that, but I don't want to bore me, and the people who read this blog.

And about the character preference, I think your statement let's me know, you haven't read around. Without even going through the tags, you can find in a simple "review" points against your comment, because this show has actors whose work I really like and yet the characters they are playing, I'm either indifferent to, or hate them, or simply are just there for me.

For future dead eyes special, just stay tuned. Though they're pretty obvious this season, so I don't think I need to add more to the featurette.

Thanks!

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

Gather 'round children for the tale of the "dead eyes"!

Ok, so I've noticed some people have sent some asks about the "dead eyes", and there seems to be a misunderstanding of some kind, that I never mixed but, you know... So anyway, I'll explain it here.

Answering anon, denysthebeast, and ilykdolphins.

*using queenofthemummers gif, cause I love it.

Hi.

Well what you are describing are the features (traits) of the character, more on the books, than on the show anyway, but nevertheless those are the requirements of the character. And the actress is supposed to play the role in those terms. Which is something I never denied or asked for her to overcome the flaws of her character. She has to play the character as a naive, immature and childish young girl. Now, her problem is about not matching those things with her performance, because she lacks of expression, emotion, consistency, and mostly she overacts.

My problem with her acting is not that Dany's a child who tries to act like a queen. I don't ask Emilia to act the part as she (Dany) was a queen, when the script requires the opposite.  The problem is that she can't convey a convincing scene, she can't show emotion, and when she actually is able to show it, she goes to extremes and ends up overacting. She tries to portray power, and boldness, with a set of "dead eyes", and doesn't realize is a big cliche, and lazy acting, cause she can actually show she's a woman with power, without looking completely and repeatedly undaunted, or more like a corpse, devoid of expressions. We could say the same for Harington, for example. He has to portray a character whose social status as a bastard is something he doesn't like, he has certain issues with it, and his personality is quite blue, and always feels out of place. And to do that, he just uses a pout, or a discomfort face. He doesn't actually have to do that, in order to show those features of the character. And even if he does, he doesn't have to do it all the time. Harington's repertoire of face expressions is reduced to just one.

Anyway I'll explain more with the other asks. Please don't take my third degree to be directed towards you. Just read the explanation I give. lol

 I believe it works really well, as she has shut off her emotions and becomes utterly cool as life throws her off the deep end.

I think you are taking your own interpretation of her scenes here. Which is fine, but I don’t agree. Clearly the books don’t show her as a woman who faces adversity with no expressions whatsoever. I mean, If you read it it actually says “Dany… horrified this”, or “Dany in disbelief…”. GRRM didn’t write a robot. Book!Dany actually shows something when there are moments that shock her, according to the description of the books.  Now, if the show wants her to be indifferent, cold, or relentless to some situations, that’s fine, but her performance doesn’t show that. 

The term “dead eyes” is used gently, to describe her process as an actress for the part, meaning showing no expressions. There’s a complete lack of expressions from her part. I think she has in her head, a complete wrong idea, that to show a relentlessness side of her character, for example when she finds Xaro and Doreah together, she just has to raise her head, look at them in a higher angle, with her eyes lost in the distance, having no connection with the other actors, and show nothing else. It's quite repetitive if you take a look at it.

Frankly, I can’t agree with your interpretation of what she’s doing, because basically she’s done the same for mostly everything. Someone tries to kill her, she has the same expressionless face, her husband says he will do what she wants, she has no expression, she’s opening her heart to Jorah, still nothing. And I could go on. So it’s not just when life throws her a bad situation she has to deal with.

I think it would be far too over the top and ungenuine if she did express herself more openly.

It's not about the character jumping up and down or smiling like a moron for a scene that doesn’t merit it. It’s about the actress being more expressive, and conveying a performance that doesn’t fall flat. You are mixing two things here. One is the character being colder or untouched by certain situations, and the other is the lack of ability of the actress to use her skills to portray the character giving her some sort of presence, charisma, or even credibility. She’s quite stiff, quite unsuited for the part. She can’t play the character without repeating certain tricks, she might think work.

You don’t always have to go for the most obvious thing in acting.

I frankly have no idea why people say this kind of things. Acting is acting. When actors act, they are supposed to look like they are not acting, but like they are the characters they play. They have to make you forget you are watching a show, or a movie, and be the character. She’s not doing that. What’s the “most obvious thing in acting”? Actually acting? Reminds to the defenses people used about Harignton’s acting. “Subtle” acting they say. No, darling, he’s not acting subtlety, he’s just acting badly. He resources to a pout to convey Jon Snow’s approach to everything in life. And that’s probably because he’s approaching a performance in a “too literal” way. The script said “Jon Snow is a young boy who always feels out of place, who has certain issues related to his birth and parents”, and so he decided that a way to show that it would be to just have a continuous discontent face.  Subtlety would have been not taking it too literal, and playing the actions of the character with that trait, rather than to use a pout to convey it. Clarke does the same, she knows her character has to be relentless and unforgiving at times, and fearless and disinterested other times, so she takes it to the extreme, and thinks showing no expressions is an approach to looking fearless or relentless. You can move your face, have eye contact, and reaction in your face, and still be relentless, strong, fearless, or disinterested. It's just a lazy approach, from an inexperienced actress, who falls into the cliche. She doesn’t do anything, and that’s the problem. 

If I’m sad I don’t have to burst into tears to convey it.

No of course not. You can look sad, appalled, discouraged, concerned. All things she can’t convey. And again, you are mixing things here. If the script says she has to cry to look sad, then she should. If the script says she should look concerned to express she’s sad, she should do it. It's her lack of abilities to show those emotions, that I point out. Not the fact she doesn’t cry to portray sadness. I don't demand from her to change what the script asks from the character. I ask her to have a emotions and expressions that match the situation. (e.g: a manticore attacked her, and she barely looked scared)

I find her approach refreshing and pretty creative.

Yeah, no. I think you have not seen many movies or tv shows, or probably not seeing that it's very repetitive, and rather old and lazy. If you look at it, you can find the same cliche-ish approach in mostly every actress that gets to play a super-heroine, or something of the sort. Daenerys even as cardboard cut out as she is on the show, has layers. Reducing them to just a “I will look down on you to show I’m superior”,  is lazy, a cliche, doesn’t do much for the role, and flattens the portrayal even more. 

I think you can leave this ask saying "I don't care, I don't agree", but I think the important part here is: you mixed things, <EDIT: or maybe I didn't make my point across> (things that are demanded from the character, with things she does or doesn't do to portray that), and her approach it's not refreshing or creative. There's not much art put in her performance, and the dead eyes is a go-to gimmick many actresses use badly. (Check Charlize Theron in Snowwhite and the Huntsman, and you'll see dead eyes, used a little bit better, but dead eyes nevertheless, and some overacting. Many actresses do it, so it's not refreshing or creative).

I think you could try to be more open to it.

lol. I’m sorry, I make no excuses for mediocre or bad acting. I’m not gonna give her props for doing a mediocre job, and especially not for doing her job badly. Actors who do their jobs great deserve the praise. The rest, if average, I can let it pass. But, some others do their job pretty badly on the show, and I feel no need to kiss their asses because they play the characters of the books I like.

Hey.

First, I think she's been doing average-to-ok, with some old repetitive "dead eyes" here and there, this season.

Maybe you’d enjoy it more if you weren’t so hard on her?

Again, sorry, not sorry I don’t content myself with mediocrity. 

I can still enjoy the show, even if there are things I don’t like about it. It's that so hard to understand?

And I don’t think I “go so hard on her” for pointing out she can’t give a good performance in an important role on the show.

Dany’s arc this season does seem to have a lot of potential and even of you don’t like her story, there’s plenty of eye candy what with the beautiful locations, dragons and Unsullied.

Dany’s arc on the books is great. And is not her arc I’m that concerned about. Even if her arc was as good as it was on the books, her acting could still be a problem. Season 1 had an amazing couple of scenes, and storyline from the character, still her acting left a lot to be desired. 

Yeah “eye candy, beautiful locations, dragons and Unsullied” are the reasons I watch the show. Sure thing. lol

That is pretty much settled for the masses, and it's good at distracting from the lack of plot lines and acting, but I’ll pass. Extras should not be the focus of the storyline. Yes, we can enjoy the beauty of it, but it's not the core of it, or at least it shouldn’t. I can’t remember who said it, I think it was goodkwuestion, who said 4 months ago, they were concentrated on showing beautiful scenery, and dragons, to cover up some problematic points on her scenes (not just in her scenes to be honest). I remember agreeing and totally thinking alike. And voilá, here it is. And it has proven to be effective, this ask is a total validation of it. And it shows people confuse the acting, with what the scenes is about, the acting with the marvelous presentation (scenery, dragons, grand scale production) it has, and acting with writing. You can still enjoy all of those things, and separate the acting, whether is good or bad, from it. 

I prefer substance over pretty. Damn me. 

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

Okay, I have a theory: So if you watch an interview with Emilia, you'll see she is naturally over-expressive (eyebrows all over the place...). She can't help but carry that into Khaleesi, /except/ when she's consciously aware of her overexpression, and she tries to suppress it which ends up looking straight-up unnatural (i.e dead eyes). So it's not because she *over*acts, it's because she doesn't at all know how to *under*act.

Ok… So, she overacts (cause that’s who she is), cause she can’t underact= Therefore she just overacts!

I think there’s not much science in it. Whether it’s underacting or overacting, that’s not good acting. And there’s nothing else to it.

If she can’t make a performance controlling her reactions, her expressions, her body language, and herself, then I can only say she’s not acting, or is acting badly. Cause basically the 4 things I listed, are pretty much basic requirements for acting.

I understand what you tried to say here, but if she can’t control her own expressions, then I have no idea what she pretended to do when studying acting. And it’s not just about her eyebrows getting all crazy (cause personally I don’t find that to be one of her problems, or maybe that’s the least problematic part of her performance). Her overacting is about everything she does in the scene, from the pitch of her voice, to the way she delivers her lines, to the intensity in her face, to the expressions she uses to convey the character’s mood. None of those things are on point in her performance, therefore, she just ends up going from “dead eyes” to overacting.

thanks.

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

Okay, so I rewatched episode commentaries for season one and according to Dan or David (I think they're the same person sometimes) the reason the Targaryen's don't have purple eyes is because they found that the contacts were a hindrance and gave them dead eyes. I have nothing else to say.

I know, I know. haha

Some anon said it here before. It’s freaking ironic!