Lol, this is why this thread kicks ass.
:lol: that she had no clue her show just reached 150th episode.
That doesn't surprise me at all considering she acts like the show is nothing but a paycheck to her. Every time she opens her mouth in an interview she just proves even more how she just doesn't give a damn. The only difference between her and her character that she give is that they have different professions. Anna grew up in Maine and Lindsay is supposed to be a country girl from Montana. I'm going under the wild assumption that Anna didn't witness the senseless slaughter of several of her friends as a teenager either. Yet she plays herself. That's not acting, that's not giving a damn about your character or the show. If CBS isn't going to fire her, which they're obviously not going to do, they should at least have a clause in her contract forbidding her to do interviews. She comes off as a big schmuck every time she gives one.
I wish I could write that clause in myself for some actors on this show, but that's beside my point. I'm fairly sure no one holds a gun to their heads and makes them do interviews, and if Anna really didn't give a damn she wouldn't do them, period. But fans like getting insights from the actors they like into the characters they like, or just enjoy hearing what they say; I would imagine that's why she does interviews. She's identified the way she imagines (and thereby plays) Lindsay through herself in previous interviews, and while I know nothing about effective acting techniques, it made sense to me -- and definitely comes across effectively on-screen.
...Also, someone
please tell me which NY episode was the 50th, or the 150th? (Although I think that latter one's probably on me, I haven't gotten much chance to pay attention to what's going on with the show this season - but as far as I know, they didn't make a big thing about it.) I'd get the argument if she hadn't noticed the 100th or 200th episode going by, but...
Top41 said:
Where else would the reporter have gotten that but from her?
It's an interview. And like you said, if the reporter had looked online, she would have seen Anna was born in '72... which makes her 38.
Exactly, any source online would've given the reporter Anna's real age, including
other interviews Anna's given herself. I don't know, unless there was something extremely special about this interview - compared to all the others she's done - I'm thinking the reporter just guessed on her 2005 age. Doesn't make sense to tell the truth in every other interview except this one.
PerfectAnomaly said:
Incorporating some of the facts of the actors' lives into the show is not the same thing as having NO difference between the character and actor. Anna doesn't seem to grasp that acting involves playing something that isn't like you at all. Why would she play herself if her character is supposed to be affected by a tragedy that happened in her teen years?
Thousands upon thousands of actors, when asked how they approach a part, mention drawing on their own experiences and facets of their own personalities in order to fill the role -- so this makes little sense to me. Portraying what's familiar to you is not exactly uncommon in art, and Anna picturing how she herself would respond if something like that tragedy happened to her seems like a fairly standard technique.