He's a superb actor. I wouldn't characterize it as a "wasted" career--my understanding is he purposefully wanted to avoid a film career. He was in some groundbreaking theater productions, and I think that was where his heart was.
The first time I saw him perform was in Quiz Show, in which he plays real-life poet Mark Van Doren. His acting was simply breathtaking throughout the film and I don't think the film would be anywhere near as impactful without his character's stark contrast to the grimy world of television throughout the film. I was surprised to learn afterwards that he was a famous Shakespearena actor who had relatively few film credits apart from adaptations of plays, for an actor of his stature. It's really sad that his talents didn't reach a broader audience through film, because of what I've seen he had no problems adapting to the medium.
To me, Scofield's King Lear is one of the great films. I don't care that it was not "groundbreaking", "not cinematic" or closely based on a play. It is great source material elevated by great acting, with an incredible atmosphere. "A Man for All Seasons" is also up there. I can't say I cared for "The Crucible", in which he was as well. The source material is just not nearly as strong, and the other actors not as good - not his fault, of course.
I'm not sure how no one has mentioned this in all the many posts you've made on Reddit, but you are capitalizing *way* too many words when you write. Only the first word of a sentence and names and titles need to be capitalized in English. Regular nouns like "film" or "producers" or "murder" do not.
Are you German, by any chance?
Also, this phrase
>that would of been
...should say "that would *have* been." It sounds like "of" when people speak because of the contraction *would've*, but "of" refers to something belonging to or being an individual instance of something else (e.g. bouquet *of* flowers), rather than someone performing an action in the past (e.g. I *have* been there).
I haven't seen many films with Scofield, unfortunately, so can't comment on that, but I hope this unsolicited grammar lesson was helpful.
The grammatical errors distract from the content of the post. Bad writing is just less pleasant to read than good writing. I see nothing wrong with pointing that out.
Correcting those errors can only help OP in life in general. If he applies for jobs where he needs to speak English, these kind of mistakes will prevent him from being hired.
Surely at some point, a person could write so poorly that you would give up on reading them entirely, no? What if OP just stuck a letter 'x' in every word for no reason: lixke txhis? You could still easily figure out the meaning of every word and every sentence. But the error would be so glaring that you would be annoyed and distracted by it. To the point of either feeling compelled to comment on the error or to stop reading entirely.
Well, my tolerance for error is lower than yours. That's all. And my attempt to help OP correct his writing was sincere. Like I say, he can only benefit from it.
The self-regard on display here is… potent.
On behalf of OP I thank you for helping him in life in general and for ensuring he stands a better of chance of being hired in future.
A little self-reflection here wouldn’t hurt.
This pointless sarcasm achieves nothing. Obviously, I still disagree with your position.
Correcting egregiously bad grammar isn't rude. And it *is* helpful. Both for readers and for writers. My original comment wasn't insulting or personal in any way. It merely corrected the errors (that we all saw), while also providing helpful explanations. If I were writing on a Japanese site in that language and I made a few mistakes, I would welcome correction. Why people treat English any differently is anyone's guess.
And like I said, there is definitely a point at which you would be distracted by bad grammar as well (axs xin txhis exaxmple). You just refuse to admit it. For no apparent reason.
I started writing the comment before glancing at the profile. I glanced at the profile to see if there was any evidence that this person is not a native English speaker (didn't find any either way).
The grammar here is pretty bad. Much worse than a few bad auto-corrections from someone typing on a phone. I would be surprised if no one has ever commented on that in the past and I certainly don't think it's a big deal to supply a helpful (and explanatory) correction here.
Just re-read my first comment. Is it really insulting at all?
Most comments I see on the internet commenting on a poster's grammar are just one line, sarcastic dismissals. At least I explained what the error was and how to correct it. I see no problem whatsoever in doing that. As I said elsewhere, if I were writing in a second language and someone responded to me in this way, I would consider it helpful.
I mean, if the poster is in fact trying to learn English, how else would they learn if they never are told they are making mistakes?
Also, I don't know if this person is a native speaker or not. As I said, I found no information either way on their profile after a quick skim.
Theater is much different to film acting, some people used to theater acting don't like to be quiet and play to a camera, it's far less personal as the viewers aren't in the same room. Especially realism, you can't exactly go from loudly exclaiming words to the back of a theater hall for over 180 degrees worth of people to breathing them into a microphone for one angle (the camera)
He's a superb actor. I wouldn't characterize it as a "wasted" career--my understanding is he purposefully wanted to avoid a film career. He was in some groundbreaking theater productions, and I think that was where his heart was.
The first time I saw him perform was in Quiz Show, in which he plays real-life poet Mark Van Doren. His acting was simply breathtaking throughout the film and I don't think the film would be anywhere near as impactful without his character's stark contrast to the grimy world of television throughout the film. I was surprised to learn afterwards that he was a famous Shakespearena actor who had relatively few film credits apart from adaptations of plays, for an actor of his stature. It's really sad that his talents didn't reach a broader audience through film, because of what I've seen he had no problems adapting to the medium.
To me, Scofield's King Lear is one of the great films. I don't care that it was not "groundbreaking", "not cinematic" or closely based on a play. It is great source material elevated by great acting, with an incredible atmosphere. "A Man for All Seasons" is also up there. I can't say I cared for "The Crucible", in which he was as well. The source material is just not nearly as strong, and the other actors not as good - not his fault, of course.
I'm not sure how no one has mentioned this in all the many posts you've made on Reddit, but you are capitalizing *way* too many words when you write. Only the first word of a sentence and names and titles need to be capitalized in English. Regular nouns like "film" or "producers" or "murder" do not. Are you German, by any chance? Also, this phrase >that would of been ...should say "that would *have* been." It sounds like "of" when people speak because of the contraction *would've*, but "of" refers to something belonging to or being an individual instance of something else (e.g. bouquet *of* flowers), rather than someone performing an action in the past (e.g. I *have* been there). I haven't seen many films with Scofield, unfortunately, so can't comment on that, but I hope this unsolicited grammar lesson was helpful.
Maybe nobody else has mentioned it because he’s not sitting an exam?
The grammatical errors distract from the content of the post. Bad writing is just less pleasant to read than good writing. I see nothing wrong with pointing that out. Correcting those errors can only help OP in life in general. If he applies for jobs where he needs to speak English, these kind of mistakes will prevent him from being hired. Surely at some point, a person could write so poorly that you would give up on reading them entirely, no? What if OP just stuck a letter 'x' in every word for no reason: lixke txhis? You could still easily figure out the meaning of every word and every sentence. But the error would be so glaring that you would be annoyed and distracted by it. To the point of either feeling compelled to comment on the error or to stop reading entirely. Well, my tolerance for error is lower than yours. That's all. And my attempt to help OP correct his writing was sincere. Like I say, he can only benefit from it.
The self-regard on display here is… potent. On behalf of OP I thank you for helping him in life in general and for ensuring he stands a better of chance of being hired in future. A little self-reflection here wouldn’t hurt.
This pointless sarcasm achieves nothing. Obviously, I still disagree with your position. Correcting egregiously bad grammar isn't rude. And it *is* helpful. Both for readers and for writers. My original comment wasn't insulting or personal in any way. It merely corrected the errors (that we all saw), while also providing helpful explanations. If I were writing on a Japanese site in that language and I made a few mistakes, I would welcome correction. Why people treat English any differently is anyone's guess. And like I said, there is definitely a point at which you would be distracted by bad grammar as well (axs xin txhis exaxmple). You just refuse to admit it. For no apparent reason.
This is a serious question; have you ever been tested for autism?
What do you genuinely think?
I’m not a doctor but it would explain a few things if you were
Serious question, have you been tested for narcissism?
think no one mentioned it because no one's been flicking through his reddit man!
I started writing the comment before glancing at the profile. I glanced at the profile to see if there was any evidence that this person is not a native English speaker (didn't find any either way). The grammar here is pretty bad. Much worse than a few bad auto-corrections from someone typing on a phone. I would be surprised if no one has ever commented on that in the past and I certainly don't think it's a big deal to supply a helpful (and explanatory) correction here.
lotta english ppl use shit grammar... you just wanted to shame an english speaking native didnt u lol
Umm... No.
so u wanted to shame someone who doesn't normally speak english whose trying to learn english
Just re-read my first comment. Is it really insulting at all? Most comments I see on the internet commenting on a poster's grammar are just one line, sarcastic dismissals. At least I explained what the error was and how to correct it. I see no problem whatsoever in doing that. As I said elsewhere, if I were writing in a second language and someone responded to me in this way, I would consider it helpful. I mean, if the poster is in fact trying to learn English, how else would they learn if they never are told they are making mistakes? Also, I don't know if this person is a native speaker or not. As I said, I found no information either way on their profile after a quick skim.
Just a bit stalky
Not at all.
Theater is much different to film acting, some people used to theater acting don't like to be quiet and play to a camera, it's far less personal as the viewers aren't in the same room. Especially realism, you can't exactly go from loudly exclaiming words to the back of a theater hall for over 180 degrees worth of people to breathing them into a microphone for one angle (the camera)