Multiplex: What's New | Site Map | Community | News My Multiplex Account | Sign In 
in Search

no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

Last post 08-02-2006, 1:17 PM by rkrkrk. 30 replies.
Page 2 of 3 (31 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  07-26-2006, 9:37 PM 2138 in reply to 2137

    • ikarma is not online. Last active: 08-22-2006, 8:18 PM ikarma
    • Top 75 Contributor
    • Joined on 06-19-2006
    • Jupiter, Florida USA
    • Posts 13
    • Points 185

    Re: no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

    "this forum has a little power to help this thing be decent."

    Do we really?  Ken doesn't even read these forums from what I can tell so I really doubt he would pull this script back from Jennifer Aniston because anyone here thinks another actress would play the part with more depth.

    I can't imagine Shirley Temple singing "Over The Rainbow", but had I never seen the Wizard of Oz before today, I would consider her a more logical choice than Judy Garland.  The same is true for Charlizine Theron.   I can't imagine casting her for Monster after seeing her in Sweet November.  Aniston is agressively seeking a dramatic role and desperately wants to prove herself as a serious actress if the industry rags are to be believed.  Perhaps the role of Treya will be Anistons Monster.


    Peace & Prosperity

    Paul Williams
    http://Paul.ikarma.com
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-26-2006, 10:31 PM 2141 in reply to 2138

    Re: no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

    ikarma:

    Perhaps the role of Treya will be Anistons Monster.




    one can only hope.



    A man's attitude... a man's attitude goes some ways... The way his life will be. Is that somethin' you agree with? ~ The Cowboy
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-27-2006, 7:04 AM 2151 in reply to 2141

    Re: no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

    Hey everybody,

    This is a very interesting thread. Everybody's right.

    But where is that Michael Crichton advice from? Becasue, basically that was what I was going to say. Hollywood can't even get the depth of Harry Potter right. I am not exactly holding my breath for the depth of Grace and Grit to appear on the silver screen. Expect it to be aweful. But it is true that perhaps by some miracle . . .

     

    Here is the beginning of what I wrote the other day, explaining. I'll do this as a "part one" (so that can edit the rest and also so you can all tell me to shut up if you want to).

    PS -Liz, I think you should be a casting director. Victor Garber also played "Jesus" in the original Godspell movie-flower child Jesus which I think is another quality of range (now matured no doubt) that would make him a great Ken. (Not that Ken's a flower child, . . . Huh? [:^)]) But Garber's too old. I would still consider it though if I were the casting director and there are a lot of resons why age might not matter.

    Anyway . . . this is from the other day:

    * * * * * * * * *

    Hmm. A movie version of Grace and Grit.


    First off, I want to say one thing: I am wondering how much Ken-like all other human beings on the planet-may be falling victim to having "stars in his eyes" about this.

    That doesn't mean that he is. But I am wondering if he is. And yes, I do mean that, even with his cognitive level and level of meditative adaptation and even though he is super-smart.. Heck, even with full enlightenment! Integral states that the Buddha doesn't necessarily know how to make Mexican food, and so the Buddha isn't necessarily all set up to make it in Hollywood either. This is funny, but I really am not joking.

    Movies are magical. And they work because they insight the basic inherent magical aspect deep within our natures (and build from there-usually). What this means also, in part, is that the idea of a MOVIE can not help but immediately insight the imagination and all the wonderful magical things that go along with it (when used for wonderful magical things, as movies usually are.) Even a serious movie does just this in more ways than even most professionals with the highly specialized knowledge realize.

     In fact, I would contend that Aniston is a star because she is quite  magical to look at (in large part photogenically) and perhaps allow into your heart. But it is a legitimate question as to who -including a studio with the money to back such a thing, and Aniston herself-are willing to look at her bald and dying. And I do agree that it is a legitimate question as to whether what she (and just about 99.9 % of the population, including actors) would offer to be let into my heart that is comparable to what Treya Killam Wilber offered to be let into my heart. It may not matter to other people -or the world at large-but it will matter to me. In fact, the more I think about it, it isn't even funny.

    The actress who would play Treya needs to kill'em. (There's that's funny, and her inspiration offered me the joke . . .which is also incredibly profound. Think about it . . .)


    But here is my point:  There are far more people who know how to make bad movies than there are who know how to make good ones. But we all know how to dream about them. It's already all over the forums and written all over Clint's blog. (And I didn't say that was a bad thing.)

    Dreams, however, only produce dreams. It takes a lot more to produce a great movie.

    Even much further, there are FAR more people who know how to end up making bad adaptations of books (and plays, etc.) than there are who know how to do them well. This is only compounded by the basic inherent difficulty of taking a story born in one medium to the other. The nature of a book is vastly different than the nature of a movie. Difficult is the transition. [Vortex mentioned language and that is no small point-it is surprising how sparse on language movies almost inherently need to be, being primarily image driven.]

    But I would like to invoke Pulitzer Prize winning playwright Marsha Norman who once said "there is only one good reason to write a play and that is that there is no other way to say it, whatever it is."

    That is the highest self talking -or at least the highest self talking about art.

    Is that what is being said about this movie? "We would like to make it becasue it involves a vision (inherently and by necessity different than the book) that there is simply no other way to express?" In other words, is this movie being concieved by the highest self and will it be produced directed and acted by such?

    That is where I am, yes, indeed, highly skeptical.

    A movie version of the book Grace and Grit could be . . . I don't even have the words.

    And THAT is why there would be no other way to say it.

    (This is the end of part 1. In part 2 I go into acting performances and depth and the dramatization of the human spiritual experience.- if anyone is still interested.Smile [:)])

    Peace, Tim


    What you see is what you get, What you get is what you see,
    Don't see it? Don't get it. Don't get it? Don't see it.
    What you see is what you get.
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-27-2006, 8:11 AM 2157 in reply to 2151

    Re: no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

    The Oprah Factor.






    Jen: gosh Oprah this was the hardest film ever for me! i dropped fifteen pounds!

    Oprah: i believe it girl!

    Jen: but in a moment i think the man himself is supposed to come out here...

    Oprah: is he back there?

    Jen: come out here on stage my BIG BALD FRIEND!

    A man's attitude... a man's attitude goes some ways... The way his life will be. Is that somethin' you agree with? ~ The Cowboy
    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  07-27-2006, 8:25 AM 2159 in reply to 2157

    Re: no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

    "Celebrity in America is a religion which always demands human sacrifice."

    Magical.

     

     

     


    What you see is what you get, What you get is what you see,
    Don't see it? Don't get it. Don't get it? Don't see it.
    What you see is what you get.
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-27-2006, 8:55 AM 2163 in reply to 2159

    Re: no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

    hee...let's not take this too seriously, nor assume that the forum has any power whatsoever to influence what happens in this project - nor should we. 

    To reiterate a point I made above: I don't think, judging from the blog entry, that this would be happening at all if Aniston's production company hadn't approached Ken about it.  There are potentially good outcomes even if the movie sucks.

    The decision is with him and I trust his judgment.  My opinion on actress choice aside, I'm glad it's being done by someone who already knows and loves the book.

    Ken Kesey never saw One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, even though he loves Jack Nicholson as an actor, because he didn't want to have his own image of the main character in the book he wrote be altered by Nicholson's performance.  Similarly, none of us have to see this movie if we don't want our impressions of the book contaminated by the Hollywood treatment.

    arthur


    "Dwell in possibility" - Emily Dickinson
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-27-2006, 9:46 AM 2172 in reply to 2163

    Re: no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

    adastra:
     

    There are potentially good outcomes even if the movie sucks.

    arthur



    It doesn't have to suck.

    My deepest blessings to this project and to all of you bringing this vision to the masses.

    Hey remember in Mulholland Drive?

    "This is the girl."

    A man's attitude... a man's attitude goes some ways... The way his life will be. Is that somethin' you agree with? ~ The Cowboy
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-27-2006, 11:47 AM 2182 in reply to 2172

    Re: no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

    See also Who should play Ken Wilber?

    arthur


    "Dwell in possibility" - Emily Dickinson
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-27-2006, 12:59 PM 2190 in reply to 2182

    Re: no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

    I can imagine the I-I logo fifteeen feet tall on the screen, digital surround sound pumping out Corey Devos remix of some new Stuart Davis song.

    Is this a private fantasy world that I'm living in. Seeing Ken on Oprah.  And you know that he would be fantastic on Oprah.  Ken can kick into his ultra sensitive big heart side and Oprah and her fans would just eat it up. Seriously.

    I can hear Oprah saying, "Now under your seats, you are all recieving a copy of Ken's book Grace and Grit". (the audience cheers)

    Our moms will be telling us, "Oh have you seen that new Jennifer Aniston movie?, I saw that ken wilber fellow on Oprah and he seems so nice"

    Maybe Integral is finally starting to grow up.


  • Ben

  • "Should it matter that my mind won't fit back in my head" -S. Davis
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-27-2006, 3:07 PM 2200 in reply to 2190

    Re: no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

    How does Ken feel about this news?  He's taking Michael Crichton's advice:

    "Advice from a much-experienced person: have no hopes at all.  Au contraire, expect the final picture to be a disaster, an outrage, and a horrible embarrassment.  Then, if by some amazing chance it is not, you will be delightfully surprised."


    I am very happy to hear this.

    I'll say more later.

    What you see is what you get, What you get is what you see,
    Don't see it? Don't get it. Don't get it? Don't see it.
    What you see is what you get.
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  07-27-2006, 4:18 PM 2213 in reply to 2157

    • maryw is not online. Last active: 08-28-2006, 8:46 PM maryw
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-18-2006
    • southern California
    • Posts 127
    • Points 2,705

    Re: no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

    samsarasurfing:

    Jen: gosh Oprah this was the hardest film ever for me! i dropped fifteen pounds!

    Oprah: i believe it girl!

    Jen: but in a moment i think the man himself is supposed to come out here...

    Oprah: is he back there?

    Jen: come out here on stage my BIG BALD FRIEND!

    Louis -- LOL!! Big Smile [:D] Big Smile [:D] thank you so much for giving me a big belly laugh!!!!

    Love,

    Mary


    Let the beauty we love be what we do.
    There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground.

    ~Rumi
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-28-2006, 10:25 AM 2279 in reply to 2213

    Re: no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

    (Ken and Jen discussing with Oprah)

    Ken: and so it's always already Spirit...from dust to divinity...the ground and goal of the entire show.

    Oprah: i knew that! (audience laughs)

    Jen: Ken's my Big Bald Man! (Jen rubs his head and audience gushes)

    Ken: what really fascinates me, Jen, is how you managed to play opposite your ex-husband for this one!!!

    Oprah: speak of the devil. come on out here Brad!!!!!!!!! (audience roars with joy)

    Brad: howya doin' everyone?

    Jen: people can't believe it, but we credit Grace and Grit with getting us together again.

    Brad: ya it's pretty insane.

    Ken: not as insane as trying to make Brad as tall as me!

    Oprah: yes talk about that Brad.

    Brad: well i'm tall, but the reason you never see me below the knees in the movie is because i'm wearing platform shoes.







    A man's attitude... a man's attitude goes some ways... The way his life will be. Is that somethin' you agree with? ~ The Cowboy
    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  07-28-2006, 9:43 PM 2325 in reply to 2279

    Re: no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

    Samsara Surfing,

    Part time comedian, Smile [:)]full time integral practicioner. Big Smile [:D]You said your writing a play right? I think that you really got the characters of Brad, Jen, Oprah, Ken right.

    I can see the cover of US Weekly, "Brad, Jen & Ken?"
    "Is Ken Wilber romancing Jennifer Aniston on the set of her upcoming movie Grace & Grit, could this be Jen's bigscreen break?"

    I love this?! The more we talk about it (and you write about it) Wink [;)] the more real and surreal it all seems.

    BenTongue Tied [:S]


    "Should it matter that my mind won't fit back in my head" -S. Davis
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  07-29-2006, 6:29 PM 2378 in reply to 2032

    Re: no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

    Agreed.

    When I first heard about this I was like, "Jennifer Aniston?  Are you kidding?" 

    She's a decent actress, but I cannot imagine her doing justice to a protrayal of Treya.

    Hey - I pretty much fell in love with Treya when I read Grace and Grit, my first KW work.  I continue to be inspired by her example.  Ever since that first reading I have aspired to integrate my private and public selves. 

    Thinking about other possibities out there.  I like the unknown idea.  Open call, find a luminous, young, talented actress with wisdom in her eyes.

    Or, if you insist on a name draw, how about someone like Keira Knightly?  Her, I can just barely see doing the job well.

    As for KW - I vote for Ed Harris, not wearing a vest :)

    peace,

    lynna

     

     

     


    "When I was young, I used to admire intelligent people; as I grow older, I admire kind people." ~Abraham Joshua Heschel
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-29-2006, 11:13 PM 2401 in reply to 2378

    Re: no way to Aniston playing Ken's wife

    (Finishing my thoughts on this post has been bugging me, so I figured I should do it. One qualification: This is actually a really complicated subject, so even with the length of this, it is vastly incomplete . . . This is also today's excercise in mind. Join me?Smile [:)])

     

    Part 2

     

    Okay. Wouldn’t ya know it- where should I happen to find most of the exact words I am looking for to explain something but in the writing of Ken Wilber.

     

    From the latest chapter (5) of Integral Spirituality: (Bold emphasis mine)

     

     “As a short sidebar, it particularly helps when we realize that developmentalists view cognition as the capacity to take perspectives. Role-taking, or taking the view of another person, is something you can only do mentally or cognitively. You can feel your own feelings, but you can cognitively take the role of others or mentally put yourself in their shoes (and then you can feel their feelings or empathize with their point of view). So cognitive development is defined as an increase in the number of others with whom you can identify and an increase in the number of perspectives you can take.”

        Thus, for example, preoperational cognition means you can take a 1st person perspective (egocentric); concrete operational means you can also take a 2nd person perspective (ethnocentric): formal operational cognition mean you can also take a 3rd person perspective (worldcentric); early vision-logic means you can also take a 4th person perspective (beginning Kosmocentric); mature vision-logic means you can also take a 5th person perspective (mature Kosmocentric). That is why research shows that your feelings, your art, your ethics, and your emotions, all will follow your cognitive line, because in order to feel something, you have to be able to see it.” (Integral Spirituality, pg 141)

     

    Problems and Difficulties

     

    There are myriad realities that I believe Michael Crichton is lamenting (or bringing things back down to earth about), but I think two in particular stand out.

     

    First, we might just call Hollywood very much an orange machine. It is dominated, more than anything else, by orange values centered primarily on the LR. Movies cost a lot of money to make-and are also not made without that money. Studios investing the money (and time and effort and resources and technology, etc) to make them are primarily interested in 1.) not throwing their money out the window and 2.) the occasional substantial-to-massive profit they can make back. I heartily support those concerns and values, but they do not necessarily include nor coincide with depth or artistic merit. (They should or could, but even with the best and most noble and integral of intentions, this expensive art form is a very risky business. 1 out of every 4 films turns some kind of profit or breaks even So 3 flops for every movie that might only break even. And as I’m sure you all here know, “hit movie” and depth/artistic merit are not in any way necessarily synonymous. i.e. many of the best movies are flops because enough people are not interested in seeing them. Again, this is a tricky, culturally dependent business with never any guarantees.)

     

    As I noted above, Jennifer Aniston is a nice name to have on your movie, but believe you me, 9 out of 10 studios considering investing money into a Grace and Grit project are going to be pretty upset that she will have to go bald. The result is probably one of two things: we cheapen the story (and a great deal of the possible DEPTH of the REALITY and emotions) by having her not go bald and/or keep her as cute and pretty as possible so we can sell her pretty face that is a proven success (which happens ALL the time!) or we don’t fund the project.

     

    This is just an example of the kinds of things that occur when entering into “the machine” that begins to bring about realities that Crichton is talking about. (This is also for Aniston one way the machine-in addition to iKarma’s note about the culture- may also lock you in, or hold you back as an artist. Desire and talent to grow or no, it’s a reality and can cause problems.)

     

    But the second thing is, I think, much more significant. In order to have a legitimate vision-that is, in order to see something- the likes of a Michael Crichton book . . . you have to have vision-logic. Note that you don’t need to have it to read his book or even to enjoy his book, but you do have to have it to write his book.

     

    And so if you are going to make a movie out of it, you are essentially writing a new book. There are two difficulties. One, short of vision-logic you will not even be able to see the full contents of Crichton’s vision/book (or at least reconstruct it in your own mind), but two, in order to make a movie out of it requires an entirely NEW vision (which is also complicated in many, many other difficult ways*).

     

    Add these two factors to the fact that, vision-logic or no, movies are a collective art form that requires the contribution of hundreds of people and you may begin to see how the statistics go down on the chances of a great movie out of or equivilent to a great book.

     

    (*Examples of other difficulties: The only possible way to sit down and film every “scene” in a book is to make a TV mini-series out of it because it will always simply take too long - and even with a scene-by-scene filmed, 12 hour mini-series, the result might still eventually loose your attention in ways that the book simply didn’t. The nature of each art form, how and why it works, is just different. This is only one of the reasons why an adaptation, if it be any good, requires a new vision.

       To give recent comparative examples: Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings. The HP movies are perfect examples of struggling vision-if it’s even that at all. We can’t fit the whole book in, what in the world do we do? Well, we’ll just film this, that and the other thing and hope it turns out okay. It’s kind of like a cut and paste job and even then our scissor work is kind of sloppy (-cut and paste is also, incidentally, conop) We will also occasionally throw in a tid bit of our own image or thought and, whatever, the kids are still going to like it and it’s sure to make some money. Don’t get me wrong, it is no small feat to even conceive of adapting those books . . . Which brings us to the Lord of the Rings. Being older, there is a long history of attempts to make the books into movies, all of which failed to amount to much of anything. (I realize there is a technology factor involved here too, but I don’t think that detracts from the point.) But along comes the legitimate vision and vision-logic of a Peter Jackson and what we have is a whole new, quite nearly perfect, vision, whole vision in itself, born of the books not clumsily from them. )

     

     

    Okay, all of that is just to add more perspective on things that have already been noted on the thread.

     

    My original concerns are two additional perspectives.

     

    Height, Depth and the Dramatic Arts

     

    Again Ken from IS : “in order to feel something, you have to be able to see it.”

     

    If this has bearing on any of the factors mentioned above, what kind of bearing do we think it might have on the dramatization and acting of the human spiritual experience, progress in meditative states and/or realization?

     

    I can only create art out of what I see. If I can’t see the profound spirituality in a book like Grace and Grit I am not going to be able to create anything artistic out of it. And since we are also talking about state experiences (and adaptation), if I don’t have that, at least to some extent, I will either a.) miss it entirely or b.) only be able to speculatively pretend about it and so probably be wrong or at least not believable to those who, at least to some extent, do. All of this, and do little for anyone else (see below).

     

    That’s what I am most skeptical about. The story telling arts are simply awash in treatments of human spirituality that simple have no idea what in the world they are talking about. And as far as I am concerned, with that, out the window goes any chance of helping anyone or the world in any substantial way. Also, in the IS chapter I have been quoting, Ken (and Traleg Rimpoche) also writes extensively about Right View.

     

    So if you going to dramatically treat the human spiritual experience/realization/adaptation or any authentic Spiritual Truth, if you don’t have the experience (and so depth) to draw upon, you can at least attempt for Right View. If you fail to do that-and/or make your own convoluted and misguided interpretation (which will probably be magical, mythic or just stupid)-and rather present wrong view, you only compound samsara.

     

    And so, the very short summary is as follows:

     

    Assuming the movie-makers are professional and do know how to make movies (and even assuming for them the highest standard of such) . . .

     

    Do the movie-makers have the same cognitive capacity as Ken Wilber?

     

    Julie brought up a really good point: it is the director who is ultimately the visionary and single driving vision-factor for a movie. Even with bad actors and a bad crew, etc., it is possible for a director to pull it all (and point it all) together into something substantially good, even great, depending on your genius. (No one said it was easy, just possible . . .)

     

    Do the movie-makers (writers, directors, producers, consultants, etc.) have, if not the exact Spiritual Depth of Ken Wilber and Treya Killam Wilber, at least something comparable –including at the very least some kind of authentic spiritual experience (minimum in my mind, Subtle Level Intution or True Faith experience)?

     

    No apologies here, I am highly skeptical about this. I will s**t myself if the movie shows this, touches or penetrates to this Depth in any substantial way . . . You may consider that a challenge if any of the movie-makers happen to be reading this.Smile [:)]

     

    And lastly, Louis does ask a legitimate question:

     

    Does Jennifer Aniston have the Spiritual Depth –or at least something comparable-to Treya Killam Wilber, (especially at the end of her life)?

     

    Julie again is correct, the director can do a great deal to make up for this if it is not the case (and even in some ways writers, editors, etc.); movies are not actor driven, but director driven. The driver can do a lot to save the show and sometimes even make it.

     

    But the bottom line is, I can only act to the depth and the height that I possess within my being.

     

    An actor’s work of art is created out of the actor! I can not consciously create something which I do not see-and especially for the actor do not possess.

     

    There are some ways to off-set this a little (and as stated many “tricks” that might be used for movies, if the director knows what to do), but you can not act height nor depth that is beyond your own, because it will be just that –acting.

     

    I think of the Wyatt Earpy blogs (and paraphrase): Please show me all the things which you are not aware of.

     

    To an audience that is equally unaware, it may just not matter (but for Right View and other things to lengthy to explain here). But for an audience that is aware . . .

     

    Well, maybe in this instance the Sword of Prajna should be replaced with a cane. The vaudevillian Cane of Prajna that by rights should reach out and drag you by the neck right off the stage . . . . while the Voice of Highest Buddha Dharma yells Movie [~]“Cut!”

     

    Tim


    What you see is what you get, What you get is what you see,
    Don't see it? Don't get it. Don't get it? Don't see it.
    What you see is what you get.
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
Page 2 of 3 (31 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML
 © Integral Institute, 2006. all rights reserved - powered by enlight™ email this page del.icio.us | terms of service | privacy policy | suggestion box | help