A list of the not-so-good B5 Episodes

[Ninja_Squirrel]

On cringe moments, directing vs. acting vs. writing ....
I can very easily see your point about the directing. However, from my immediate reactions, the worst cringe moment in an otherwise good episode..... When Ivanova brings Sheridan the data crystal with the video of the civilian transport being destroyed, I just never bought CC's performance of the moment. It always felt forced, like was "showing the audiance" that she was extremely angry instead of just being extrememly angry. I don't quite know how to explain it. The moment just didn't work at all for me.

I agree. I wouldn't say it's the worst cringe moment of all, but that snippet of a scene doesn't work well for me either. One problem with it is she starts being incomprehensibly furious, then has to calm down enough to verbalize what's going on on the screen, then tries to justify what the destroyers did as following orders. You're right; it's like she's was *showing* anger rather than acting like she *was* angry.

-----

And as far as TKO & Grail, while I like those stories more than most people, I think there may have been some editing boo-boos here and there in those two episodes, IIRC.

 

[Recoil]

I do think the biggest cringe moment for me is Lyta talking about she thinks she is a good liar and when she gets back she is gonna sue somebody, she doesnt know who, but she is gonna sue SOMEBODY.

That whole scene started good. The interaction with Garibaldi and Franklin about the "who sipped" was amusing and they carried it well. But that whole ending dialogue coupled with Pat Tallman not really nailing the already poor dialogue just made that scene AWFUL. Started out so well...but...eww.

 

[PillowRock]

from my immediate reactions, the worst cringe moment in an otherwise good episode.....

I agree. I wouldn't say it's the worst cringe moment of all,

No, it's not the worst of all. But the ones that are worse tend to be in episodes that are generally considered weaker (at least from what is coming to me off hand). That one takes place during an episode that is in the middle of the major arc stuff that is what is generally pointed to first as being the best of the show (even if it is after the Shadows and Vorlons leave). In fact that very moment is a big one in the arc. I think it is the placement and timing of that particular "cringe" that makes jump so far up my personal list of "cringe momnets".


While the Lyta gonna-sue-somebody bit is not one that I would ever point to as a piece of exemplary acting, it never bugged me the way it does many people. Quite possibly this is for the inverse of the reasoning mentioned above. It isn't a particularly important moment. It is basically a throw-away bit of comic relief. In that role, if it breaks the tension of the larger plot it has done its primary job. If it ellicits a chuckle then it has actually succeeeded (and I must admit that I did chuckle at it the first time I saw it). I didn't find it to be *so* out of character for Lyta that it totally broke the illusion for me, which would be the one unforgivable sin for a throw-away bit like that (which I understand is a reaction that some people had to it).

 

[Elric]

I do think the biggest cringe moment for me is Lyta talking about she thinks she is a good liar and when she gets back she is gonna sue somebody...

I agree - that bit really ruined it for me too. I think it went on too long, they should have cut it after she said "What do you mean I'm a good liar".

However, it made my girlfriend laugh. Like many things, I guess it is a matter of perspective!

 

[A_M_Swallow]

I do think the biggest cringe moment for me is Lyta talking about she thinks she is a good liar and when she gets back she is gonna sue somebody...

I agree - that bit really ruined it for me too. I think it went on too long, they should have cut it after she said "What do you mean I'm a good liar".

Lyta said she was a bad liar, its Garibaldi that said she was a good liar.

Lyta was objecting to being called a liar. IMHO she was also showing her true nature - the ultimate war machine, whose instinct is to fight. Normally she hides this but she was nervous prior to the raid.

The big lie being what she is. Calling Sheridan's War Telekinetic a P5 commercial telepath is in the same category as calling Superman a reporter named Clerk Kent.

 

[colonyearth]

As for Ivanova's anger when she tells Sheridan about the EA attacks on civilians: Yes, you are right that her performance is over the top instead of subtle, which would have made the scene much more powerful. However, I have seen CC perform "subtle" and therefore know she could've done that scene a thousand times better. I blame the director for that scene. You have to realize how much is in the control of the director and his vision. The director tells them how bold or quiet to be. How to play the scene. That scene was well written and had an actor capable of acting the hell out of it (watch her scene after Marcus dies to save her for an example). As a director...I see when the director drops the ball more often than the average viewer. Again...watch "Mulholland Drive" and see how the same director can direct an actor in two vastly different ways on the same dialogue. It's on eye-opener for those who don't know how it all works and the power a director has over an actor's performance. Remember, it's ultimately the director's vision...his pacing...his timing...his energy level...his loud...his quiet. That's why you hear so many actors talk about trusting their director. No...I blame that moment on the director...not the script...not the actors...CC would've had no power to tell the director she thought he was wrong in how to play the scene. He is...in effect...her boss.

As for Lyta's "sue somebody" moment...again...direction. It's all in how you play it...especially comedy.

My older brother is a Jeff recommended Chicago theatre director...he's been critically acclaimed for his talents, and his biggest problem with B5 and why he has trouble watching the series (even though he likes SF), is because of what he calls "the horrible direction."

And though I love B5 more than any other SF I've ever seen, I often times think to myself that B5 moved me, changed me...inspired me, despite the terrible directing...and that is because of JMS's wonderful writing which so often manages to transcend the bad and limited job done by the directors.

CE

 

[GKarsEye]

I'm trying to think exactly which part of Mullholland Drive you're talking about (it's my favorite modern film). Is it Betty auditioning? First practicing with Rita, then during the actual audition? That's the only part of the movie I can think of where a character repeats the same dialogue, but the director in that scene was comically inept, and it was all about how Betty was able to play the scene (that was the whole point- she's much more talented actress in her fantasies than in real life).


Ok, anyway, how the hell can anyone not like Intersections in Real Time? Wow, holy wow.

That, and Here Comes the Inquisitor, are basically stage plays. In most other shows this wouldn't work, but B5 is so theatrical that it's perfect here. That's one aspect of B5 I love that isn't talked about- some of it so BIG- the characters, the dialogue (I mean, who the hell would actually talk like G'Kar?), creating this unbelievably rich color to the whole production. With these two eps, the cast is scaled back to one or two main characters and a guest (both involving Sheridan, in a criminally underrated performance by Boxleitner, who is fantastic throughout the series but is overshadowed by Katsulis and Jurassik). IIRT gets the edge because the empty room and the more realistic nature of the situation make it more creepy, but both are endlessly rewatchable, if just for the performances. The interrogator in IIRT makes me think of Eichmann- a vicious son of a bitch, but it's all "just a job," and when he goes home he's probably a sweet guy and a good family man. That is the scariest thing.

The enemy in IIRT is a regular guy, who is just part of the System, given orders by the System, working for the System. It can happen, it has happened. Shadows and Vorlons are all very cool, but not nearly as scary as this.

And then the Drazi thing- the emotional rolloer coaster of Sheridan convincing him resist, then the heartbreak of the action, then the double-whammy if it all being for nought. JMS is a sick bastard to come up with that.

So, my concluding thesis is that it's freaking awesome.

Now Grail, there is a crumby episode if I ever saw one. Yes, I can kind of appreciate the concept behind a "seeker" or whatever, but for chissake, he's looking for a freakin' cup. Ugh.

TKO was like Bloodsport, but without the fun of a bad Belgian actor fighting a Chinese body builder blindly.
"This is for you, Shidoshi!"

Infection was not terrible, just bad compared to the greatness of later episodes. It was just kinda... bleh.

Some of the early season 2 stuff isn't very exciting, like them saving the ship in hyperspace.

I have a fondness for Day of the Dead, A View From the Gallery, The Corps Is Mother, etc. I only wish they had done these in season 4, spacing them in the Big Arc stuff instead of clumping them together. This is probably a result of the TNT/PTEN shenanigans, but there it is.

 

[MrFlibble]

I've never considered Babylon 5 to be badly directed before, though to be honest I find it hard to distinguish between the writing, acting or directing as to which is responsible for a bad scene. Aside from the ones already mentioned I can't really think of any notable cringe worthy moments but can think of loads of outstanding performances and scenes. So could you perhaps be a bit more specific as to why you think the direction is so bad?

 

[PillowRock]

I know that directors have a great influance on a performance. So do editors. My impression from what I have read was that JMS kept more control of the final cut than is typical and therefore somewhat reduced the impact of the directors on B5.

Granted, that the final cut still has to be made up from the options that the director shoots.

The thing is:
It's not *just* that the director had her do bombastic anger instead of subtle anger. It is also that I didn't believe the bombast either. You could argue that a good director should have seen that this reading wasn't working on the day and shot a version with a different reading. I won't argue against that point. However, the fact remains that CC's performance wasn't just not the optimal reading, it was not believable in the reading that she was doing.

You are right that we have seen her do some pretty subtle stuff. We've seen her do grief a couple times with very different shadings. She is absolutely wonderful at sarcastic. She has good comic timing. We've seen her angered and, on a fewer occassions, scared in fight-or-flight situations that were light on dialog and heavy on reaction. We've even seen her deliver speeches with a long simmering but now outwardly calm anger behind them.

What I can't think of a good example of her performing is really verbalizing to a third party (rather than attacking, and even the attacks tend to be short and quick) with a freshly antagonized sense of extreme anger / outrage. That is the one time that I can think of that she was called upon to try that particular combination, and her perfomance (albeit with that direction) didn't cut it for me. The director calling for a quieter, subtler reading may well have been better; but I have no doubt that AK or PJ cuold done a better job with that scene with the direction to do it the way that CC was directed to do it.

That's not necessarily an indictment of CC. Every actor does some things better or more easily than other things. Based on what little evidene I have, that particular combination of rage and verbalization is a hard one for her; one that Jurasik and Katsulas do better than she does. I have also seen her give some reaction shots where I don't think AK or PJ would have done quite as well with the combination of subtleties present.

 

[colonyearth]

Look...both of you...it's something you learn to see into when you learn, study and practice the art of directing/acting/writing.

Believe me...I'm also an editor...the post isn't the problem...the actors have the ability...the writer is very talented...more than most in existance today...the direction throughout B5 is probably (next to really bad day-players) the weakest link in the chain. They have their moments...but more often they missed moments where they could've made things more powerful or touching or real.

Argue with me all you want...but trust me...it's the direction...more than any other thing.

Old Mighty...yes, it is the audition scene, from her performance practicing with her friend and then for the director...two completely different levels and meanings from the exact same lines of dialogue. And the director I'm referring to there is Lynch and how he, as a director, instructed her so completely differently in each of the versions of the scene she was reading...thus showing how the same lines can be completely different when directed differently.

CE

 

[GKarsEye]

Oh, duh, yes, Lynch, not a character who plays a director... oops.

If you want to blame directors for the bad moments, credit them for the good ones- all of IIRT, the many awesome speeches, every freakin' moment on Mars, etc and so forth. Many more of those than clunkers. If the directors were weak, the show would suck, despite the good writing and actors.

And I know this is B5 heresy, but I just never really liked Claudia Christian much as an actress. I know she tried, and for that and her being a major part of my favorite show I respect her and occassionally do enjoy her, but she just doesn't engage me. With her (and Pat Tallman) I always feel like I'm watching minor actors in roles that are too big for them.

 

[Recoil]

...especially when paired with Peter Jurasik, Andreas, Bruce, Wayne Alexander, and many others that stepped up HUGE in their roles...

 

[colonyearth]

I did not say that the directors are totally to blame, I just think they are the weakest link. Every director has his day and some actors work better with some directors than others, some directors communicate better with one actor than another. And some actors can shine regardless.

CC has her moments...that weren't one of 'em. But the director could've found the best way to work within her abilities to make the scene better and more believable and impactful. Sometimes you have to change the recipe to make the cake sweeter. A good director knows this.

CE

 

[Jade Jaguar]

All in all, I think the direction on B5 was rather good for TV, with Michael Vejar, and Janet Greek being my favorites. I don't really watch much network TV, because the direction, acting, and writing are all pretty bad, stale, trite, etc., IMHO. I'm not saying it always worked, or couldn't be improved, but for TV, was often first rate. I don't expect the likes of Fellini, Lynch, Huston, or Welles on made-for-TV fare. Except for a couple of eps of Twin Peaks, of course...

Actually, I agree with you, GKE. I think Claudia was easily the weakest actor of the principals. I liked her, and she did some things well, but often only adequate.

 

[PillowRock]

Actually, I agree with you, GKE. I think Claudia was easily the weakest actor of the principals. I liked her, and she did some things well, but often only adequate.

It always seemed to me that CC as SI was a case of casting an actor whose strengths and tendancies fit with the character, without having to re-mold herself too much. Most of the time I really liked her as Ivanova, because most of the time what the role called for fit her (and like I said before, she is really very good at "sarcastic", which plays very well in a lot of Ivanova material). There were a few times when she gave a performance that was outside those normal tendancies which was stronger. CE cited her scene with Richard Biggs after Marcus' death, and I think that is one such scene. How much that was CC just having a good day and how much it was a director coaxing a performance out of an actor is something that I will probably never know.

However, when it comes to being a consistently versatile, completely rounded actor she is not the equal of several others who have been mentioned.


A couple of CE's posts sorta came off sounding like a director making poor choices for scene immediately negated any possibility of an actor bearing any responsibility for further worsening things with their performance. I don't believe this. I agree that the director could have made better choices for the scene in question. I "strongly agree" that a good director should have seen that the way they were doing it wasn't working and that something else should have been tried.

On the hand, in the director's defense: Remembering the talk about "guerilla TV production", and that that was a long-ish scene .... I don't know that they had enough time in their shooting schedule for reworking the scene after seeing what the performance of his original idea looked like. It may not have been even a theoretical possibility to re-work the scene at that point.