Why Lindsay Must Go (Part 3)

[Kimmychu]

louise_dk said:
Yesterday I found one of the cheers on TV Guide's website, and they were talking about the Rikki/Danny chemistry, and Carmine said that Jacqueline was amazing at her performance/acting on the show:
http://tv.yahoo.com/contributor/4403...480184da__ER:1

Aww! What a sweet thing of him to say about Jacqueline Pinol! Thank you for posting about that and letting us know about it. It's not the first time he's praised Ms. Pinol's performance either. He's also done so in one of his most recent interviews with CSI Files.

This is what Carmine said when asked about the Danny/Rikki storyline:

It's drama and emotion and passion and circumstance.... They are contemplating, I believe, continuing on with that dynamic.

Seriously, I have never heard him even say anything close to that about DL. Emotion? Passion? Dynamic? In only fifteen minutes of screen time, the interactions between Danny and Rikki had tons more of all those things than Danny and Lindsay had in years. And that really says something.

The fact that Carmine had such good things to say about Danny/Rikki, that TPTB intended to run with it and acknowledged the good dynamic it had ... the storyline was changed at the very last minute solely because of Anna Belknap's pregnancy is a major clue TPTB had fully intended to end DL and begin developing Lindsay as an independant character. But no. Thanks to the pregnancy, we are now stuck with what is possibly (and very likely) going to end up being a laughing stock of a joke.

And TPTB? Your excuse that 'it'll be cool because it's the first time a CSI show has done it!' is a very lame one. It's an excuse that's not even worth the near-permanent trouble it'll bring about for the show ... but of course, you're not here to write quality stories, you're here to try keeping your ratings and you think the entire audience are all dumb as rocks and will worship you and whatever you do, don't ya?

privatename said:
As a matter of fact, it always puzzled me as to what exactly Danny saw in Lindsay.

Don't you know?! What Danny thinks doesn't matter because he's just a Piece of Hunk Meat whose existence is solely to cater to Lindsay's every whim, no matter how selfish or illogical or stupid it is! What does a slave like him need an opinion or a brain for?!

Heh, but seriously, you'll also notice that Lindsay technically has no mind of her own either. She is such a blank character who, thanks to proof from past seasons, might as well be gone from the show for all the impression she's left so far. The show rolls on just fine without her. The acting and characterization of the others on the cast only seem to suffer whenever they have to prop Lindsay up.

She's not a 'breath of fresh air', she's literally a detriment to the show as a whole.

I was watching the episode where Lindsay leaves the evidence out in the lab and then has the scene with Mac where he is "more worried" about her then about her potentially damaging a case and it just re-enforced to me how very unappealing the character of Lindsay is.

What made that scene even worse was that Mac's out-of-character behavior was so obvious that many people have complained about it. That scene is one of the best examples of Lindsay being a detriment to the other main characters.

magicmunchies said:
One theory I have about AB is I'm guessing she started off in theatre right?! She won an award for some Shakespeare thing in 2002 and has a bit of stage cred. Anyway you have to be kinda ott to get your point across on stage, so she might have been told to tone it down a bit with the emotions only shes probably lost all acting ability. Or simply she sees video cameras and can't act to save her self. What do i know anyway?!

Heh, this was discussed before, actually, and like you, we were also baffled how someone with theater experience could possibly come as emotionless and dead-fish-eyed as Belknap does on screen. See, if she was good in her theater acting and she was capable of emoting in it and she had to tone it down for TV acting ... by all logic, Lindsay would be the most emotional character on the show.

But no, she isn't. In fact, she's the complete opposite. Not only the most incapable of emoting in any effective fashion, but not even able to make a single line like, "I rock!" believable! :brickwall:

You brought up an interesting point about theater acting having to be 'over the top' to get a point across. The thing about theater acting is, there's no camera zoomed in on your face to scrutinize your expression. One of the main things you gotta do in theater is to get your voice loud enough and emote through it since the audience in the back may not be able to see your facial expression.

It's possible Belknap relied mainly on her voice for her acting, and never bothered working on her face. She may have been able to get away with it in theater, but there is no way in hell she can get away with it in TV acting ... and the last three seasons of CSI:NY clearly prove it. Maybe she assumed TV acting is only about standing in front of a camera and shooting off lines and doesn't feel any need to improve herself although it's apparent she's leagues behind the others. :brickwall:

 

[CCA]

It's almost hard to imagine that she won something in theater when its more raw in my opinon. You can't rely on special effects to slow you down to hide something you can't do. Put music on when you can't cry.

Maybe it was a fluke, or somebody was on something. Because in my theater class if you were not good at projecting your voice, and showing your range of emotion it didn't sound right. It came as though you were acting to hard...

What she reminds me is that of a child actor, I know you've seen them. The ones that are sitting there in a scene willing themselves to cry on screen, but can't seem to find the emotion that they need to start the water works. That's what I think of Anna when she does any kind of emotional scene, trying to find something and then in the end trying to hard not making herself believeble.

 

[Top41]

cSiNyFrEaK30 said:
She never actually feels like Lindsay--I can always see Anna there saying the lines. Last night was no different--never mind that the comments Lindsay was making (about the bad sex, dirty underwear, etc) don't seem to fit her character at all, it didn't seem like Anna was doing anything other than reading them off a script at a cued moment.

Bingo. As I and a few others mentioned earlier, Belknap comes across as if she's a kid in a school play who thinks it's all just a joke/fun/pretend and isn't taking any of it seriously. Acting is far more than just standing there in front of the camera and spewing out lines and 'not needing chemistry to act with others'. (That came straight from Belknap herself in an interview, by the way) If that was it, then anyone can do it.

But that isn't true at all. There's a reason why only some actors and actresses go on to win Academy awards and the others don't; you need to do more than just the basics, you need great, genuine talent and tons and tons of hard work to build that talent too. When someone is merely cruising through a job, people can tell, no matter what job it is.

You know, it's interesting that so many people watch her and come away with the same assessment. I first started noticing her stilted acting back in "All Access," particularly in the scene where she put her hand on Danny's arm and then the one where she stormed out of the interrogation. She's very unnatural--an actress reading lines and following script cues rather than being the character she plays. Fay, you make a good point about MI--it might not be that she sucks less there, but simply that she wasn't up against actors as good as the ones on NY. The fact that all of the other NY actors are phenomenal does make her lack of skills stand out all the more.

 

[Kimmychu]

For anyone interested about the theater award Anna Belknap won in 2002, it's the Craig Noel Award, handed out by the San Diego Theater Critics Circle. According to the SDTCC website, it's 'an independent, nonprofit organization of print and online theater critics dedicated to open and honest dialogue about theater in San Diego County and to honoring artistic excellence'.

If you want an idea of how significant a theater award it may be, check out this June 2008 article in the NY Times, entitled And in Every Town, a Trophy. These particular statements stood out to me:

... New York City is braving its annual outbreak of Tony fever, as theater blogs and bars buzz with speculation about who will win the medallions this year. The Tony is probably the country’s best-known and most eagerly sought theater prize, and the one with the highest stakes: results can make or break a Broadway show.

But it is not alone. Everywhere actors and audiences gather, it seems, awards are handed out. And the fallout, much like that after the Tonys, is not always pretty.

“Sometimes, when someone feels he or she should win and doesn’t, I’ll get a tirade on the phone,” said Latifah Taormina, the executive director of the Austin Circle of Theaters in Texas, which presents the B. Iden Payne Awards each fall for outstanding contributions to theater in Austin.

... An out-of-town prizewinner is not guaranteed similar success on Broadway. In January “A Catered Affair,” which had its premiere last year at the Old Globe Theater, won seven trophies at the 2007 Craig Noel Awards for excellence in San Diego theater, presented by the San Diego Theater Critics Circle. But in New York it was not as impressive to Tony voters, who nominated Tom Wopat and Faith Prince for their performances and Jonathan Tunick for his orchestrations but offered no nods to the overall production, direction or design.

Make of that what you will.

CCA said:
What she reminds me is that of a child actor, I know you've seen them. The ones that are sitting there in a scene willing themselves to cry on screen, but can't seem to find the emotion that they need to start the water works. That's what I think of Anna when she does any kind of emotional scene, trying to find something and then in the end trying to hard not making herself believeble.

Indeed I have. See, kids have an upperhand; at worst, all they have to do is sit there and look cute and people can say, "Well, he/she is still just a child. There's lots of time for him/her to improve the acting yet." It's ... not that easy to say the same about an adult actress who's almost 40, if ever.

About that court scene, Belknap said in an interview that in order to get the waterworks going (or to be more precise, at least tried to get the waterworks going), she 'thought about her daughter and how much she loved her'. For a scene where Lindsay was face to face with the murderer of her friends and had to testify about how she came across the corpses of her friends. :wtf: You tell me how that's logical. :wtf:

For the perfect converse example (and to me, far more rational), think back on Carmine and his statements about acting for the scene in Run Silent, Run Deep where Danny cried and Mac comforted him. He stated that in order to do the scene, he 'thought of very sad/unhappy things'.

Top41 said:
She's very unnatural--an actress reading lines and following script cues rather than being the character she plays.

What's hilarious to me about it now is that she pretty much confirmed it for herself with her recent statements. :guffaw: "Whee, this is just a game to me! I can't even tell the difference between myself and my character sometimes because it's all just fun and games and we're all here to play! What do you mean acting is supposed to be about genuine talent, skill and chemistry?!"

I've had many people tell me she comes across as if 1) she's just on the job for the sake of being on a primetime show/for the paycheck, 2) she's doesn't give a damn about her work and can't care less if she appears lazy because she's already on a primetime show, 3) she seems to be in this 'bubble' where it seems she thinks she's all that, but only because no one has the heart to tell her the truth and hurt her feelings. The first speculation is the one I receive the most.

Every time somebody tells me that, I always recall one of Belknap's early interviews, the one where she ... taught an acting class. (No, I'm not pulling your legs, guys, I'm serious.) I read through the whole article and what stood out to me? The fact she went on and on about how she was on a primetime show and spoke about that far more than give any viable acting lessons. The only line that comes to mind that came anywhere close to an acting tip?

A good actor must be able to convey emotions.

:guffaw: :guffaw: :guffaw: Kills me every time.

In retrospect, that article is actually rather solid proof she may really be on this job mainly because it's a primetime show and it makes for a nice entry on her resume. The way Lindsay has been on the show from the beginning, the utter lack of development, the resort to use Danny as a prop and distraction from her detrimental flaws, the damage it's done to the show and even other main characters ... they speak for themselves.

Fay, you make a good point about MI--it might not be that she sucks less there, but simply that she wasn't up against actors as good as the ones on NY.

Yeah, the acting on Medical Investigation was not as good as that on CSI:NY. Heh, if it wasn't for Fay, I wouldn't even remember what Belknap's character's name was or who the main star's actor name was either. :lol: For the record, he's the only character I clearly remember from the show. I can't recall any of the other main characters at all. (And also, if it wasn't for people mentioning Belknap had been on that show, I wouldn't have remembered her either.)

 

[WhosLaughingNow]

I've had many people tell me she comes across as if 1) she's just on the job for the sake of being on a primetime show/for the paycheck... 3) she seems to be in this 'bubble' where it seems she thinks she's all that, but only because no one has the heart to tell her the truth and hurt her feelings. The first speculation is the one I receive the most.

In retrospect, that article is actually rather solid proof she may really be on this job mainly because it's a primetime show and it makes for a nice entry on her resume. The way Lindsay has been on the show from the beginning, the utter lack of development, the resort to use Danny as a prop and distraction from her detrimental flaws, the damage it's done to the show and even other main characters ... they speak for themselves.

The first speculation is probably right. I mean let's be honest Anna is not a big actress (She would move very few People magazines). Anyways, a job is a job. I personally don't think she was in a position where roles were just being offered to her left and right. When you land something like a primetime show that also will give you a decent income you take it. And I doubt no one would tell her if she thought she was all that. It's Hollywood not <insert place where people are really, really nice>.

 

[Top41]

I've had many people tell me she comes across as if 1) she's just on the job for the sake of being on a primetime show/for the paycheck, 2) she's doesn't give a damn about her work and can't care less if she appears lazy because she's already on a primetime show, 3) she seems to be in this 'bubble' where it seems she thinks she's all that, but only because no one has the heart to tell her the truth and hurt her feelings. The first speculation is the one I receive the most.

I think this is veering a little too far into the personal criticism here. Let's keep it to Anna Belknap's professional performance and not speculate as to what her personal motives and feelings might be.

I think Lindsay's worthless to the show is proved with each episode. She's barely been around in season five, and I certainly haven't missed her. :lol: She also hasn't had a single story personal story that hasn't revolved around Danny in one way or another. Since being on the show, she's only really had three personal stories:

1. "Stealing Home"
2. Dark Secret
3. Relationship with Danny

In #1, she worked with Danny, though I'd give that one the benefit of the doubt and say it was mostly her story. She did fine, and I actually think that was her strongest personal episode. #2 of course ended up being saved by Danny because her performance in "Silent Night" was pretty abysmal. And really since the end of season 3, #3 really has been her only storyline. There's simply not much to her as a character.

 

[privatename]

cSiNyFrEaK30 said:
She never actually feels like Lindsay--I can always see Anna there saying the lines. Last night was no different--never mind that the comments Lindsay was making (about the bad sex, dirty underwear, etc) don't seem to fit her character at all, it didn't seem like Anna was doing anything other than reading them off a script at a cued moment.

Bingo. As I and a few others mentioned earlier, Belknap comes across as if she's a kid in a school play who thinks it's all just a joke/fun/pretend and isn't taking any of it seriously. Acting is far more than just standing there in front of the camera and spewing out lines and 'not needing chemistry to act with others'. (That came straight from Belknap herself in an interview, by the way) If that was it, then anyone can do it.

You know, it's interesting that so many people watch her and come away with the same assessment. I first started noticing her stilted acting back in "All Access," particularly in the scene where she put her hand on Danny's arm and then the one where she stormed out of the interrogation. She's very unnatural--an actress reading lines and following script cues rather than being the character she plays. Fay, you make a good point about MI--it might not be that she sucks less there, but simply that she wasn't up against actors as good as the ones on NY. The fact that all of the other NY actors are phenomenal does make her lack of skills stand out all the more.

I really started noticing her lack back in "All Access" in exactly the scenes that you mention, Top. They were just so poorly acted or maybe it is better to say they weren't really acted at all As you said they were stilted and unnatural. Just really awkward. As cSiNyFrEaK30 and others have said, it is really like she is just hitting her mark and reading a script; she doesn't feel like Lindsay where all the other actors become their character.

For anyone interested about the theater award Anna Belknap won in 2002, it's the Craig Noel Award, handed out by the San Diego Theater Critics Circle. According to the SDTCC website, it's 'an independent, nonprofit organization of print and online theater critics dedicated to open and honest dialogue about theater in San Diego County and to honoring artistic excellence'.

If you want an idea of how significant a theater award it may be, check out this June 2008 article in the NY Times, entitled And in Every Town, a Trophy. These particular statements stood out to me:

Quote:
... New York City is braving its annual outbreak of Tony fever, as theater blogs and bars buzz with speculation about who will win the medallions this year. The Tony is probably the country’s best-known and most eagerly sought theater prize, and the one with the highest stakes: results can make or break a Broadway show.

But it is not alone. Everywhere actors and audiences gather, it seems, awards are handed out. And the fallout, much like that after the Tonys, is not always pretty.

“Sometimes, when someone feels he or she should win and doesn’t, I’ll get a tirade on the phone,” said Latifah Taormina, the executive director of the Austin Circle of Theaters in Texas, which presents the B. Iden Payne Awards each fall for outstanding contributions to theater in Austin.

... An out-of-town prizewinner is not guaranteed similar success on Broadway. In January “A Catered Affair,” which had its premiere last year at the Old Globe Theater, won seven trophies at the 2007 Craig Noel Awards for excellence in San Diego theater, presented by the San Diego Theater Critics Circle. But in New York it was not as impressive to Tony voters, who nominated Tom Wopat and Faith Prince for their performances and Jonathan Tunick for his orchestrations but offered no nods to the overall production, direction or design.
Make of that what you will.

Thanks for posting this, Kimmychu. I have actually wondered what her award was for and where she got it. Although I don't really know that much about theater it does seem like awards in general are more or less impressive depending on who gives the award and what the rest of the competition was like especially if it is in a smaller arena. And I am not saying whether this award is or isn't impressive as I don't know how good the San Diego theater scene is or how many performances were considered for the award. I am just saying in general that knowing someone won an award doesn't always mean as much as it maybe sounds like at first blush. AGAIN, I am not talking specifically about Anna Belknap's award here as this may be a prestigious award in the theater industry and I wouldn't really know. I just find it hard to believe overall that Anna Belknap would be able to win an acting award given what I have seen of her on CSI:NY.

 

[alexlily]

All right, hello everyone. I've been floating around these boards for a while, never joining, but I decided now was the time.
Given the (previous?) topic of Anna acting with her words and not her face, I wanted to input something. I've never been a big fan of Lindsay, but I could never figure out exactly what it was about her, or about Anna Belknap. Now I don't watch Without a Trace, but I've watched one or two episodes. One of those episodes was the one with Anna, and so I finally figured it out. She just can't act with her face. To me, she doesn't send the message her words are trying to create to the watcher. And another thing I noticed is that her eyes are blank when she's acting. Honestly, I've never seen anything like it on TV. I find myself staring at her eyes when she talks since I've noticed this, and so no matter how good her voice may sound with emotion, I barely hear it.

Yeah, just wanted to say that.

 

[PerfectAnomaly]

All right, hello everyone. I've been floating around these boards for a while, never joining, but I decided now was the time.
Given the (previous?) topic of Anna acting with her words and not her face, I wanted to input something. I've never been a big fan of Lindsay, but I could never figure out exactly what it was about her, or about Anna Belknap. Now I don't watch Without a Trace, but I've watched one or two episodes. One of those episodes was the one with Anna, and so I finally figured it out. She just can't act with her face. To me, she doesn't send the message her words are trying to create to the watcher. And another thing I noticed is that her eyes are blank when she's acting. Honestly, I've never seen anything like it on TV. I find myself staring at her eyes when she talks since I've noticed this, and so no matter how good her voice may sound with emotion, I barely hear it.

Yeah, just wanted to say that.

:Golf clap: I agree completely. "The Dead Fish Eyes of Doom" and the "Scrunch Face" just make anything she says not mean a damn thing.

 

[privatename]

Honestly, I've never seen anything like it on TV. I find myself staring at her eyes when she talks since I've noticed this, and so no matter how good her voice may sound with emotion, I barely hear it.

The thing is that I personally don't think her voice conveys much emotion or the right emotion either. One episode where she was interrogating a witness her voice completely lacked forcefulness and I was left thinking that there was no way I would be intimidated by her and that really took away from that scene for me.

 

[dopebabygirl]

But, do all the other cast member really think she's a good actress? or the producers? or did just her management got a good contract for her?

 

[privatename]

^ I find that very puzzling. Obviously someone sees something in her that they like. I am completely flummoxed as to what that is, but perhaps she really did get put on the show because they thought she was fine in her other series and because Hill Harper put in a good word for her. Then, once she was on and developed some fans (and we know she does have fans) they figure they will just keep her on whether they are thrilled with her performance or just accepting of it at this point.

 

[alexlily]

Well, everyone can basically agree she does better with lighter scenes then the heavy scenes, not that the lighter scenes showcase amazing acting. Could the audition have been something light? Maybe they thought Anna was cute, or sweet, I dunno. Or that she would be a good love interest for Danny.

 

[Raven04]

I may like Lindsay, if the actress could actually act and not just recite what she just read from the script...

I would love to see Tricia Helfer on network tv after doing BSG..I don't know why her name came up, but I love her character on BSG...just watch BSG, so that may be it....or bring Aiden back from the dead haha...I really loved her back and forth with Danny from season 1..that's a girl that can handle Danny.

 

[Kimmychu]

Top41 said:
I think this is veering a little too far into the personal criticism here. Let's keep it to Anna Belknap's professional performance and not speculate as to what her personal motives and feelings might be.

Those were speculations I was told by other viewers about the impression she leaves on people. They're speculations, yeah, but it's also telling there are people who have even considered those things to begin with. If it was me and I had no idea I was giving off such an impression and it was damaging my professional image, I'd sure like to know about it and fix the problem.

There's simply not much to her as a character.

When this pregnancy storyline happens, there won't be anything to her character, period. I was discussing the situation with other viewers recently, and one said to me that the person who's been shafted the worst thanks to the pregnancy plot is Belknap. I agree with that. Lindsay's been under Danny's shadow and using him as a prop just to have a reason to be around, and now, she'll be under Danny's shadow and the baby's shadow. If she is already almost non-existent before the pregnancy plot, just imagine what she'll be when Danny and the kid become the center of attention. :lol:

privatename said:
Thanks for posting this, Kimmychu. I have actually wondered what her award was for and where she got it. Although I don't really know that much about theater it does seem like awards in general are more or less impressive depending on who gives the award and what the rest of the competition was like especially if it is in a smaller arena.

You're welcome. Google is our friend. Before that article, I wasn't sure either where the Craig Noel award stood in comparison to the Tony award, which apparently appears to be the most prestigious one in the industry.

alexlily said:
She just can't act with her face. To me, she doesn't send the message her words are trying to create to the watcher. And another thing I noticed is that her eyes are blank when she's acting. Honestly, I've never seen anything like it on TV. I find myself staring at her eyes when she talks since I've noticed this, and so no matter how good her voice may sound with emotion, I barely hear it.

:lol: Yep. Like PerfectAnomaly said, it's the Dead Fish Eyes of Doom and the Scrunch Face.

Could the audition have been something light? Maybe they thought Anna was cute, or sweet, I dunno.

What we know about it is that she herself claimed her audition sucked and that Hill Harper had to put in a good word for her to TPTB for her to get the job. That, and TPTB made Carmine and Belknap deliberately bump into each other during some acting test or something to see whether things could work. :guffaw: Even more funny, that particular story has two versions from TPTB; the first one being the aforementioned one, the second being that they accidentally bumped into each other and TPTB thought they saw 'something'. :guffaw: That's right, kids. They gauged chemistry based on an accidental/deliberate bump!