
James Earl Jones Saves the Play - ingve
http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2019/02/James-Earl-Jones-Saves-the-Play.html
======
watersb
Sometimes people giggle when they feel emotionally overwhelmed. It is often
taken as an inappropriate response, which an experienced actor has probably
encountered. A number of times, in a rehearsal of an intense scene, we would
all lose it like that. You learn to work through it as you develop a sense of
your character's role in the whole process of storytelling.

(Some HN readers may not recognize the name of the author, Charles Petzold. He
wrote many crucial Windows programming books, most notably the first standard
tome of Win32 development. Our instructor referred to Windows UI programming
as "the Petzoldy stuff".

------
hirundo
So he "saves the play" by threatening physical violence against girls in the
audience who laughed at the wrong time. I'm having a hard time interpreting
this as a fine moment for this fine actor.

~~~
ken
He's an actor on stage, and saying a line in character. It may have shocked
them for a moment, but nobody who's been in a theatre before should believe
that he's _actually_ threatening violence.

When a character holding a rifle prop points the barrel out into the house, do
you think the audience believes their lives are actually being threatened?

~~~
macintux
There’s a qualitative difference between a general threat that’s part of the
play and singling someone out for a threat based on their behavior.

If he had, say, climbed off stage and walked towards them menacingly, that too
would be acceptable as part of the scripted play yet more disturbing if done
impromptu as a response to the audience members’ behavior.

I think what he did is fine, but I don’t think your analogy is a strong one.

Edit: minor wording

~~~
coldtea
> _There’s a qualitative difference between a general threat that’s part of
> the play and singling someone out for a threat based on their behavior._

And both are OK if that someone is behaving like a jerk.

Beyond some point even actual violence is OK.

~~~
chrisseaton
> Beyond some point even actual violence is OK.

For behaving like a jerk? That's bonkers.

~~~
coldtea
Really? I'm pretty sure most resort to actual violence after the jerkish
behavior extends a threshold.

Where do you cut the "jerk behavior" threshold? Someone skipping a queue?
Smoking in a closed office?

It could get way worse... How about someone hitting badly on your wife with
you and your kids present and no taking no for an answer (and them knowing it
you're married?)

~~~
chrisseaton
No you can only use physical violence in defence of yourself or others against
imminent physical harm. I think in the US you can also use it against someone
in your home (presumably because by the time in your home you are otherwise
defenceless.) Anything else is you just assaulting someone and puts you in the
wrong. The law doesn't allow for 'they were winding me up' as a reason to
assault someone. I can't believe anyone would think violence was warranted for
skipping a queue or speaking to someone in a way you didn't like.

~~~
coldtea
> _No you can only use physical violence in defence of yourself or others
> against imminent physical harm._

That's legally. I wasn't talking about legally -- but about what people will
actually do beyond some point, legal implications or not.

~~~
macintux
And “OK” is how you described violence in the absence of a genuine threat,
which is not an objective statement of “what people will actually do” but a
subjective endorsement.

