Kate wrote:
> Saw Ripley yesterday. Although leisurely, it never
dragged for me.
> Terrific evocation of period and place. However,
there were things that
> bothered me -- a minor one was that in some scenes,
there was no glass in
> Ripley's eyeglasses, but in other scenes, there was.
Very distracting,
> when it would have been much better to be
consistent. And furthermore,
> they were a Clark Kentish sort of prop, since he
didn't seem to need them
> in the scenes where he didn't wear them.
Actors who need to wear glasses on film often get (or are
provided) lenses with a non-reflective coating. Although
there is always some reflection, the glare is cut so far down
that from many angles it looks as if there is no glass in the
frames. Angles with brighter or multi-source lighting have a
greater chance of revealing the glare in the glass.
Also, as a person who wears glasses to read and see
television and road signs, but who can get along pretty well
without them if need be, I saw no particular problem with
Ripley using/not using his specs. As an actor, I rarely ever
work with mine, and as long as I don't need to read
something, I manage pretty well. I had no trouble imagining
what things looked like to Ripley when he had his glasses
off, as I spend a lot of time with mine off.
Jim
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07 Jan 2000 EST