| Welcome to SmallvilleNews. We hope you enjoy your visit. |
| Writing/acting | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sat Sep 11, 2004 2:30 pm (134 Views) | |
| Renee | Sat Sep 11, 2004 2:30 pm Post #1 |
![]()
Don't mess with JS
|
Here's something I'd like to get everyone's opinion on: Which contributes more to the character of Jonathan -- the writing or the acting? Now, I once would have considered that a silly question. All those lines we love in the "favorite Jonathan quotes" thread were made up by the writers -- they didn't come out of JS's head. It's the writers who decide his storylines, how he'll react to a certain situation, etc. So I would have just automatically said, "The writing." But I've been reading some things lately that have started to make me wonder. (This is going to be a bit long, I'm afraid! If you don't want to read all the quotes, but would like to offer an opinion anyway, just skip them.) *** Exhibit A, from Zap2it.com: "For example, when Perry White comes to the farm, he's obviously coming to talk to Clark, because he had an accident, and Clark saved him," Schneider says. "So I read the script, it had him coming there, and I stayed back. I said, 'No, I can't do that.' They said, 'What do you mean?' 'Jonathan would not do that. If somebody comes to the farm to talk to Clark, Jonathan's going to be there. Jonathan Kent is not going to let you wander onto his farm.' So that was changed, just as we did it. "The poor new director comes in and says, 'Just at the end, I want you to turn and look at Clark.' I said, 'I realize that when I do that, that's your pickup on Clark, but if my guy turns to look at somebody, it's understood that I'm looking for approval. I don't want his approval; I don't need his approval; and I'm not going to look at him.' "That's what's so different about 'Smallville,' is the parents are parents that love their child, but we don't need his approval. We don't need his understanding. He is our child. That's the great thing about Jonathan and Martha. I don't need her approval, either, and she doesn't need mine. "If you talk to Annette, this happened just the other day. Another director said, 'After this, I want you to look at Jonathan.' She said, 'Why would I look at Jonathan?' 'To see if he agrees.' 'I don't care if he agrees.' And I said, 'Absolutely. There's no reason she would look at me.' And Annette said, 'That way, when I do look at him, it'll mean more.' *** Exhibit B, from "TV Guide": Monday, March 10, 2003 Ask Matt by Matt Roush Question: I am curious as to your opinion of John Schneider's portrayal of Jonathan Kent on WB's Smallville. Many fans on the Internet express serious dissatisfaction and frank annoyance with Clark's father, a position I think is somewhat unfair. Granted, Jonathan is often regulated to spouting homegrown platitudes that would make Norman Rockwell roll his eyes. Nevertheless, I think Schneider's work is skillful, if ultimately thankless. Jonathan Kent has the unenviable task of raising a person of unfathomable power and protecting him from those who would exploit him mercilessly, a list which might include his friend Lex Luthor. Schneider (and Annette O'Toole as Martha Kent) subtly conveys the truth that ultimately, Jonathan and Martha could never really control their son. They only can provide him with the love and moral foundation to use his powers benevolently. Jonathan's strict parenting may be off-putting to viewers, but is necessary when dealing with an unstoppable force. As much as I liked Christopher Reeve's appearance in the Feb. 25 episode, I thought the best part was when Jonathan convinced Clark that despite the instructions from his biological father, he would not grow up to conquer the world. After saying this, however, we see Jonathan hug his son to hide his worried expression, as if his worst fears had been confirmed. — Steve Matt: Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. I couldn't agree more. For a former Duke of Hazzard, Schneider is bringing unexpected depth and warmth to what you rightly describe as a somewhat thankless and formulaic role. He's the ultimate WB dad: as telegenic as the youngsters while providing an adult grounding that the show would otherwise sorely miss. *** Exhibit C, from the "Smallville Yearbook": "Jonathan Kent has flaws," [Miles] Millar says. "He's an angry guy, who's somewhat bitter. But deep down he has very good values and deeply loves his family, and he's got unbelievable integrity. Clark's brought up in a very loving environment. It's often tough love as well." *** So given all this, how would you answer my question? I'm not quite sure myself, but I'm beginning to think that perhaps JS brought more -- and different -- qualities to the role that were originally intended, and that the writers have adjusted accordingly. Because Jonathan as an angry and somewhat bitter guy? I don't think so!! (Of course, it wouldn't be the first case of an author not understanding his own fictional character! Shaw's "Pygmalion" is a famous example.) I'd be particularly interested in opinions from those who've met JS personally -- I know we have at least two here on the board -- and are perhaps a little more qualified to judge. (I've already gotten the impression that the familiar hand-on-the-shoulder gesture is one thing that's taken from real life.) But I'd like to hear what everyone else has to say, too. And finally, thanks for putting up with my ramblings! :) This is a question that's been raised about other actors and characters on the show -- chiefly Kristin/Lana -- but I haven't seen it raised about John/Jonathan, so I thought it might make a good discussion topic. |
![]() |
|
| Smallvillian | Sun Sep 12, 2004 5:30 am Post #2 |
![]()
Jonathan's Lady
|
Well. I have to say it's the actor. 1) He has some terribly hokey lines that he has to make you believe seems natural, which he does, IMO 2) He seems to work hard at understanding Jonathan and knowing why he does what he does. To me, it shows care for the character and the craft where most people a lot of people show up and "do the lines." As an X-files fan, I can tell you, we wish this were the case for those characters. The main characters were often made to do things and act in ways that were obviously *not* consistent nor did they make any sense at all. I only wish they had faught as hard as JS does for his character who--while he doesn't get as much screen time as many characters, is hugely important as the male figure in Clark's life, and he gets that and takes it seriously. |
![]() |
|
| Renee | Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:03 pm Post #3 |
![]()
Don't mess with JS
|
I think you have a point there. And another discrepancy just came to mind -- something that I noticed near the end of season 3. Remember Martha in "Truth" telling Chloe that Jonathan had been "depressed and angry"? That made me a little bit apprehensive about what was going to happen when he came back. And then in "Talisman," he wasn't angry at all. In fact, I remember us having a little celebration in this forum because he seemed so normal again -- sad, yes, but not withdrawn from his family the way he was in "Legacy." Same goes for "Forsaken" -- no anger there, even though he was having a disagreement with Clark. And even in "Legacy" and "Covenant," when he did have angry moments, the anger was directed more at himself (well, and Lionel too) then at anyone else. So it's just possible, I think, that again JS may have put in his oar and taken the character in a slightly different direction than the writers were originally thinking about. (And I'm sure it didn't hurt that he got to direct "Talisman.") |
![]() |
|
| Oieura | Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:09 pm Post #4 |
|
Resident
|
After thinking about this for a long time, I agree - I think the acting contributes the most. I wasn't sure I could answer this one because I feel like i'm too biased to be objective. And I'm not sure meeting him helped in making the decision. Who else has met him Renee? |
![]() |
|
| Renee | Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:37 pm Post #5 |
![]()
Don't mess with JS
|
Someone here said she got to talk to him once a long time ago, when he was making a personal appearance somewhere -- I believe it was Snarky. I think I see what you mean about having trouble being objective. I had been speculating that maybe watching his mannerisms and the way he talks and acts in real life might help show how much of himself he puts into the character. But yes, now I think about it, I can see how being a fan for a long time -- and having met him -- might bias one in his favor. :D |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The LJLS Forum · Next Topic » |








8:14 AM Jul 11